In a message dated 7/30/2006 10:04:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>homoeoteleutera - Google Search
>homoeoteleutera__ SearchAdvanced Search
>Did you mean: homoioteleuton
I did the same, clicked on Google's suggested alternate spelling,
In a message dated 7/30/2006 10:04:58 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you mean: homoioteleuton
>>
More likely homoimaginus. Has anybody written a SHARE requirement for
SEQ/NOSEQ in IEASYS? It would probably be on the order of Y2K compliance.
--
In a recent note, john gilmore said:
> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:12:44 +
>
> My favorite---storm warning of a big word to come---is their notional
> usefulness in avoiding homoeoteleutera; but others may well have their own,
> different favorites.
>
Congratulations!
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
Google runs on hundreds of thousands of servers—by one estimate, in
excess of 450,000—racked up in thousands of clusters in dozens of data
centers around the world.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#12 Google Architecture
... in somewhat similar vein
In a message dated 7/10/2006 11:39:32 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
excess of 450,000—racked up in thousands of clusters in dozens of data
centers around the world.
>>
GIGO...google in, google out! Guess the amazing thing is they keep all the
'in'
the world.
... snip ...
also ..
How Google Works
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1985576,00.asp
past refs:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#4 Google Architecture
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#6 Google Architecture
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#7 Google Architecture
I tend to retain my effusive moments for things that work.
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/34984.htm
The latest of many "Google Datacenter" threads. I don't care about Google's
stock-supporting
p/r spin and the amount of mutual back-slapping they go in for - their system
just doesn't
wor
"with the advent of Google Checkout, a heavy-duty TP application, the
company must have one."
"What architecture is Google using to provide high-performance, large-scale
transaction processing?"
http://storagemojo.com/?p=177
-
100,000 foot view of GFS
"GFS is not the future. But it shows us what the future can be."
http://storagemojo.com/?page_id=152
http://storagemojo.com/?page_id=153
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruct
And now they're planning a super-duper-supercomputer site as well...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/search.php
- Original Message
From: Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:31:02 PM
Subject:
"The best guess is that Google now has more than 450,000 servers spread over
at least 25 locations around the world."
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/technology/14search.html?hp&ex=1150344000&;
en=25cfc1be85c1d603&ei=5094 watch the wrap
Charles
--
oh and late breaking topic drift:
Bank admits flaws in chip and PIN security
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=385811&in_page_id=1770
Millions at risk from chip and Pin
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/saving-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=409616&in_p
I doubt it. All the major players in the webmail market have expanded their
storage to match Gmail's. And Yahoo just blew the doors off nearly everyone
with their new beta web client. It looks like Outlook webmail, but it's better
and faster. The best web app I've ever used, and I"ve hated p
Google is entering many more information service businesses than just their
popular Internet search engine. Many of those other businesses do require
consistency in results. Also, as Internet search matures, I think people
will expect more consistency and currency.
- - - - -
Timothy F. Sipples
I will be interested in seeing whether Google can reproduce their search-engine
success with gmail. When your selling point is that people can retain and
search gigabytes of email, you can't get away with some of the things you can
as a simple search-engine.
As a new gmail user, I am so far
Perhaps a lot of the enmity (especially in this community) toward Google is
their success and public perception (and possible IT perception) that they
provide the ideal IT environment - they "prove" that the cheap, distributed
server setup is viable, even though all they really provide is rather
Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Simple test - do a search on Google. Any search. Let it default to 10 hits
>per page, and
>collect all the pages.
>Then repeat the search, asking for 100 hits per page.
>Compare the results. They will be different. What they don't tell you is
>that ea
PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Google Architecture
Of course, if you're indexing the entire internet those low-cost
thingies can still add up to big numbers, but it would be a mistake
(IMO) to assume we could to it any cheaper/m
(which in turn was the new
IBM-bashing).
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Phil Payne
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Google Architecture
Just a shame it doesn't actually work.
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 08:56, Phil Payne wrote:
> ... The most intensive spiderer (?) at present is Yahoo, ...
Perhaps, but quantity isn't synonym with quality. From what I see in my
Web server's logs, Yahoo! "stutters" a lot, i.e. it reads the same page
two, three or four times a day. And i
Google's solution is simply not scaling. Period. Check out the complaints of
massive page
loss both on 28th March and 26th April.
A lot of people have been suggesting that Google might move to "mainframes" -
although they
don't seem to mean zSeries. Perhaps a POWER or BladeServer solution. P
The only thing I can complement is there is not better engine than
Google, is there ?
So, I'm going to keep using google, until find something better. Can be
mainframe based if you want. Or audi (car) based, I don't care.
BTW: outdated pages are quite useful somtimes. I found the information
w
Just a shame it doesn't actually work. Ask any webmaster. Or check out the
discussion groups
on WebMasterWorld.
Start at http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/ and read. Disaster after
disaster - no search
integrity at all.
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/34588.htm too - "Big Daddy" is
Craddock, Chris wrote:
Pat Helland (formerly with Tandem and MS, now with Amazon) has written
some very lucid and entertaining discussions about how economics are
changing their system design points. He was one of the originators of
the Tandem Non-Stop transaction system and a life-long transacti
Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> so the issue is effectively how fast fault isolation/recovery/tolerant
> technology becomes commodized. this is somewhat the scenario that
> happened with RAID ... when they first appeared, they were frequently
> depreciated compared to "mainframe" DASD ... but since then, th
Google's CEO has made some interesting comments recently about their
current IT architecture, its viability, and its costs:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/21/business/GOOGLE.php
Here's the section of particular relevance:
Google continued to make substantial capital investments, mainly in
c
rket
segments ... including financial. some of the early financial adopters
are using GRID for doing complex financial analysis in real-time.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#4 Google Architecture
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#6 Google Architecture
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.ht
l#4 Google Architecture
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#6 Google Architecture
we took some amount of heat in the 80s from the communication group
working on high-speed data transport
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
and 3-tier architecture (as extension of 2-tier, client/se
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craddock, Chris) writes:
GOOGLE is certainly a loosely coupled architecture, but as you of all
people would know, there are significant differences between that and a
parallel sysplex. The main feature they (and Amazon as well btw) focus
on is the full burdened price of their c
Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> > http://labs.google.com/papers/googlecluster-ieee.pdf
>
> and the difference between that and loosely-coupled or parallel
sysplex?
GOOGLE is certainly a loosely coupled architecture, but as you of all
people would know, there are significant differences between that and
Bill Richter wrote:
It appears that Google architecture is the antithesis of conventional
mainframe application achitecture in all aspects.
http://labs.google.com/papers/googlecluster-ieee.pdf
and the difference between that and loosely-coupled or parallel sysplex?
long ago and far away, my
are commercial sites, most of which are porn sites.
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/01/2006
11:36:43 AM:
> > It appears that Google architecture is the antithesis of conventional
> > mainframe application achitecture in all aspects.
> > http://labs.google.com/papers/goog
> It appears that Google architecture is the antithesis of conventional
> mainframe application achitecture in all aspects.
>
> http://labs.google.com/papers/googlecluster-ieee.pdf
>
Yup. That's what I've been telling you guys for the last couple of
years. There are o
On 01/06/06, Bill Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It appears that Google architecture is the antithesis of conventional
mainframe application achitecture in all aspects.
http://labs.google.com/papers/googlecluster-ieee.pdf
You may find this an interesting readd too..
It appears that Google architecture is the antithesis of conventional
mainframe application achitecture in all aspects.
http://labs.google.com/papers/googlecluster-ieee.pdf
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
35 matches
Mail list logo
