Slashdot Log In
Startup Building Floating Data Centers
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:13 AM
from the we're-leaking-bits-into-the-sea dept.
from the we're-leaking-bits-into-the-sea dept.
1sockchuck writes "A Bay Area startup is planning to build data centers on cargo container ships, which would be docked at piers in major Internet markets. The company, known as IDS (International Data Security) says it plans to use biodiesel to power its generators and use heat from equipment to manage temperature on board the ships, reducing their reliance on grid power. IDS is telling prospects that it hopes to eventually have more than 20 floating data centers docked at ports around the U.S."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
the pirate bay (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the pirate bay (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Whooosh... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I can see the marketing now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, think about the marketing potential when you can pitch this sort of data centre to nerds brought up on Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash [amazon.com] as the Raft come to life. And didn't glimpses of the future in old popular science magazi
Try Earthquake protection. (Score:5, Insightful)
The land in that area is another issue. San Francisco was nearly completely leveled a couple of times in the 20th century alone by earthquakes.
I think that the data-center on ships idea is great...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wha? The '89 Loma Prieta earthquake caused some serious damage but "nearly completely leveled" is a bit of a stretch. And the 1906 disaster was caused by lack of modern building codes and fire protection as much as anything else. Other cities of that era suffered similar disasters without an earthquake as the root cause (Chicago, for instance.)
There is no reason a data center built from the ground up to su
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was only 6 to 10 years ago, so obviously there are still some people who think that "modern building codes" don't cut it for earthquakes and are willing (or legally required, like we were) to take some pretty expensive countermeasures.
T
Re:Try Earthquake protection. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Try Earthquake protection. (Score:4, Informative)
In some fields of discourse, there is a traditional distinction between proximate and ultimate causes. A proximate cause is the immediate event that triggered a disaster. Ultimate causes are the earlier conditions that allowed the immediate event to trigger a disaster.
In this case, the 1906 earthquake was the proximate cause of the disastrous fires. The ultimate causes were the shoddy buildings and infrastructure, which in turn were permitted by the lack of building codes and the "anything goes" frontier nature of the local government.
The earlier disastrous Chicago fire [wikipedia.org] had a different proximate cause but the same ultimate causes.
And note that ultimate causes usually are plural. In languages like English that have definite articles, a common logical fallacy is to talk about "the cause" rather than "a cause" or "the causes". For most large civic disasters like these, "the cause" is usually misleading, because there are a long list of conditions that help turn what might have been a minor fire into a conflagration. California has seen a lot of these lately, with their large disastrous brushfires. These have a list of ultimate causes, starting with the climate, and ending with a buildup of dry-plant fuel from landscaping plus failure to properly thin and remove plant material.
OTOH, here in Boston, one of the largest historical disasters [wikipedia.org] had a single identifiable cause, which sounds like something that the Onion [theonion.com]'s writers would make up, but actually happened and killed at least 21 people (and several horses). And one could argue in this case that the proximate cause was the tank bursting, while there were several ultimate cause such as poor construction of the tank, poor testing and maintenance, warm temperature, fermentation, etc. But the proximate/ultimate terminology doesn't apply well in this case, because all of those causes can be grouped as a single "poor construction and maintenance" cause.
Parent
Good response. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Try Earthquake protection. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Electricity is the problem in ALL datacenters (Score:3, Interesting)
But those processors mostly keep burning m
Seems silly, but... (Score:5, Funny)
(latency's a bitch, though)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of (Score:3, Funny)
terrorism (Score:2, Interesting)
if the ships
Re:terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Raiding ship to ship, carrying off booty in binary, sword fights, parrots, wenches! ARRRRGH
*head asplodes*
Parent
Re:terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the idea is they can move to the most secure location.... What if the US suddenly goes under marshall law? What if your hosting inte China and they just outlawed the web? They can simply "float" away...
re: terrorism (Score:2, Insightful)
ed
Re:terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dan East
ambiguous (Score:5, Funny)
"ok, please clarify exactly what you mean by that.."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WTF would you need that for? (Score:2, Funny)
Why would anyone ship data to a major internet market when you can just send it via an attachment? Duh...
well (Score:2)
in a busy port that gets dredged often thats a very bad idea, now we gonna hear about trawlers responsible for datacenters being cut off
Re: (Score:2)
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
D5! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not trying to be snarly here... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh the puns! I can't resist!
Sea air and electronics are not a good mix (Score:5, Insightful)
One of their founders is an ex-Navy guy so maybe they've got it all wired. However, I don't think the Navy uses off-the-shelf stuff and buying navalized equipment is a lot more expensive then the just you get at Fry's.
Very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Biodiesel? (Score:2, Interesting)
If they really wanted to be green they'd deploy some sort of thermal gradient generator, sinking piping down below the thermocline of the ocean.
Buzz-word 2.0 compliant (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Checking licensing documents... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh Great (Score:2)
On the other hand, it gives a whole new meaning to the term "capital flight" - if the IRS looks like it might be about to sieze your assets, you can float the whole head office to another jurisdiction - or set it up on a tropical island with a volcano.
