This post is more about things that I wonder than things that I know.
The whole idea behind the Google Filesystem is that hard drive access was Google's major architectural bottleneck when developing their search functionality and optimizing it for speed. So they said, well, we can make it a lot faster if we put the whole thing in RAM. And then they did.
The GFS is actually a much more powerful competitive advantage than either Google search or Google ads. That's why Google spends so much on research. The GFS is the next operating system, and the applications that will make the best use of it haven't even been written yet.
One simplistic way to look at the Google Filesystem is as a gigantic in-memory database. This prompts an obvious question. Will databases adopt this architecture?
Performance is key for databases. Hard drive access is a bottleneck. Database-backed apps are much, much more widespread than they were in the days when the current, conventional database architecture was initially developed.
I think the answer is almost guaranteed to be yes.