Hacker News Reader

Comment by ToucanLoucan | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I know this sub thread kicked off with snark about regional grids. That said, TXSE will be located in Dallas, a T5 datacenter city.

Why can't it be MORE reliable than XNYS/XNAS?

Because the powers that be in Texas will siphon off funding to make things work better to fund their own projects. "Should we winterize our power grid" Nah, it's Texas where it doesn't get that cold for that long. Should we implement a warning system in an area that is historically known for being prone to flash flooding? Nah, it doesn't happen that often and we have other things to spend money on instead.

I wasn't looking for conspiracies and disconnected facts (i.e., flash flood through a rural, summer camp).

Dallas was a T5 datacenter hub before Uri in 2021 and did well during the storm because they were designed to service level guarantees [0].

It's also silly to claim that TXSE's performance is disconnected from serious TX investors.

[0] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/how-data-cent...

What conspiracies? These are actual things that happened delivered as a sarcastic dialog that goes to show how the government in Texas behaves. Also, I never claimed anything about investors of TXSE. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter where an SE's data centers are located. They will all need redundancy plans. If you think Texas is a better location than other sites, then you have to focus on what have historically been issues for Texas. If you depend on the state's government doing things other than lining their pockets or at least the favorite pet project's coffers, then you are prone for failing. Those unwilling to study history are doomed to repeat it

I get you're heated about Texas politics.

I'm afraid your comments just come off as an attack on local politicians and their priorities, not the topic of addressing whether TXSE could be more resilient than peers.

The discussion evolved into where the data centers would be and pros/cons of having them in the various locations. I was discussing the cons of a Texas location

Tho energy is also a lot cheaper in Texas than NY. If you have to have ample back up regardless, total cost of maintaining consistent power can be lower even when grid quality is lower

(ofc, I'm looking at retail rates, who knows what specific numbers can be cut in contract)

Is this true though? Texas has had some well-publicized failures (well, really one major one), but as best as I can tell they are more or less middle of the pack on grid reliability[1].

I mean, you'll need a backup generator anywhere, but the report I found (admittedly with just a bit of googling) makes it seem like Texas is a better potential location than quite a few states (including California).

[1] - https://www.citizensutilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021...

The really major one is the only one that matters. If you are running a datacenter that needs to always be up and running, you're going to need backup power. A power grid that goes down once a decade for multiple weeks is far worse than one that goes down for 5 minutes once a week.

In Texas, if you support those in power with good enough donations, you can ensure that your site does not loose power when the decision is made on who to disconnect. So you can spend the money on back up power equipment, or in donations. Either way, it's going to cost to play.

Yeah, Oncor isn’t great. They do just enough to keep the lights on for regular customers. But I’m pretty sure large data centers negotiate a higher level of service and purchase power at discounted rates. FB, for example, has a massive data center in the Alliance corridor — check out the link. Those trailer-sized units you see along the outside of the building are enormous diesel or natural gas generators — more than a hundred of them, each about the size of a locomotive. They even have their own electrical substation. The scale and redundancy of that place are unbelievable.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9832754,-97.2573651,467m/dat...

So I’d imagine they could keep everything running for as long as necessary. I remember during the big winter outage a few years ago, they didn’t have any issues at all.

Each building has 2 large fuel tanks which is where I was expecting to see a fault in the plan. I wonder how redundant the fuel supply is. If building 1 is the only one on generator power and the fuel tanks start to run low, can they easily route more fuel from another building's tanks? Just how paranoid were they with the design?

When ever there is an extended power outage at a facility like this, tankers show up. I would not be surprised if there are contracts with Suncor distribution to have a steady flow of tankers supplying fuel to the facility. There are several fuel distribution hubs throughout the DFW area that supply the local markets including two major airports.

That's a big assumption, and precisely why the tanks are on site. If snowpocalypse events make roads unsafe to drive, those tankers might not be there. There's always a way to think about how something else could go wrong. At some point, you just have to say it is good enough for the money willing to be spent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com