Hubbry Logo
Google Web ServerGoogle Web ServerMain
Open search
Google Web Server
Community hub
Google Web Server
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Google Web Server
Google Web Server
Google Web Server
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Google Web Server
DeveloperGoogle
Stable release
2.1
Written inC++
Operating systemHeavily modified version of Debian Linux
LicenseProprietary

Google Web Server (GWS) is proprietary web server software that Google uses for its web infrastructure. GWS is used exclusively inside Google's ecosystem for website hosting.

In 2008 GWS team was led by Bharat Mediratta.[1] GWS is sometimes described as one of the most guarded components of Google's infrastructure.[2]

In 2010 GWS was reported as serving 13% of all web sites in the world.[3] In May, 2015, GWS was ranked as the fourth most popular web server on the internet after Apache, nginx and Microsoft IIS, powering an estimated 7.95% of active websites.[4] Web page requests on most Google pages provide "gws" (without a version number) in the HTTP header as an indication of the web server software being used.

Information regarding GWS is scarce. In a blog post from Google's Chicago office in 2011, Google provided some details on GWS:

"The Google Web Server (GWS) team builds and improves the proprietary web-serving infrastructure that powers Google web search and many other Google search properties. GWS is involved in almost every user-visible change to the google.com site, meaning that there's frequently something to write home about. We're always looking for gung-ho engineers, ideally with a background in systems and experience working with very large C++ codebases."[5]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Google Web Server

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Google Web Server (GWS) is a , custom-built HTTP software developed by Google to handle the immense scale of its online services and infrastructure. Written primarily in C++ and operating on a modified , GWS is optimized for efficiency, reliability, and massive concurrent request processing within Google's distributed cluster architecture. GWS forms a core component of Google's production environment, powering critical functions such as rendering search results and serving content across services like , where it manages load balancing and request distribution in clusters comprising thousands of commodity servers. Its design emphasizes and , integrating with hardware-based load balancers to route traffic dynamically across available servers, enabling Google to sustain petabyte-scale operations with minimal downtime. Unlike open-source alternatives such as or , GWS remains internal to Google, tailored specifically to the company's proprietary systems like the (GFS) for seamless data handling at unprecedented volumes. The server's prioritizes and over feature bloat, contributing to Google's ability to index and serve billions of web pages efficiently since its early implementations in the 2000s. This internal focus has allowed for iterative optimizations driven by real-world empirical data from Google's workloads, though details are limited due to its non-public nature, with most insights derived from Google-authored technical publications rather than external analyses.

History

Origins and Early Development

Google's search technology began as the BackRub project, initiated by and at in 1996 to analyze web link structures via the algorithm. The project transitioned to the commercial engine, with the company incorporated on September 4, 1998, to address surging demand for efficient amid the web's expansion. This shift from academic prototype to production service required infrastructure capable of handling rapidly growing query volumes, which increased by approximately 20% per month during 1999 and 2000, alongside index sizes scaling from 50 million to over 1 billion pages. To achieve cost-effective scalability and fault tolerance, Google eschewed high-end proprietary servers in favor of clusters composed of inexpensive commodity PCs, numbering over 15,000 by the early 2000s, distributed across global data centers. This hardware approach demanded corresponding custom software, including the Google Web Server (GWS), a proprietary Linux-based HTTP server designed specifically for high-concurrency web serving of search results and related content. GWS emerged as a foundational component around 1999, prioritizing efficiency on low-cost hardware over general-purpose off-the-shelf alternatives like , which proved inadequate for the planetary-scale loads involving thousands of . Empirical details from Google's cluster architecture, as documented in a 2003 analysis, underscore GWS's role in coordinating query processing: it receives HTTP requests via load-balanced routing, interfaces with partitioned index and servers for parallel lookups, and assembles responses including ancillary features like advertisements and spell correction, all while relying on software replication for reliability rather than hardware redundancy. This design enabled superior performance at a fraction of the cost of traditional enterprise systems, reflecting first-principles optimization for distributed and resource utilization in massive clusters.