Rationing applies (Score:3, Funny)
Vulnerabilities and economies of scale... (Score:2)
Not only that, but how would you get true redundancy? Sure, power could be done, but when it comes to multiple paths for data connections, ports m
Re:Vulnerabilities and economies of scale... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for redundancy, I think you are unsure of how vulnerable land based data centers are currently. Even if you bring in large circuits from competing companies, the chances that the local municipality has organized that they both run main fibers along the same railway is high. Power redundancy? Are you serious? Battery backup and generator backed UPS is all you have anyway.
With a barge setup, your redundancy plan can be to move the whole data center to another area with fiber connections waiting to fire up. In fact, in case of a hurricane, I'd assume that would be the plan anyway. Sure, that means a 24hr downtime, unless you have redundant barges in your plan, in which case it's all a mute argument. If you think 24hr downtime is a long time, try figuring out what Californians just suffered when so many parts of a normally dry network infrastructure were sitting under 3+ feet of water. My company just suffered from that storm last weekend, so don't tell me that land based data centers are less vulnerable.
I think it could well work out wonderfully.
Parent
Re:Vulnerabilities and economies of scale... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Navy is not exactly hurting for money, and they justify the expense since the electronics are located near its users. This venture is needlessly placing the data center on water, when the data users are mostly land based.
You will have more options on land. First of all, why place the containers on a ship when a container yard will do? Need to move the data centers to another location... Hire a truck!
You are looking at least a 48 to 72 hour downtime (if you are lucky). Being on a large container vessel (TFA is talking about decommissioned container ships), you will need to sail far enough away from the hurricane. Keep in mind the current state of hurricane predictions, the time it takes to disconnect from shore, scheduling a bar pilot, tow, bunkering, and sailing to destination. Once you reach the destination, waiting for bar pilot to board, tow, mooring, and making data connections to shore...
You could have co-located your data center in another region and switched to them during your emergency... Save the expense of vessel movement and the additional risks involved in ocean transportation. Better yet, use a container and truck your data center to another location further inland... Container based data centers are a neat idea, Container shipped based data center is an idea that went too far.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Port Fees? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. This idea is completely out-of-the-box.
I have questions:
1. Why locate off-shore when there is plenty of space on land?
2. Who is going to pay the port fees? Not including the tow fees necessary to periodically reposition the vessel.
3. Why take the hit on maintenance? Periodic dry docking, corrosion management, bilge checks...
4. Why pay additional expenses for a vessel agent? (They are NOT cheap).
5. What about mooring? evacuations due to hurricanes? environmental impact (ballast water & bunkering)?
6. Why take the risk associated with being in navigable water (vessel collision, dredging)?
7. Insurance?
8. On the subject of decommissioned cargo ships -- Most cargo ships are decommissioned only after they are in such sad shape that the operators fear that metal fatigue may jeopardize the vessel, or the safety systems have deteriorated to the point that the cost of repairs (to make them pass coast guard inspection) are too high. Why not use deep sea barges like Odysea, Crowley TMT, or Land Bridge uses? Less maintenance, and you won't have to hire three tugs to reposition the damn thing.
Just asking...
Re:Port Fees? (Score:5, Funny)
Mister Smith, secure them backup tapes; I won't be havin' me data slidin' about on deck. Mister Taylor, re-run those CAT-5 cables and make it quick. There'll be no tangled rigging, or loose arrrr-J45's on my ship. Mister Martin, ye be throwin' them Cisco routers overboard, and invite their mangy sales crew over for a good plank walkin' - they be too slow for the likes o' me.
Mister Jones, if it weren't for them lying, theiving scoundrels at the I-arrr-S, I'd have no deal with the likes of ye accountin' folks. Apparently, the lot of 'em don't understand the meanin' of "parlay". But enough of me rambin' - just make sure ye decimal points be just, or I be keelhaulin' the lot of ya.
And as for the rest of ye lilly-livered scalawags, there'll be no drinkin', boozin', torrent-n' or World o' Warrrrcraft until after businessin' hours.
Arrr Meetin' be o-journ'd.
Parent
Datatypes (Score:3, Funny)
That's nice, but is there a demand for data centers that store only one type of number? What if we need to store integers?
Dan East
Already done in the 1960s (Score:3, Interesting)
Perfect use for the old Queen Mary!: The numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
It weighs about 175 million pounds. Take it out into the open seas where there are 3-foot waves, or actually big enough waves to lift and drop the ship by three feet say every ten seconds. By my Excel calcs, if you use that lift to heave up on a big anchor half the weight of the ship, that's about 30 megawatts of electricity. Plenty enough to power tens of thousands of servers.
The front boiler and engine room spaces of the QM were cleared out long ago, leaving a huge open space for lots of server racks. All you have to worry about is shipwrecks and hurricanes and the effects of humid, salty and diesely air.
Offshoring? (Score:5, Funny)
Warning, bad jokes. (Score:3, Funny)
New April 1st RFC - floating point transfers over sub-nets.
The network is obviously pier to pier-based, you need good piering agreements.
Connection reset by pier.
The data center is down due to wetware failure.
Special offer - free salt for all your crypto needs.
Careful with that firewall, closed ports are bad.
"Digital Pirates" just acquired a new meaning.
The Dreaded Backhoe will be replaced by people phishing on the pier and people dropping <A>s
Sneakernet replaced by flippernet.
Overclockers rejoice, think of the extreme water-cooling possibilities.
Forget the Boston Tea Party. The Boston LAN Party will be way cooler.