The Google Mini - A look at Google's entry-level search appliance
by Liz van Dijk on December 21, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Conclusion
After working with the Google Mini for a while in our own lab, it's easy to understand the appeal of a functional, well-tuned search appliance. Correctly configured, the Mini can dramatically enhance users' ability to find both web content, and files and their contents, on the network, and is likely to quickly repay the initial investment with increased productivity.
In terms of price, Google positions the Mini competitively, especially considering the amount of time it would take a company to implement their own fully functional search engine and maintain it. The Mini's array of standard features and flexibility make it too important not to consider.
However, we feel that even though its features are very rich and full of possibilities, the Mini is definitely not the "plug-and-play" machine Google advertises. Though the initial setup might be quick, there is a great deal of difference between the default "search bot" behavior and the fully integrated/optimized searching experience that the Mini is capable of, and we felt that threshold was still just a tad too high. We also noted the rather odd feature restrictions of the Mini as compared to the Google Search Appliance. The restrictions on the maximum number of pages to index is perfectly understandable, but the reasoning that smaller companies would have less use for advanced security systems doesn't make as much sense. A small company looking for an easy and cheap way out might end up surprised by the complexity involved in mastering the behavior of search engines.
To be fair, there simply is no true solution to the search-optimization problem yet. Optimizing searches to best match user behavior has always been a matter of close-up analysis, and the steps Google is taking to facilitate this process are still quite remarkable. As much as we would have loved to have a little peek at what was really going on inside that little blue box, we were satisfied to get a closer look at Google's efforts to put its technology to work in businesses all over the world, and the way they look to increase their users' satisfaction by consistency and simplicity. Though there is definitely room for improvement on the administrative side, the Mini definitely provides its end users the power and familiar feel of the Google web search.
In closing, we'd like to thank Peter Griffin of Google, who helped us out a great deal while exploring the Mini's features.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
View All Comments
GhandiInstinct - Friday, December 21, 2007 - link
lollegoman666 - Friday, December 21, 2007 - link
I would have expected this product to be a few years old with hardware like that. A prescott? seriously. And no RAID?razor2025 - Friday, December 21, 2007 - link
It's a search engine appliance. The product's main focus is in its software algorithm, not how "fast" the hardware itself is. Why would it need RAID? Any sane network/system administrator will have this box backed up in regular interval to the backup array / server. RAID != back up and this product doesn't need the file system performance either.legoman666 - Friday, December 21, 2007 - link
I didn't comment about the prescott and the lack of RAID based on a performance concern. The precott is hot and inefficient, why not get something that uses less power (IE, a C2D) even if it doesn't need the added processing power of a newer chip? That way, they could market it as a effiecient device or green or whatever.As for the RAID, I am not talking about RAID0 (technically that's not even raid), I was leaning more towards RAID1 or RAID5. They mentioned in the review that it took 36 hours to crawl to the 50000 document capcacity, I'm sure most people wouldn't want their search function down for 36 hours while the engine reindexes because it wasn't backed up. Not only that, but you'd probably have to send it back to Google for repairs with only a single drive. With 2 in RAID1, if one dies, a replacement could easily be swapped in.
razor2025 - Friday, December 21, 2007 - link
Maybe it's an option you can request to Google. As for your take on RAID, you're still treating it as Backup. It would be must simpler if they had a second backup google mini instead. Look, they're charging you for the license per document, not how many mini you have hooked up. Also, it's in a 1U form factor. I highly doubt they can manage to squeeze in another drive to satisfy your "RAID!" obsession.Justin Case - Friday, December 21, 2007 - link
Backups take time to restore from. RAID1 means no downtime. It *is* a backup, and one that's available instantly.It doesn't replace regular, preferably _remote_ backups, but it's a pretty basic feature of any system designed to have zero downtime.
reginald - Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - link
RAID and backup are two entirely different things. No RAID in the world can protect you against the same things as backups can (handling errors, programs incorrectly overwriting data, etc). And backups can never replace RAID to achieve continuous availability.Thinking you need no backups because you have RAID is like thinking you need no seatbelt because you've got insurance. They simply aren't the same.
rudder - Friday, December 21, 2007 - link
Prescott performance aside... as the article mentioned this is a 24/7 device... why use such a toaster of a cpu when Core2Duos would not add a whole lot to the bottom line?Calvin256 - Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - link
If you're looking at the prices as a consumer, that may be the case, but you need to rememeber that Google/Gigabyte is not you or I. When purchasing in bulk those processors can be VASTLY cheaper than we could ever hope to pay, even when they're in the bargain bin at shadyetailer.com. Things made for consumers can easily be marked up 200-2000%, things made for OEMs might have a 50-100% margin.