Evolution and Key Milestones

In the mid-2000s, as Google launched services such as in 2004 and in 2005, the Google Web Server (GWS) encountered significant challenges from rapid growth in complexity and traffic volume. By 2005, the system struggled with slow build and test cycles, untested code deployments, and conflicts from large, infrequent changes across teams, leading to production errors that delayed search results and threatened reliability. Under team lead Bharat Mediratta, the GWS group implemented mandatory automated testing for all changes and builds, enforcing high test coverage to mitigate these issues. This shift enabled weekly code integrations and rapid releases, transforming GWS from a bottleneck into a model for scalable engineering practices that influenced broader adoption of automation across . By 2008, GWS had matured into one of Google's most critical and closely guarded infrastructure components, with Mediratta continuing to guide its development amid escalating demands for handling millions of queries per second and vast data volumes. Refinements focused on tighter coupling with Google's distributed storage systems, such as the (GFS) and , to support petabyte-scale operations without public disclosure of specifics. These adaptations ensured GWS could sustain the infrastructure for expanding web services while maintaining low-latency responses under peak loads exceeding tens of thousands of requests per second. Post-2010, GWS evolved internally to accommodate modern workloads, including integrations with components for enhanced search and personalization features, though details remain due to its exclusive use within Google's . As of 2025, ongoing updates prioritize and efficiency for handling billions of daily requests, leveraging commodity hardware optimizations without external releases that could compromise competitive advantages. This closed-loop development has preserved GWS's role as the backbone for core services like search, adapting to AI-driven queries while avoiding the vulnerabilities of open-source alternatives.

Technical Architecture

Core Design Principles

Google Web Server (GWS) embodies a first-principles approach optimized for horizontal scaling across clusters of commodity hardware, enabling efficient handling of billions of queries daily by adding capacity through replication rather than upgrading individual machines. This contrasts with vertical scaling strategies, favoring cost-effective x86 servers (e.g., or processors with IDE drives) over specialized high-end systems, as demonstrated by Google's preference for racks of 40-80 low-cost units yielding superior price/performance ratios compared to enterprise alternatives. Central to GWS's design is software-driven and operational simplicity, achieved via service replication, load balancing for failure rerouting, and homogeneous hardware configurations that minimize administrative complexity and eschew hardware-level redundancies like or redundant power supplies. Implemented as a custom C++ application on , GWS prioritizes low-overhead execution to sustain high throughput, with transitions from earlier C bases enhancing performance for core tasks like query coordination and response formatting. Performance tuning derives from empirical operational data, including metrics such as cycles per instruction (CPI) around 1.1 for index servers, branch misprediction rates of 5%, and overall cost per query incorporating capital and operating expenses, ensuring optimizations align with real-world high-volume, low-latency demands rather than synthetic benchmarks.

Underlying Technologies and Implementation

Google Web Server (GWS) runs on a customized Linux operating system tailored for high-efficiency I/O operations within Google's distributed environment. This setup leverages Linux's stability while incorporating Google-specific optimizations to handle massive-scale web traffic internally. The server integrates with Google's cluster-level storage systems, initially relying on the (GFS) for distributed data management and later transitioning to its successor, Colossus, which provides enhanced scalability and performance for file storage and access across datacenters. GWS coordinates responses by interfacing with these systems to retrieve and serve content, ensuring seamless operation within Google's proprietary infrastructure stack. As , GWS employs closed-source binaries to process HTTP and requests, with no public exposure of its core components or reliance on external open-source web server modules. This design maintains tight control over protocol handling and internal behaviors, distinguishing it from servers that often incorporate visible third-party libraries. While hardware-agnostic in principle, GWS is optimized for Google's server deployments, featuring rack-mounted x86 systems with IDE disk drives—such as 80 GB units—and multiple network interface cards (NICs) for fault-tolerant connectivity and redundancy. These configurations, evident in early Google clusters housing 40 to 80 servers per rack, prioritize cost-effective over specialized enterprise hardware.

Features and Capabilities

Scalability and Load Handling

Google Web Server (GWS) utilizes a distributed cluster to manage massive-scale , with each cluster comprising 2,000 to 4,000 commodity servers running GWS instances. Hardware-based load balancers within clusters continuously monitor the health and capacity of these GWS servers, dynamically distributing incoming HTTP requests across available instances to prevent overload on any single node. This setup supports horizontal scaling, allowing to deploy thousands of GWS instances globally, which collectively handle billions of daily requests for services like search and web crawling. The load balancing mechanism incorporates real-time health checks and capacity metrics, enabling automatic by rerouting traffic away from degraded or servers without interrupting service. This fault-tolerant design reduces single points of , as clusters operate independently and can absorb peak loads—such as surges in search queries—through rapid reallocation of requests. from Google's operational history shows sustained reliability, with core services powered by GWS experiencing no major public outages directly linked to server-side load handling over extended periods. In practice, this architecture has proven effective for rendering search results and serving static/dynamic content at planetary scale, processing on the order of 100 billion requests per day across Google's components that leverage GWS-like serving layers. The emphasis on hardware and software-level optimizations further enhances , avoiding reliance on specialized equipment for core load distribution.

