Fascinating stuff. My guess is that they were definitely aware of the weight tolerance of the floor and the tiles but looks like the weak spot was the caniste

Fascinating stuff. My guess is that they were definitely aware of the weight tolerance of the floor and the tiles but looks like the weak spot was the canister wheels on the bottom of the rack. I wonder how they eventually got it out. They probably used one of those rack jacks to get a stronger dolly underneath... Or removed the HDDs and moved it. This made me wonder about something else - the power density. They say the layout: "can support up to one exabyte (1,000 PB) per data hall. Since storage density generally increases as technology advances, this was the baseline from which we started. In other words, there's plenty of room to grow." I wonder how they account for increased energy consumption as they put in larger powersupplies to deal with the increase in power to run and cooling for the larger HDDs. I imagine in this layout everything is in proportion. CPU / RAM / Disk Space. It must be hard to accurately target growth with in the constraints of a limited power footprint.