Photo tour of Facebook’s new datacenter
scobleizer.com
scobleizer.com
There's a cute promo video about half way down this page:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/04/12/green...
which shows one company's oil cooling solution.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Energy_from_the_Su...
"The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year."
1/365 of 3,850,000 exajoules = approx 10,000 exajoules.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule, " Energy in the United States used per year is roughly 105 EJ."
Like anything, though, a little bit of dumping is just fine, it's when we scale to the size of human civilization that it becomes a problem.
Actually I'm a bit surprised this isn't that well known with the recent focus on nuclear power, since thermal pollution and cooling system intakes that kill fish have been a minor source of controversy for some plants, including Indian Point and Vermont Yankee. Recent news on the latter: http://vermont4evolution.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/anr-to-rev...
And just for convenience here are the first few results off Google for thermal pollution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_pollution
http://www.pollutionissues.com/Te-Un/Thermal-Pollution.html
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/Environment...
I'd be interested in knowing if any country has adapted statutes with regards to treating thermal discharges as pollutants that need to be regulated. I'm guessing, based mostly on the pre-existing scale of heat loading from the sun, that thermal discharges are not considered to be a pollutant by any country, and you are free to discharge as much of it as you want, just as long as you don't damage the fish/shellfish/wildlife in the area. This also suggests if there are no fish/shellfish/wildlife in your discharge area, you are free to discharge as much as you want.
Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials... heat... 14 C.F.R. § 122.2 (definition of "pollutant").
EPA discharge permits, which are required to discharge any pollutant in any amount into US waters, certainly do regulate thermal discharges.
In other words, whatever labor is needed is considered unskilled. You found a tech company in the Valley, NYC or Boston because, even though the costs are high, that's where you can attract the talent. When the quality of employees is a non-issue, you may as well place it in a place that's economically depressed, i.e. desperate.
Note -- this may seem sort of horrible, but I am under the impression that Les was the sort of guy to be completely face forward, and could say "Look -- I know you all want to move to a town with a Starbucks, but you just have to wait until I die. And then please keep donating money to the local football team when I go."
Well, except the "no photos of the older equipment" rule that Scoble apparently ran into :-)
#1. Nobody attacks data centers. No, really, they don't. Have some solid concrete walls, a man trap for people entry. a secure receiving area, and make sure your external doors are locked and you now have more security than is required for any data center short of critical infrastructure (nuclear/air-safety) - and probably enough for that as well.
#2. Even if people attacked data centers (which, honestly, they don't) - there was nothing in these tours that would increase their odds of successfully doing so. Much easier to just get a job there if you really had some desire to cause damage.
However they were inside jobs by disgruntled former employees which I know disqualifies my original concern.
In the entire history of data centers, I'd be surprised if there's been more than a dozen external penetrations on a data center that had the following:
o Solid Concrete walls.
o Man Traps w/security that vets all entry.
o External Locking Doors that are always Locked.
o Secure Shipping and Receiving (Basically Rolling Doors
that lead into a "Package Trap" for gear where it is
deboxed)
o And, I should have also mentioned, customer cages.
On the flip side, I'm betting we could find thousands, and more likely tens of thousands, of incidents related to people who had been let in through proper channels. If you want to invest effort in securing your data center, that's where you'll get the biggest payoff.I suggest that these "facts" are too general: nobody currently physically attacks this sort of datacenter in the US.
There are clearly many examples of physical attacks on other sorts of datacenter, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McDade.
I think that's a fact because the folks who blow things up aren't cognizant of their importance, or aren't using weapons appropriate to the task.
When the US attacks a country, what do they blow up first? A: Airfields, SAM sites, and Command/Control/Coordination centers. Datacenters and big telco facilities fall into that category.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/12/08/ocean...
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/11/04/armed...
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/2006/11/02/l...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381108,00.asp
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/20/easynet_brick_lane_r...
Some time back most railroads switched to using fibre optics for signalling purposes, not least because copper requires more repeaters and is more likely to be dug up by dickheads.
The amount of bandwidth needed for railroad signalling is pretty minimal, so many railroad companies now moonlight as telcos.
Also, back in the 1990s, a lot of firms laid additional fibre along the railroads because of the existing rights-of-way. Laying alongside a railroad is much faster because the legalities are settled -- you only need to negotiate with one organisation, not every little county you happen to cross.
Consequently there is a lot of spare capacity running along railroads.
Scoble has a day job at Rackspace?