North Slope Server Farm 151
A nameless cringer writes: "Netricity proposes an Internet data storage center on Alaska's North Slope to take advantage of the isolation (maybe a polar bear would break in), cold (easy to A/C; just open some vents to the outside), and abundant natural gas to run the generators. There's already a fat pipe running down the Alaska Pipeline to 'america.' Oil pipeline & data pipeline -- two good targets ... " And like anything else about the North Slope, raises hard-to-answer questions about the preservation of nature vs. human comfort.
Re:Raid-Earth (Score:1)
Re:No. (Score:1)
I repeat: Go away, you Lower 48er environmentalist whacko luser. You don't have to live in Alaska: you've probably never been here. You've just swallowed some eco-terrorist propaganda about how precious our hunk of frozen tundra is. You're as clueless as the people who're wondering about volcanoes on the North Slope.
Just because you dweebs down there screwed up your own backyards doesn't mean that you have some "been there, done that" morally superior position from which you can dictate to Alaska on how to balance environmentalism and economics.
You want to talk to Alaska from the environmental high ground? Fix your own back yards, and stop trying to meddle in ours.
Fat Pipe to "America" (Score:2)
Temperatures (Score:3)
Idiot.
"Two good targets..."? (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:1)
It isn't *always* cold up there (Score:2)
To take this to extremes, the average annual temperature in Verhojansk, Russia is about 2F. Problem is that the record low is about -90, but the record high is 98F, which is probably a bit higher than the record high in Key West. Average case planning isn't enough; they've got to take into account worst cases, too. That means figuring out what to do up to temperatures of maybe 85F or higher.
Dumping excess heat in the permafrost isn't a very good solution, either. Ice isn't a terribly efficient conductor of heat (neither is stagnant water), so it will simply melt the permafrost. That's bad news, because suddenly you're sitting on top of a swamp and your foundation isn't much good. Not to mention that it's messy environmentally, too. I believe the pipeline and associated structures are well-insulated, as much to protect the permafrost as to keep the oil flowing.
It might actually make more sense to do this in Valdez, at the southern terminus -- it's a lot more accessible, it's still fairly cold most of the year, and the ocean is available as a heat sink all year round (the ocean up there is pretty cold at all times).
Re:Summers are hot there (Score:2)
Like I said in another post, Valdez would make a better site, anyway, if someone wanted to do this. Even there (or anywhere), there's the whole issue of single point of failure, which is bad juju however you look at it.
Not so good idea (Score:2)
Whoever has this plan, also has a very romantic idea of Alaska.
I think there are better places in North Russia, Norway, or Canada.
Sounds Perfect!!!!! (Score:1)
Considering with the Net I get all the luxuries UPS to me. If anyone has any leads let me know!!
Re:Preservation of nature vs. Human comfort? (Score:2)
Indeed Lord Ender, I've been running this same argument for years. As a philosophy major, I have honed my acceptable definition of the word 'nature' to the following:
Probable reasons for continued use of the poor colloquial definition: Locke's state of nature hypothesis. biblical notion of a pre-Fall more natural, i.e., better, state. the historical etymology from the Latin for born suggesting that what is there at the conception [of a thing, e.g., the earth] is what is natural, i.e., better, than what is unnatural [or artificial], i.e., worse.
Street Creds - Yeah yeah, this sure looks like a poststructuralist account. Sorry about that, but a deconstruction, a genealogy, is occasionally useful, especially when dealing with such an obvious case of origin (see Derrida). That said, I am all about the precise usage of this word and generally prefer a different warm and fuzzy term for our simpler terran coinhabitants and the sorts of environment and ecology they each require for survival.
-l
n.b.- I have intentionally avoided any argument for or against protection of environments relatively devoid of artificial structures.
Re:pitfalls (Score:2)
Eh...ditch the thousands of miles of data cables and use a sattelite uplink. Encrypted, of course. The auroras might give some problems with this though - I'm no expert in that field, but it would seem to me that they might have some effect. Perhaps a way to utilize the periodic auroras could be found (ok, now I'm just getting silly and speculating)
Now that I'm thinking about it, why not start junking the old obsolete sattelites up there and replacing 'em with sattelite-based data storage...oh...wait...NASA's too busy watching coffee grow...dang.