Performance Optimizations

GWS leverages integration with the (GFS) for efficient I/O in serving static content, utilizing GFS's design for high-throughput sequential reads via large 64 MB chunks and multi-level replication, which supports aggregate bandwidths exceeding hundreds of megabytes per second per client across distributed chunkservers. This approach minimizes seek latencies and overhead for web workloads by favoring streaming access patterns over random small reads, enabling GWS to handle petabyte-scale content delivery with sustained performance under load. For dynamic content, GWS interfaces with specialized backend services including cache servers, which store computed results to bypass repeated database or index queries, reducing processing latency in multi-tier request flows. Server-level compression, such as , is applied to responses to shrink sizes by up to 90% for compressible text-based content, directly lowering network transfer times and contributing to end-to-end latencies under 200 milliseconds as targeted in Google's web infrastructure. These optimizations collectively enable GWS to maintain low overhead in high-concurrency scenarios, with empirical evidence from Google's serving logs indicating minimized TCP handshake impacts on HTTP request latencies through tuned connection handling.

Security and Reliability Mechanisms

Google Web Server incorporates protocols as part of Google's broader practices, provisioning multiple identical instances of web serving resources to distribute load and enable during failures, thereby targeting levels exceeding 99.99% monthly uptime. These mechanisms address common failure modes such as hardware faults by automating detection through health checks and rapid migration of workloads to spare capacity, minimizing downtime to seconds or minutes in verified production scenarios. GWS integrates with Google's internal monitoring systems, which employ continuous collection and alerting to support verifiable incident response, allowing site reliability engineers to analyze causal factors like latency spikes or rates and apply targeted recoveries without manual intervention. This approach prioritizes empirical measurement of objectives (SLOs), using error budgets to balance reliability enhancements against deployment velocity, as evidenced by Google's documented practices for large-scale serving systems. Security in GWS aligns with Google's server design principles, which minimize the attack surface by excluding unnecessary components that could introduce vulnerabilities, such as extraneous peripherals or chipsets in underlying hardware. While specific software-level sandboxing or privilege separation details for GWS remain proprietary, the system operates within an environment featuring vulnerability scanning, malware prevention, and intrusion detection protocols that isolate potential exploits through layered defenses.

Deployment and Integration

Internal Usage at Google

Google Web Server (GWS) functions as the core web serving platform within 's data centers, enabling the high-volume delivery of content for its flagship services. It directly handles the rendering and serving of results, processing billions of queries daily and integrating ad displays as part of the response pipeline. This deployment underscores GWS's role in maintaining the responsiveness and scale required for search operations, where it acts as the frontline interface between user requests and backend indexing systems. Exclusively deployed for internal use, GWS remains and unavailable to external users via , which directs customers toward configurable open-source options like for similar web serving tasks. This internal focus allows Google to optimize GWS for its unique infrastructure, including custom modifications to kernels and tight integration with proprietary storage and networking layers. GWS accommodates varied internal workloads, from efficient static asset distribution—such as images and cached pages—to dynamic processing for interactive features in services like mapping applications and collaborative tools. Its architecture supports CGI-like extensions for real-time content assembly, ensuring seamless operation across Google's without reliance on third-party servers for core traffic handling. As of 2025, GWS continues to underpin these functions amid ongoing evolutions in Google's service portfolio.

Compatibility with Google's Infrastructure

GWS operates exclusively within Google's proprietary ecosystem, interfacing with custom storage, orchestration, and networking components to enable scalable web serving. It relies on distributed file systems like the (GFS) for parallel content retrieval and response coordination, where GWS selects and aggregates data from multiple chunkservers to construct HTTP responses. This dependency ensures high throughput but ties GWS functionality to Google's internal storage abstractions rather than standard file systems. Deployment of GWS instances is managed through Google's cluster orchestration frameworks, such as Borg, which schedules web serving tasks across thousands of machines, monitors task health via distributed locks in Chubby, and exposes metrics for dynamic load balancing. Borg's cell-based architecture aligns GWS operations with data locality principles, colocating serving tasks near storage and computation resources to minimize cross-rack traffic. Successor systems like extend this by supporting finer-grained scheduling, further optimizing GWS in multi-tenant environments. Inter-service communication for GWS backend queries leverages Google's data center fabric, including Jupiter switching for intra-cluster traffic, which prioritizes low-latency paths optimized for physical proximity. Hardware load balancers at cluster frontiers distribute incoming requests to healthy GWS nodes based on real-time availability signals from the orchestration layer. These integrations preclude standalone deployment, as GWS assumes the presence of Google's custom monitoring, fault tolerance, and replication mechanisms for holistic reliability.

