3 ms·

This is ridiculous. Data centers contain thousands of racks like the single rack shown in the demo "pod" and they all require hands-on human maintenance from ti

by jpm_sd 10y ago

This is ridiculous. Data centers contain thousands of racks like the single rack shown in the demo "pod" and they all require hands-on human maintenance from time to time. This becomes quite a bit harder when your server rack is in a sealed steel tube on the seafloor. Splitting the data center into thousands of "pods" will also greatly increase the cost of cabling and connectors for power and data distribution (we're talking $100 per connector here) and the number of cable failures will skyrocket. Did you know that fish like to chew on submarine cables? Unless you get steel-armored cables, which are defended against "fishbite"...

baking 10y ago
If one server goes down and they are not able to restore it remotely they will just write it off. If a large number go down due to some common failure, it might make sense to haul the whole thing up and refurbish it.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  I've heard that this is what many data centers currently do anyhow. That when a client "moves on" (moves out, dissolves, etc) - the machines are just left behind, because it costs more to unrack/transport/etc than it does to leave them in place. /source: worked for a small cloud computing VPS provider
randyrand 10y ago
Agreed. It makes way more sense to just build it next to an ocean and pump the water.
amygdyl 10y ago
Recent AWS presentation showed off very less dense server configurations than any commercial vendor typically offers. I guessed, i forget now if there was specific mention, that airflow simply costs a lot more than I first realized, after all i am only dumping host fan exhausts into someone else's co'lo design, which then has to deal with that. I bet it's substantially different, owning the whole building. So, what if just submerging containers or pods of servers in cold sea water, combined with unforced airflow designs, was a passive cooling possibility? After all, in theory, there's no surrounding facility to cool, and space is unlikely to be a major direct cost factor. Despite I wonder, given land reliably increases in value, whether, once land acquisition is factored out, the kind of permits and early studies might bring costs back again.(excluding design NRE) Marine insurance struck me as a important unknown. I grew up by the Channel coast in England, and i can't imagine anyone allowing heavy containers to be anchored or moored where they might break free into shipping lanes, without quite detailed study and assurances.

by jpm_sd 10y ago

baking 10y ago

If one server goes down and they are not able to restore it remotely they will just write it off. If a large number go down due to some common failure, it might make sense to haul the whole thing up and refurbish it.

cr0sh 10y ago
I've heard that this is what many data centers currently do anyhow. That when a client "moves on" (moves out, dissolves, etc) - the machines are just left behind, because it costs more to unrack/transport/etc than it does to leave them in place. /source: worked for a small cloud computing VPS provider

randyrand 10y ago

Agreed. It makes way more sense to just build it next to an ocean and pump the water.

amygdyl 10y ago

Recent AWS presentation showed off very less dense server configurations than any commercial vendor typically offers. I guessed, i forget now if there was specific mention, that airflow simply costs a lot more than I first realized, after all i am only dumping host fan exhausts into someone else's co'lo design, which then has to deal with that. I bet it's substantially different, owning the whole building. So, what if just submerging containers or pods of servers in cold sea water, combined with unforced airflow designs, was a passive cooling possibility? After all, in theory, there's no surrounding facility to cool, and space is unlikely to be a major direct cost factor. Despite I wonder, given land reliably increases in value, whether, once land acquisition is factored out, the kind of permits and early studies might bring costs back again.(excluding design NRE) Marine insurance struck me as a important unknown. I grew up by the Channel coast in England, and i can't imagine anyone allowing heavy containers to be anchored or moored where they might break free into shipping lanes, without quite detailed study and assurances.