

Ballmer: Microsoft Has 1 Million Servers in Datacenters, Only Second to Google - RaduTyrsina
http://wind8apps.com/microsoft-datacenters-amount/

======
laumars
So many errors with that article. And a few spelling mistakes too. I think
people are better off going straight to the source instead of reading a poorly
written re-interpretation of the source: [http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-
million-server-datacenters-70...](http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-million-
server-datacenters-7000017996/)

~~~
RaduTyrsina
I just love it how you folks always give it to the "zero spelling mistakes"
website and all. You're simply giving no chance to other websites to evolve. I
gave that source because they were first, not because they were exclusive.

and it wasn't a reinterpretation of that source only.

~~~
RaduTyrsina
Thanks for the time you took to correct me

Indeed, the were some errors inside the piece that I almost never make

My mistake was to write and then submit it here, NOT KNOWING NOR EXPECTING
that it would get so quickly picked up on the front page.

Quicker than I realized, I was confronted with the mistake I made, without
having time to re-examine the article again.

And yes, I did research. Initially, I wanted to write something about
Microsoft's focus on the cloud and then I found this piece -
[http://rcpmag.com/blogs/scott-bekker/2013/07/wpc-
microsoft-1...](http://rcpmag.com/blogs/scott-bekker/2013/07/wpc-
microsoft-1-million-servers.aspx), which is 3 days old, so, most likely, that
is the initial source, but not Zdnet.

Then, I linked Microsoft's focus on cloud with the expansion in Iowa + another
article with a funny, side fact -
[http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2013/7/11/microsofts-new-
orga...](http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2013/7/11/microsofts-new-organization-
puts-datacenter-four-times-and-s.html)

then, I found this one -
[http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/07/10/micro...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/07/10/microsoft-
wpc-2013/)

Therefore, I stand for my work and I accept the errors that I made but please
don't label my effort that quickly

~~~
laumars
_> "My mistake was to write and then submit it here, NOT KNOWING NOR EXPECTING
that it would get so quickly picked up on the front page.

> "Quicker than I realized, I was confronted with the mistake I made, without
> having time to re-examine the article again."_

I hate to say this, but the title drew a lot of attention because of it being
inaccurate. eg I clicked the link because my thought was _" wow - that can't
be true. I wonder where all these data centres are and how big they are"_. I'd
guess many others did the same - which is why someone accused the article as
linkbait.

I think this is one of those occasions that need to be chalked down as
"experience". And a good reminder to all of us to proof read the stuff we post
online. :)

~~~
RaduTyrsina
Definitely,

I was so damn surprised, man!

The last story I had on the front page was like 6 months ago so I said to
become active again and thought timing was crucial with this one.

I got the timing right :D

What I want to ask is this, with the current title, would it have been as
"baiting"? I mean, did it have a chance of getting on the front page with the
actual title? Because if it did, then it's too bad :(

~~~
laumars
The original / incorrect title was definitely more interesting than the new /
correct version. It's no surprise to me that Microsoft have a number of data
centres and a million servers seems believable. But the original title was so
far fetched that I was fascinated to read how the numbers were comprised.

But going back to your original question, I wouldn't like to say if you'd have
made the front page or not. It would have been _less_ likely - but there's
still a possibility enough people might have been interested to up-vote it. If
I'm honest, I wouldn't have - but then I didn't up-vote your incorrect title
either as I read then vote; and once I spotted the issues, I was put off
voting - sorry :(

I've never really understood what drives articles to the front page though.
I've read some cracking news items that failed to gain more than a couple of
votes but equally I've read some extremely dull articles (and even Twitter
statuses) that have made it. I guess it just shows how individual we all are.

------
pvnick
I don't think the author knows what a datacenter is

~~~
RaduTyrsina
I know, and so does Steve Ballmer, I assume

~~~
prawks
From your article:

 _We have something over a million servers in our datacenter infrastructure_

They do not have a million data centers, they have a combined million servers
in their datacenters.

~~~
RaduTyrsina
I understand the difference now, thank you!

~~~
robododo
It seems like you're still a bit confused. These might help:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datacenter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datacenter)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_(computing)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_\(computing\))

------
saosebastiao
TIL Microsoft has 10x as many data centers as they have employees. Every
employee gets 10 all to themselves!

------
RaduTyrsina
"Steve Ballmer: Microsoft Has 1 Million Servers in their Datacenters, Only
Second to Google" is this correct?

again, apologies for the misleading title

------
taylodl
Even when corrected for number of servers this tells us essentially nothing.
How much compute and storage capacity does Microsoft have compared to Google
and Amazon? I'm not talking raw hardware performance either, but Windows
Server vs. Google's customized server OS. This kind of information would
provide us better insight into their computational capabilities.

~~~
RaduTyrsina
I think that's a lil' bit hard to quantify

------
cliveowen
Wow, 1 million servers across all of their datacenters. I wish I could visit
such an operation just to get a sense of the scale. And how do you exactly
manage that much compute/storage capacity? Amazing.

~~~
RaduTyrsina
Phew,

Clive, this should've been the first comment I got, not all this :(

I guess the answer to your question is this - [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/bb895144.aspx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/bb895144.aspx)

------
RaduTyrsina
By the way, if some moderator reads this, the story has been pulled of because
of its stupid mistake?

------
throwit1979
datacenters != servers

~~~
CervezaPorFavor
Even the updated article is completely wrong!

"Microsoft Has 1 Million Server Datacenters" \- Uh, that's not what Ballmer
meant.

But as a link bait, this article must have been super successful.

~~~
RaduTyrsina
It wasn't even a link bait. I understood the difference only now. I am not an
expert in the field, I agree, I didn't even thought it'd get this quickly in
the top. Again, I didn't intend this to be a link bait, apologies!