Comparisons with Alternatives

Differences from Apache and Nginx

Google Web Server (GWS) originated as a customized of the , tailored specifically for Google's internal workloads, in contrast to the general-purpose, modular architecture of , which relies on dynamically loadable modules for extensibility across diverse environments. This customization involves stripping extraneous features and integrating optimizations directly into the core, resulting in a more monolithic structure that prioritizes performance at extreme scale over plug-and-play flexibility. , by comparison, employs an asynchronous, that avoids per-process threading, enabling efficient handling of concurrent connections without the process-per-request overhead typical of Apache's prefork or worker models. GWS's design thus eschews the broad configurability and third-party module ecosystem of both and , which support extensive plugins for protocols, caching, and scripting but introduce potential latency and memory overhead from unused code paths. In terms of resource utilization, GWS's implementation minimizes footprint by embedding only Google-specific components, such as tight coupling with load balancers and storage systems, thereby reducing CPU and memory demands under identical high-throughput loads relative to the baseline overhead in Apache's modular setup or Nginx's versatile proxy capabilities. Apache's process-based model can spawn multiple child processes per connection in high-traffic scenarios, leading to higher RAM usage—often 2-10 times that of per concurrent request in benchmarks—while Nginx's master-worker paradigm maintains a lighter profile through non-blocking I/O. However, GWS's nature precludes independent verification, with no public benchmarks available; its efficiency is inferred from Google's sustained handling of billions of daily requests across data centers, where general-purpose servers' compatibility layers would impose unacceptable costs at that volume. These architectural choices reflect causal trade-offs: Apache and Nginx's fosters adaptability for varied deployments but incurs penalties, whereas GWS's integrated, scale-oriented refinements enable sub-millisecond latencies in controlled environments, albeit at the expense of portability and community-driven evolution.

Advantages Over Commodity Servers

Google Web Server (GWS) achieves cost efficiencies by deploying on commodity hardware, which lacks the redundant power supplies, , and hot-swappable components typical of enterprise servers, thereby reducing acquisition and maintenance expenses by orders of magnitude compared to high-end alternatives. Instead of relying on hardware-level , GWS incorporates software-based and rapid failure detection, allowing operations to continue seamlessly despite individual component failures that occur more frequently in off-the-shelf PCs. This strategy, as implemented across Google's clusters, has proven more economical for large-scale deployments, with systems comprising over 15,000 commodity-class machines delivering performance equivalent to specialized setups at a fraction of the cost. Optimized for read-heavy workloads such as serving search results and static content, GWS maximizes throughput per watt by minimizing overhead in request handling and leveraging tailored to bursty, asymmetric traffic patterns inherent to web search operations. General-purpose servers on commodity hardware often incur inefficiencies in such scenarios due to less specialized threading and caching mechanisms, whereas GWS's custom enables denser packing of requests per server, reducing overall energy and space requirements without sacrificing latency. This focus on workload-specific optimizations stems from of traffic distributions, prioritizing high-volume reads over balanced read-write operations common in broader applications. These advantages have empirically enabled to scale to handling 8.5 billion daily search queries by , sustaining growth in query volume through software refinements rather than linear expansions in hardware footprint, thereby avoiding infrastructure bloat that would accompany reliance on pricier, less adaptable servers. The approach underscores a first-principles shift: treating hardware as a disposable commodity while engineering software for resilience, yielding verifiable gains in for hyperscale web serving.

