Editing 1737: Datacenter Scale

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 16: Line 16:
 
From here, the comic starts to exaggerate. Nowadays, servers can be made extremely small ("{{w|Blade server}}s") and dozens of servers can be attached to one {{w|19-inch rack}} in a data center. Rather than going to the effort of unplugging and unscrewing one blade from the rack, when a blade fails at [[Cueball]]'s data center they just throw away the rack, and [[Ponytail]] agrees and mildly mocks the woman with a bun for replacing one server.
 
From here, the comic starts to exaggerate. Nowadays, servers can be made extremely small ("{{w|Blade server}}s") and dozens of servers can be attached to one {{w|19-inch rack}} in a data center. Rather than going to the effort of unplugging and unscrewing one blade from the rack, when a blade fails at [[Cueball]]'s data center they just throw away the rack, and [[Ponytail]] agrees and mildly mocks the woman with a bun for replacing one server.
  
βˆ’
[[Hairy]]'s data center goes one step further - they have so many servers that they would constantly have to be throwing away and replacing racks, so instead they just build a new room when one rack fails. This would be currently possible with small modular data centers that are built in shipping containers for easy transport and can be linked together to expand capacity.  Here the cargo-container "room" with the failure would be quickly swapped with a fresh one.  Cueball adds "like Google!" - [[Randall]] previously mentioned {{w|Google|Google's}} approach to hard drive failures in the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|63|Google's Datacenters on Punch Cards}}''. Back in [http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/de//archive/disk_failures.pdf 2007] they had one failure every few minutes, which might have increased hugely since then.
+
[[Hairy]]'s goes one step further - they have so many servers that they would constantly have to be throwing away and replacing racks, so instead they just build a new room when one rack fails. This would be currently possible with small modular data centers that are built in shipping containers for easy transport and can be linked together to expand capacity.  Here the cargo-container "room" with the failure would be quickly swapped with a fresh one.  Cueball adds "like Google!" - [[Randall]] previously mentioned {{w|Google|Google's}} approach to hard drive failures in the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|63|Google's Datacenters on Punch Cards}}''. Back in [http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/de//archive/disk_failures.pdf 2007] they had one failure every few minutes - that might have increased hugely since then.
  
 
Finally [[Megan]] appears and her company, of course, breaks the scale of silliness in exaggeration. She says that they don't have any fire extinguishers (neither {{w|Fire sprinkler system|regular sprinklers}} nor the systems that deploy gasses like FM-200 which alter the room air's ability to sustain a fire). Rather, they just rope the center off, thus letting the data center burn down. Then they simply move a town over and build a new one. This may indicate they are so big that the entire town will burn down if their center catches fire, for else they did not have to skip town. Alternatively, they just leave the center burning and this may cause problems in that town, so they simply flee the premises.  
 
Finally [[Megan]] appears and her company, of course, breaks the scale of silliness in exaggeration. She says that they don't have any fire extinguishers (neither {{w|Fire sprinkler system|regular sprinklers}} nor the systems that deploy gasses like FM-200 which alter the room air's ability to sustain a fire). Rather, they just rope the center off, thus letting the data center burn down. Then they simply move a town over and build a new one. This may indicate they are so big that the entire town will burn down if their center catches fire, for else they did not have to skip town. Alternatively, they just leave the center burning and this may cause problems in that town, so they simply flee the premises.  
  
βˆ’
Most big internet companies do have multiple redundant data centers around the world, in order to increase speeds for users in different countries, but Megan's idea would be very expensive, result in increased {{w|Latency (engineering)|latency}}, possibly kill people (either in their company, or other people in the town and since they do not try to put out the fire), and cause severe destruction of properties in addition to their own.  These last two items would result in additional litigation and fines, and potentially jail sentences for the people charged with implementing the policy.  They may also result in other towns being unwilling to take their business, out of fear they will wind up burning too.
+
Most big internet companies do have multiple redundant data centers around the world, in order to increase speeds for users in different countries, but Megan's idea would be very expensive, increase in {{w|Latency (engineering)|latency}} and possibly also kill people, either in their company or other people in the town and since they do not try to turn out the fire, at least cause severe destruction of properties, not only their own.
  
βˆ’
Hairy still thinks that it makes sense, while Cueball wonders what difference the roping off does. This could again be a reference to the fact that they just let the buildings burn without bothering about the local consequences, and the next step is just one more step towards the extreme of the title text.  
+
Still Hairy thinks that it makes sense, whereas Cueball wonders what difference the roping off does. This could again be a reference to the fact that they just let the buildings burn without bothering about the local consequences, and the next step is just one more step towards the extreme of the title text.  
  
 
This comic references how, as data requirements expand, the cost of time eventually outweighs the cost of hardware at ever increasing scales (drive, rack, room, building). While this comic takes this to the extreme, with whole buildings being destroyed for simple flaws, the concept is not as far-fetched as it seems if "thrown out" is taken to include being sold to equipment refurbishers.  It could indeed be cost effective for a large data services provider to resell racks or even whole data center modules at some significant fraction of their "as new" price as opposed expending the time and effort to attempt a repair.  The equipment refurbisher would then rely on a {{w|competitive advantage|cost advantage}} like cheaper labor to repair the flaw and sell it back to Google or another company with less demanding requirements.  Equipment rental firms already operate on this model and with the added incentive customers preferring to rent newer models, this means that the equipment is often ''preemptively'' replaced before failures even occur.   
 
This comic references how, as data requirements expand, the cost of time eventually outweighs the cost of hardware at ever increasing scales (drive, rack, room, building). While this comic takes this to the extreme, with whole buildings being destroyed for simple flaws, the concept is not as far-fetched as it seems if "thrown out" is taken to include being sold to equipment refurbishers.  It could indeed be cost effective for a large data services provider to resell racks or even whole data center modules at some significant fraction of their "as new" price as opposed expending the time and effort to attempt a repair.  The equipment refurbisher would then rely on a {{w|competitive advantage|cost advantage}} like cheaper labor to repair the flaw and sell it back to Google or another company with less demanding requirements.  Equipment rental firms already operate on this model and with the added incentive customers preferring to rent newer models, this means that the equipment is often ''preemptively'' replaced before failures even occur.   

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)