SDN seems to be rulling the datacenters..looking forward to hear about differences between Google and FB...I would think they would be aligned not clash, all they care from a hardware perspetive is cost...Kris
@Rick: seems like a possible error in this phrase, mentions both low energy cost and high energy cost at the same time:
"silicon photonic interconnects can sustain very high loads (over 100 Tb/s) with low energy costs (< 1 pJ/bit)...[but may] come at a relatively high energy cost."
@kris: IIRC, Facebook started the Open Compute Project, and Google decided to roll their own version with the Google Platform, so it doesn't surprise me these two giants go similar-but-unique with networking approaches, too. Also, some of the big Chinese datacenter outfits are coming up with their own versions. Part of that is probably not-invented-here thinking, but all these big orgs have many experts that define and redefine their applications' needs continually. I've seen some things indicating they are developing similar-but-unique architectures for storage, from RAM to flash to spinning/streaming media.
From a vendor standpoint that boils down to "give them what they want". But the larger and potentially larger (more lucrative?) market will be in adapting the high-end items developed for these customers to serve the midrange customers--who can't usually afford a cadre of system architects.
thank you @markwrob for the explanation...somewhat puzzling strategy though...I thought the whole point of SDN was to be open and common to all datacenters by removing Cisco proprietary stuff...so the cost can come down significantly...but it seems we are replacing Cisco, Junniper, Huwaei with Google, FB and Alibaba...the more things change the more they stay the same
Its good for the industry that two giant users of web Google and Facebook are sharing their thoughts. It will benefit everytone. But both of them must have different needs how to use web content. Quanity of data must be comparable but privacy sectors are different.
You are right, if the Giants like Google, Facebook are designing and developing their own systems, there can hardly any chance of being compatible to each other. It will be proprietary and will remain proprietary.
@Rick: regarding whether Google and Facebook networking platfroms will be compatible, it all depends on standards for SDN; there are none today! We all know some are more 'open' than others so it will be interesting how the two companies' approaches will enable interoperability in the datacenter!
Given this, I found one of the Infonetics survey finding surprising -87% think SDN will be in production by 2016! The link below has more info:
I guess one can hardly find compatibility between Google's and Facebook networking platform at least in hardwares. Google's system relies heavily on 40GbE (4x10G) in various forms while I can hardly see 40GbE mentioned in those Facebook's OCP documents. In terms of hardware investment, it seems Facebook is more conservative and inclined to choose the least expensive solutions to scale out. Google, on the other hand, lead the use of advanced interconnect technologies in their mega datacenters. It'll be no suprise to see Google becomes to first one to try 100GbE (4x25G) or the recent 25GbE inside their datacenters while most others start to transition from 1GbE to 10GbE, most likely because of 10Gbase-T is getting cheap.
@Kinnar: Well if there are common standards these giants will be developing by, then one can expect to see both of these companies working in unison under a common architecture than supports both architectures. We just have to wait and see.
@markwrob: In the end they are building to serve the customers, and I?d like to see the beta testing of such architectures and how the common crowd adapts to the architecture faster. The faster you habituate yourself to any of the architectures, the more are you going to use it, and this will dictate market holdings of both the companies.