Impact and Influence

Contributions to Large-Scale Web Serving

GWS's architecture, optimized for commodity hardware clusters, enables efficient handling of extreme query volumes, processing billions of HTTP requests daily across Google's services with latencies often under 200 milliseconds. This capability directly supports innovations in real-time search, where results incorporate fresh web crawls via systems like , and personalized outputs tailored to user location, history, and context, minimizing delays in dynamic content assembly and delivery. The server's focus on throughput and underpins the reliability required for features demanding instantaneous responsiveness, such as live query autocompletion and result ranking adjustments, fostering user retention through consistent performance at scale. Empirical metrics illustrate this impact: GWS facilitated serving for Google properties that represented 13% of global active websites by , correlating with the infrastructure's role in achieving sub-second response times essential for quality. This engineering emphasis on scalable, low-overhead serving has shaped the evolution of Google's internal tooling, prioritizing rigorous performance testing and distributed load balancing over superficial interfaces, as evidenced by early automated testing initiatives within the GWS team to maintain stability amid rapid traffic growth. Such practices reinforce a causal connection between custom server optimizations and the high-quality, low-latency experiences that sustain Google's 91.65% global as of Q1 2025.

Broader Industry Implications

The deployment of GWS across vast clusters of commodity hardware exemplified a paradigm where software-driven redundancy and supplanted reliance on premium, fault-resistant servers, achieving cost efficiencies estimated at fractions of traditional high-end alternatives while serving billions of requests daily. This model, operational since the early , empirically demonstrated that large-scale web serving could leverage inexpensive PCs interconnected via , with software handling failures at rates exceeding 1% daily, thereby influencing the architectural blueprints of subsequent providers like AWS through shared principles of warehouse-scale computing rather than code dissemination. As a closed-source , GWS underscored the advantages of optimization for domain-specific hyperscale demands, permitting seamless integration with Google's custom storage and indexing layers to minimize latency and maximize throughput in ways unattainable by generalized open-source servers. Open-source counterparts, while enabling widespread adoption and iterative improvements via input, often prioritize configurability over the hyper-specialized efficiencies that control affords in controlled, massive environments, a evident in GWS's ability to process search queries across distributed clusters without public code exposure. In 2025, amid escalating demands from AI and global traffic, GWS's longevity reinforces industry trends favoring web serving stacks over commoditized, one-size-fits-all solutions for hyperscalers, as evidenced by custom infrastructures scaling out via commodity hardware yet customized for workload-specific resilience, with investments projected to exceed $6.7 trillion by 2030 to support such tailored compute paradigms.

Criticisms and Limitations

Proprietary and Closed-Source Nature

Google Web Server (GWS) operates as , with its maintained exclusively within Google's internal infrastructure and not released for public access or scrutiny. Originally derived from the open-source codebase around the early 2000s, GWS has since evolved into a customized, closed-system implementation tailored to Google's specific hardware and operational demands, rendering it unavailable for external deployment or examination. This lack of public source code availability imposes inherent epistemic constraints, as independent verification of GWS's security mechanisms, algorithmic efficiencies, or potential vulnerabilities relies solely on Google's internal testing and disclosures, which are not subject to third-party replication or falsification. Without access to the , external researchers and developers cannot claims of superior performance under scale—such as handling billions of requests daily—or assess hidden implementation details that might influence reliability in non-Google environments. In comparison to open-source alternatives like and , whose codebases enable global collaboration, bug bounties, and iterative improvements through diverse contributions, GWS's closed nature restricts the broader tech community's ability to adapt or build upon its innovations, potentially slowing ecosystem-wide advancements in web serving despite any internal efficiencies gained at Google's scale. Empirical validation of GWS's optimizations thus remains confined to Google's controlled data centers, where factors like custom hardware and traffic patterns may not generalize, leaving questions unanswered about transferability to heterogeneous deployments outside Google's purview.

Potential Risks of Vendor Lock-In

The proprietary and highly customized nature of Google Web Server (GWS) fosters a form of self-imposed , wherein Google's web serving infrastructure becomes inextricably linked to decades of internal modifications atop an Apache base, complicating any shift to alternative systems without substantial re-architecture of upstream load balancers, backend integrations, and global traffic management layers. This dependency amplifies operational risks, as modifications or bugs in GWS could cascade across services reliant on its frontend capabilities, potentially delaying recovery during incidents despite redundancies in data centers and regions. Google's practices highlight the criticality of frontend layers in averting such propagations, yet the opacity of GWS limits external validation of mitigation efficacy. Over-reliance on GWS as the singular web serving backbone exposes Google to amplified downtime impacts from layer-specific failures, such as configuration errors or unpatched vulnerabilities unique to its custom extensions, which standard commodity servers might sidestep through community-driven fixes. While Google distributes workloads to avoid overt single points of failure, the centrality of GWS in handling billions of daily requests means even transient issues could indirectly affect API responses or search delivery, as evidenced by broader infrastructure outage analyses emphasizing frontend bottlenecks. From an industry perspective, GWS's role in enabling Google's scale efficiencies contributes to by erecting replication barriers for competitors, who lack access to equivalent proprietary optimizations and must resort to reverse-engineering or inferior open-source approximations, a dynamic critiqued in U.S. antitrust rulings as sustaining monopolistic advantages through integrated, non-shareable . As of , no public indications of GWS diversification have emerged, perpetuating these centralization risks amid ongoing of tech incumbents' self-reinforcing tech stacks.

