> They have sprinklers, with the reasoning being that the burning racks' data is gone anyway if there's a fire I think the real problem, per that post, is this

> They have sprinklers, with the reasoning being that the burning racks' data is gone anyway if there's a fire I think the real problem, per that post, is this: >> They are simple sprinklers that spray with water. It has nothing to do with very high pressure misting systems, where water evaporates instantly, and which save servers. Here, it's watering, and all the servers are dead. It's designed like that. Astonishing, isn't it? >> Obviously, they rely above all on humans to extinguish a possible fire, unlike all conventional data centers. (all thanks to Google Translate) This strikes me as a terrible safety system because even if a human managed to detect the fire, they have to make a big call: is the risk of flooding the facility and destroying a ton of gear worth putting out a fire? By the time the human decides "yes, it is", it may well be too late for the sprinklers. > and at least sprinklers don't accidentally kill the technicians. Not a real risk with modern 1:1 argon:nitrogen systems – the goal is to pump in inert gases and reduce oxygen content to around 13%, a point where the fire is suppressed and people can survive. You wouldn't want to be in a room breathing 13% oxygen for a long time, but it won't kill you. All in all, it looks like this was a "normal accident"[1] for a hosting company that aggressively competes on price. The data center was therefore built with less expensive safeties and carried a higher risk of catastrophic failure. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents