sanjiv, such domains have entire floors filled with their very own servers piped with most likely a direct line internet connection (those that only ISP's have)... In english, they host themselves being the serious type of heavy usage that they need and uptime. And to store all of those databases and emails and such.. it does take multi-floor datacenters to get that flowing nicely.
Google have three or four datacentres - they run almost standard desktop boxes, but *lots* of them clustered for different operations (web, db, spider). If one goes down - no problem - they have 999 other to take over. The fact that they are Linux shop makes this *very* cheap.
MS have thier own datacentre but downloads are outsourced. They used to use connexion but now its all on Akamai's distrubuted network. Their DNS is also handled by Akamai after some techie (now probably sacked or in Bill's dungeon) misconfiged a DNS box about a year ago taking a load of sites down.
Yahoo are hosted worldwide. So for example the UK site is just off LINX (London Internet Exchange). They also have a sophisticated regionalised system to put out images, and other stuff that isn't pages - e.g. UK, France and Germany's images are hosted on a european image server. This is hosted, again, by Akamai.
Im also a developer on the Microsoft team. Want to know something interesting (and I kid you not). Although Microsoft is developing and maintaining Win2k servers and having those run well, there's still a healthy percentage of their sites running on UNIX boxes. The information leaked about a couple months ago and MS has been on their feet trying to get rid of them.
interactive, no no.. not WITH the OS team.. I'm on the MSDN team.. a group of programers for a local company here in town in joint programming writing code on the .NET platforms and getting used to this new .NET code (which is a nightmare, but not too bad). MS did some very poor marketing with their .NET package and having to pay the consequences.
ya i know that they are all spread out...on the programming thing i interpeted you wrong...im like "wthell is he talking about" plus people who design the os's call them selves "engineers" to me their not engineer's but you know. as for like servers being spreads out hotmail (which for those of you who dont know is owned my msn.com which is owned by microsoft (or so i believe ;-))) anyway they have like 600 servers spread out all over the world or something insane like that....considering how large it is though it doesn't seem like that many
I believe you can Find on Netcraft somewhere what each MS domain is running, there are quite a few on *nix still, Hotmail used to be FreeBSD I believe till MS took over and when they did it all fell to pieces when they first transfered to Windows as you may remember if you have a Hotmail account.
Four dedicated gigE uplinks provide a total of 4000 MB uplink capacity
Multiple OC48s provide connectivity to the Internet
Runs on Compaq Proliant ML570 and Dell Power Edge 6450 servers with four PIII-Xeon/700 Mhz processors, 1 GB Memory, 120 GB Content Capacity, and 34 GB Log Capacity each
If memory serves me right, they have several OC-192's that link up with those Gig-E's. I remember the UUNet map had four of them going up to Redmond.
Originally posted by Allyn I believe (or atleast been told) that hotmail still runs FreeBSD, atleast on some servers.
I don't have much faith in windows hosting, but wouldn't the amount of traffic eventually bring a windows system to it's knees?
Let me put it this way... I am a programmer in the vast MSDN team. I know the ins and outs of a majority of OS's that Microsoft Develops as I am also on their Beta team (got all the .NET stuff as well) and STILL my preference of choice for hosting is UNIX.
Granted, there are still some features in WinOS and in IIS that UNIX has yet to attain, but there are also STABILITY and SPEED improvements that are found in UNIX that WinOS has yet to attain.