References

  1. https://barroso.org/publications/ieeemicro_google.pdf
  2. https://www.milesweb.com/blog/technology-hub/apache-iis-nginx-gws-whats-choice/
  3. https://www.quora.com/Which-web-servers-does-Google-use-in-production-Is-it-Apache-Nginx-or-an-in-house-solution
  4. https://highscalability.com/google-architecture/
  5. https://about.google/company-info/our-story/
  6. https://research.google.com/people/jeff/WSDM09-keynote.pdf
  7. https://research.google/pubs/web-search-for-a-planet-the-google-cluster-architecture/
  8. https://www.theregister.com/2010/01/29/google_web_server/
  9. https://itrevolution.com/articles/case-study-automated-testing-google/
  10. https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch11.html
  11. https://www.softwareatscale.dev/p/software-at-scale-003-bharat-mediratta
  12. http://norlizakatuk.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/6/0/26606863/apdulrahman.pdf
  13. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/speed-scale-reliability-25-years-of-data-center-networking
  14. https://medium.com/really-learn-programming/collaborating-at-scale-how-googles-engineering-teams-worked-together-ab13e73a68ce
  15. https://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs146-246/google.pdf
  16. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/storage-data-transfer/a-peek-behind-colossus-googles-file-system
  17. https://www.theregister.com/2010/02/03/google_web_server_based_on_apache/
  18. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/lessons-from-a-google-app-engine-sre-on-how-to-serve-over-100-billion-requests-per-day
  19. https://medium.com/startlovingyourself/quality-at-scale-how-google-keeps-bugs-in-check-across-billions-of-lines-7dfdcddff978
  20. https://research.google.com/archive/gfs-sosp2003.pdf
  21. https://web.njit.edu/~alexg/courses/cs345/OLD/F15/solutions/f5345f15.pdf
  22. https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/insights/EnableCompression
  23. https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ssradhak/Papers/siva-phdthesis14.pdf
  24. https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/infra-reliability-guide/building-blocks
  25. https://cloud.google.com/architecture/framework/reliability/build-highly-available-systems
  26. https://sre.google/sre-book/embracing-risk/
  27. https://sre.google/workbook/implementing-slos/
  28. https://workspace.google.com/learn-more/security/security-whitepaper/page-4/
  29. https://docs.cloud.google.com/docs/security/overview/whitepaper
  30. https://webglossary.info/terms/google-web-server/
  31. https://research.google/pubs/borg-omega-and-kubernetes/
  32. https://www.nextplatform.com/2016/02/24/how-apache-is-losing-the-web-to-nginx/
  33. https://www.cloudways.com/blog/nginx-vs-apache/
  34. https://kinsta.com/blog/nginx-vs-apache/
  35. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/servers/google-s-custom-web-server-revealed
  36. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5598495/about-how-much-of-a-memory-footprint-reduction-does-nginx-give-over-apache2
  37. https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch23.html
  38. https://medium.com/bloody-sweet-writers/did-you-know-google-processes-8-5-billion-searches-daily-heres-what-people-search-most-a4ee9ee472e7
  39. https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12410098
  40. https://sqmagazine.co.uk/google-usage-statistics/
  41. https://research.google.com/archive/mapreduce-osdi04.pdf
  42. https://cloud.google.com/transform/3-key-lessons-from-25-years-of-warehouse-scale-computing
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3215306_Web_Search_for_a_Planet_The_Google_Cluster_Architecture
  44. https://mygisserver.com/blog/hyperscale-data-centers-explained-a
  45. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/the-cost-of-compute-a-7-trillion-dollar-race-to-scale-data-centers
  46. https://sre.google/sre-book/addressing-cascading-failures/
  47. https://sre.google/sre-book/part-III-practices/
  48. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-google-doj-antitrust-trial-sundar-pichai/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.