Re:pitfalls (Score:2)
Wireless seemed like a good idea, but if what you say is true, traditional sattelite methods wouldn't work too well.
Sounds like we need something new to be able to do this well. Grr... And Alaska seemed so perfect a location for this type of thing. Maybe a giant spike at the rotational North Pole...nah
The idea of orbital datahavens still sounds good to me though - too bad it'll never happen.
Local Talent? (Score:1)
I wouldn't mind the gig, but I think I'd freeze my nuts off. Hard to imagine the good aspects to watching a bunch of servers in a place where the main hobbies are alcoholism and insomnia.
Wait a minute. That sounds like my current gig! Where do I sign up?
Re:Natural cooling (Score:1)
Solar is very cost competative, especially when you factor in things that aren't explictly in the price of fossil fuels: cost of clean-up, quality of life, and the cost of maintaining a dependence on foreign oil. Protecting interests in foreign oil is very, very expensive.
The U.S could have spent far less simply by investing in renewables.
No penguins? (Score:3)
Buy hundreds of laptops and fit them with wireless LAN cards. Remove the standard casing and put the insides into a penguin-shaped case. Put wheels powered by an electric on the bottom of each penguin and let them loose at the South Pole. You now have highly redundant, mobile, distributed data storage. If you can't visualize what I mean, watch a few episodes of the Batman TV series, I'm sure at least one must feature motorized penguins running amok.
The only question is what OS to run on these servers.
Problem... (Score:1)
^
Hurm, no thanks.
Re:Preservation of nature vs. Human comfort? (Score:2)
Natural does not necessarily equal good, and while humans are natural, so is the black plague. For the most part, humans have played to their very lowest and most 'natural' instincts in short-sightedly laying waste to much of the earth.
Nature is always changing, animals are always evolving and becoming extinct.
That's a superficially sound observation, but it is also fundamentally utter bullshit. Humans operate in a timeframe far, far faster than natural selection, and no multicellular organism can evolve fast enough to survive the changes we are creating. Only organisms naturally well-adapted to humans -- things like rats, cockroaches, and various molds and mildews -- are benefiting from our presence. And only unicellular organisms are actually evolving fast enough to keep up with us, but these are mainly the drug-resistant pathogens that will probably wipe us out for our failure to regulate our own population.
Recognizing that man is part of nature is not the same as recognizing man's place in nature. But that requires appealing to faculties that operate in higher parts of the brain than the R-complex.
--
Why not just bury it? (Score:2)
Soil maintains a constant temperature. Several thousand feet of it give an enormous thermal mass.
Put server farms in played-out salt mines (they're already being used for document storage.) The holes, really BIG holes, are already there.
Its dry, secure as Hell (you'd literally have to tunnel through thousand foot thick firewalls,) and you can put a power generating station near the opening.
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:2)
Most permanent employees on the slope (aka north slope) work on shifts. Commonly a shift such as two weeks on, two weeks off. The average workday is officially 12 hours for most people but depending on your job/company/etc. it can be anywhere from 12-16. And yes, no weekends while you are up, you work 7 days a week.
The advantages of this system? Unless you are a smoker you don't have to spend a single dime while you are up north (at oil fields alcohol is banned). At least working for the oil companies they supply everything from food/soda/snacks to living facilities and exercise areas. Then when you come home you are off... no office, no nothing. you can sleep all day and stay up all night and travel at any point as long as you are back at the airport to catch the plane to head back up for work (oh ya, the planes are normally company covered too). For someone who is a roamer or likes having large chunks of time off this is great. 6 months a year off of work and with many companies you continue to accrue normal vacation time too which is an extra bonus.
Many like the wages, depending on the company its just like any other job, good, bad or otherwise but the thing that really pumps people up is the overtime since its 4 hours a day guaranteed and you are working 7 days a week so there is even more in there.
Anyway, its not that bad. For me I like sleeping in my own bed but my experiences with the slope as a whole have been good. Lots of rules to follow (usually with good reason) but its a pretty nifty way to live for many people.
With what I just said - its not a problem to lure people to the slope. Pay them well, tell them they will get all the soda and snack food you can stuff in their faces and that they will have 6 months off a year and they will come. Oh yes, they will come.
