More on the continuing saga of Google's problems, which I seem to be posting on a lot lately.  It's kind of like hearing a celebrity is dying, you just kind of have a morbid curiosity about it.

I wasn't aware of this interview, but via Steve Bryant I found a NY Times interview with Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google.  It contains this nugget:

Google has an enormous volume of Web site information, video and e-mail on its servers, Mr. Schmidt said. "Those machines are full. We have a huge machine crisis."

I've been watching with interest as Microsoft has spent half a billion dollars trying to catch up with Google's infrastrcture.  Now that Google's infrastructure is starting creak and groan under the load (which is perhaps why they haven't been releasing new products as often), the ball is in Microsoft's court.

I would assume that Microsoft's new architecture will be built on top of Microsoft server solutions such as Windows Server, Exchange, Active Directory, etc.  Google's is built on a modified distribution of Red Hat.  This is the ultimate litmus test of Microsoft vs. Open Source.  If Microsoft can pull off a more robust infrastructure than Google, it'll be a HUGE feather in their cap, and probably keep their server business viable for several more years.  They'd be able to claim the title as the king of servers, which is a pretty nice title to have in the era of Software as a Service.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps Google has reached the upper limits of what is possible with our current computers and architectures, and we'll need some type of breakthrough in scalability and/or storage before software evolution can continue.  That would suck.