> What’s different is the much smaller size of our new unit – each pod has only 48 server racks
48 Racks seems pretty darn large by itself, and that is the smallest unit they deal with. At only 20 servers in a rack, thats 960 servers in their smallest unit. And they make it seem like there are hundreds of these pods in a single datacenter...
A single pod is bigger than the vast majority of the top 500 super computers...
The previous smallest unit was a "cluster" - imagine for sake of example that it is the same number of racks as 3 pods. Some time ago, clusters were somewhat arbitrarily limited in size by a few things - human understanding was definitely one, management software and visualization, network layout and port density issues, and so forth. However, each cluster had a bunch of overhead associated with it that outweigh the benefits, including the primary one - failure domain. If we only needed one more pod-worth of servers, we would have to add a cluster with 3 pods worth of racks.
I don't know the actual strategy (I work in a nearby team, but my focus is mostly on load balancing and CDN infrastructure), but one could imagine that in future it may be more normal to augment existing clusters/failure domains (say, add one pod) rather than building whole new ones.
48 Racks seems pretty darn large by itself, and that is the smallest unit they deal with. At only 20 servers in a rack, thats 960 servers in their smallest unit. And they make it seem like there are hundreds of these pods in a single datacenter...
A single pod is bigger than the vast majority of the top 500 super computers...