The Biggest Cloud Providers Are Botnets 116
Julie188 writes "Google is made up of 500,000 systems, 1 million CPUs and 1,500 gigabits per second (Gbps) of bandwidth, according to cloud service provider Neustar. Amazon comes in second with 160,000 systems, 320,000 CPUs and 400 Gbps of bandwidth, while Rackspace offers 65,000 systems, 130,000 CPUs and 300 Gbps. But these clouds are dwarfed by the likes of the really big cloud services, otherwise known as botnets. Conficker controls 6.4 million computer systems in 230 countries, with more than 18 million CPUs and 28 terabits per second of bandwidth."
where did they get their numbers from? (Score:4, Insightful)
And they came up with that number how?
28 terabit/s == 28.000 gigabit/s == 28.000.000 megabit/s
28.000.000 megabit/s / 6.400.000 systems would average out to 4.375 megabit/s AVERAGE bit rate over those 6 1/2 million systems in 230 countries... (oh - and to fully utilize that, it would also require the UPLOAD rate to be in the same ballpark figure; to have more than 4 megabit/s upload speed on average over that many systems in that many countries...?)
18.000.000 cpus in 6.400.000 systems is on AVERAGE 2.812 CPUs per system - so, most of the systems would already have been dual or even quad cores... ...oh - and in order to qualify such numbers, that would have to be the average number of systems online at any given moment; if half of them are switched off (while someone is asleep, away, ...) - the numbers go down.
I would believe, that conficker and similar botnets are huge, but the numbers depend strongly on 'estimates'. Also, if conficker really managed to 'rent out' the computing power, the botnet would likely quickly decrease in size, as more and more people would take their systems to repairs, because they are so slow all of a sudden...)
So, how do they get to those numbers? Apart from, obviously, pulling them out of thin air? ...and apart from the desire, to get the name of the company coming up with the number out on slashdot?
Something where academia should learn from (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm impressed how while academia is all high on grids, billable cpu time, fault tolerant and robust distributed computing, in place live upgrades, all that is already in natural evolutional development out there in the wild. I'm sure that the botnet uptime numbers they get are much higher that any commercially available cloud, while running on household PCs with household broadband connectivity.
I think it's time to embrace the true nature of wild wild web. Where can I rent this botnet legally?
Re:where did they get their numbers from? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Could be put to good use (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that most Windows users firstly don't care what runs on their computer, and secondly don't use even a non-negligible fraction their computer's power.
Suggestions have been made, by frustrated sysadmins, for a "destructive" counter-virus, a large-scale attack that cripples botnets by destroying infected computers. That's not only morally wrong but also just impractical - the average computer user just buys a new computer, and all the virus does is destroy property to satisfy lust for vengeance. Value is lost.
A more practical idea may be to re-purpose this vast resource of free computing power and put it to better use than churning out advertisements. A botnet worm could instead hook these computers up to a grid computing project like Folding or SETI, or distributed file transfer, cloud storage, providing uncensored communication to authoritarian countries. The worm could at the same time inoculate computers against more damaging viruses and botnets. The user gets free protection instead of the overpriced crud by McAfee & co; the world gets free computing infrastructure, the internet gets less spam. Everybody gains value.
It would be like a very lenient security tax - for letting their computers pose a risk to the network at large, users donate a share of their computing power/bandwidth for the good of society, at no real cost to themselves.
(And yes, the obvious ethical dilemma here is whether it is morally wrong to manipulate a person's property without their knowledge or consent, even to their own benefit. This suggestion takes a strict utilitarian perspective, which doesn't always lead to the best option.)
Re:where did they get their numbers from? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably a bigger problem is that not many useful problems are "embarrassingly parallel".
Sending spam is. DoSing a victim is. Brute-forcing passwords is.
It's unfortunate, but a lot of problems of interest to unethical people are indeed embarrassingly parallel. :(
Re:Cloud providers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding whether it's better to host in the cloud or buy your own environment - I often ask when designing a software solution to process a given business requirement 'Does this need to be repeatable (forever, using different datasets) or is this a one time run?' If they only want the answers to a problem once against a single data set, I can crank out a one-pass solution with about 1/10th the time (and effort, and cost) that it would take me to engineer a long term solution that I can hand over to their business users to use forever using different data sets.
I would take the same stance on something applicable to cloud computing. If you only need the results from a small limited set of runs or you will only run it a very small portion of the time, it makes sense to lease someone else's environment. If you are going to need this solution as part of your day to day business and it runs wide open 24x7 - it's probably more cost effective to procure your own environment.
Need a massive render farm to do a proof of concept showing a four minute preview of Toy Story 4? Cloud computing.
Need a massive render farm to actually generate every CGI frame for every movie Disney or Lucas is going to produce the next four years? Buy your own environment.
Period confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Now judging by the illogic of using periods for expressing these two quantities, one large and one small, you create confusion in the reader, hence the appropriate use of commas to clarify a large number, and a period as a decimal point to elucidate a fraction.
Now, I'm all about the metric system, euro socialized medicine and other progressive concepts, but using the same piece of punctuation to express two completely different numerical concepts, in the same sentence, IS CONFUSING.
Re:where did they get their numbers from? (Score:1, Insightful)
3 (point) 2 -> 3,2 ...huh?
Maybe comma is pronounced differently in other countries.
Most countries that use the comma as a decimal separator have a non-English first language, so they wouldn't use the English words "point" or "comma". Whatever word they do use would make sense locally.
I spent some time in South Africa, where they do speak English, and they would pronounce your example as "three-comma-two". To them, that is the natural way of vocalising a decimal number. As a visitor, it took a bit of getting used to.
Re:where did they get their numbers from? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:where did they get their numbers from? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least we know how to properly capitalize and terminate sentences while using the correct diversity-sensitive language, Palin-American.