A non-water fire suppression system for a 300,000+ square feet warehouse-scale datacenter would be incredibly expensive.
Would it be as expensive as replacing 300,000+ square feet of servers?
People who aren't me get paid to do that kind of math when designing datacenters. Presumably there's a break-even point.
I have no idea what's used these days but I remember someone telling me the dry powder that is sometimes used is very bad for computer hardware - not immediately, but within a couple of years the metal will show obvious signs of reaction with whatever is in it.
Yeah, I always thought datacenters would use Halon. It of course has the problem of suffocating everyone.
Halon has been banned for years because 1) it's bad for the ozone layer and 2) it'll kill you. Newer systems (FM-200, Inergen, etc.) fight the fire by removing heat instead of removing oxygen.
Halon is still used. Unfortunately the same properties that makes it effective also makes it harm the ozone layer. It does not just remove heat or oxygen, it directly interferes with the reaction involved in combustion, making things stop burning.
Wasn't there also this technique of lowering oxygen levels so much that humans can still survive but fire won't spread as fast? Or did this turn out to be too expensive?