-Alan
Re:Natural cooling (Score:1)
I'm not sure how much supplemental heat they have to use in the winter (-30F is not uncommon), but they're apparently able to run the coolers and the building A/C exclusively off of the ground water.
Now if you could just steal enough electricity from the phone lines, you could run the heat pumps for free..
Big $$$ (Score:2)
On the upside, there was a wealth of good tech talent up there that can be had relatively cheaply. Hell, I would go back up there for a while to help with that. (Still have family up there anyway)... where can I send my resume? 8^)
Jethro
Pipeline break???? (Score:2)
Re:Natural cooling (Score:1)
I beg to differ. The price of solar energy has been lower than the price of fossil fuels for a couple of years now.
And what's more... if you live or do business in California the state will share the cost of installation.
http://www.AltEStore.com/cart/ [altestore.com]
____________________________________
There is no Alaska Pipline to 'america' (Score:2)
Presently, there are negotiations underway to run a full blown LNG pipeline down either the Alaska Highway or through the Mackenzie Valley in Canada's Northwest Territories from the North Slope to the lower 48. Like any project of this scale, there are many legal and environmental issues that have to be resolved before this happens.
Incidentally, a data center of this size would require more bandwidth than the entire state of Alaska has running into it.
They'll HAVE to run Unix (Score:1)
Sign me up for a gig! (Score:2)
I guess the current job, er, climate makes this the best time in the last decade to float such a scheme though.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Re:Natural cooling (Score:2)
The one thing Bush got right was that the problem right now is that there is more demand than supply. He says that means we must explore more and relax environmental standards so we can build up our production capabilities. You say conservation is the way to go.
I say, you're both wrong.
We need to do both of what you guys say, but neither will solve the problem.
The problem was demand exceeding supply. That situation did not come about because we didn't have enought conservation, nor becuase of environmental concerns. The problem came about because energy was so cheap in the early 90's that there was no money in building power plants. There are many now under way (see this [poliglut.com] story on Poliglut for a graph of the last twenty years), but the reason demand exceeded supply was because there was no money in building new plants for a while and that even now that there is, it takes a while to build them.
P.S. None of this should be taken as an argument against conservation, just that it's a fools paradise to believe it would have helped CA this time.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Re:Summers are hot there (Score:3)
Huh? Anchorage (one of the warmer parts of Alaska), for example, only averages above 65 for nine days in the heat of July, after that it's all downhill.
On the North Slope things are much colder. That same July peak only has them at 46.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Re:Natural cooling (Score:5)
a. Don't build them in hot climates.
This is the only legit part of the post. Of course, if the cost of energy is less than the cost of labor (remember that a lot of the labor is in hot climates!) then hot climates still make a lost of sense. Labor is your largest cost after all.
b. If you do build them in hot climates you should have to build a large solar panel array on the top of the facility.
That's great as a throw away comment. That solar array isn't going to give you nearly the power you need, nor produce it efficiently. Remember, it's the cost per megawatt that counts and solar isn't cost competative yet even if you could run a data center on only solar.
c. When it's cold outside, open the windows. Nothing is dumber than having the air conditioning on in the winter! If dust bothers you, suck in outside air and filter it.
Think climate control, not air conditioning. The moisture is important too. Opening windows (except in a desert and you already said we can't build there) will corrode all your systems. In the colder days you talk about the air conditioners are very efficient in terms of heat transfer and act mostly as humidity control.
d. In hot climates build them underground. Once you get a few feet down the earth's crust is actually pretty cool. Extend large heat sinks into the surrounding terrain to use the earth's natural cooling.
Once again you have a decent idea for homes, but it doesn't scale to the energy requirements of a data center.
e. the source of the problem is the heat generated by equipment, why not design coller equipment instead? This is possible, there just is a lack of motivation to do it
They have. One P4 throwing off 50 watts, but running 200 web servers is a lot more efficient thatn 200 486's.
--
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Re:Comfort only matters if you go outdoors (Score:1)
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:2)
"Oh My God! Who shaved the fucking walruses?"
What about the sysadmin? (Score:5)
j
ping times? (Score:2)
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:2)
More importantly, though, it should be staffed like the Enterprise, with a co-ed crew made up only of attractive youngish people from all races in skin-tight clothing.
With 1/2 a million (!! could that have been a typo?!!) servers, they could probably due with a small colony of sysadmins, build a small orgy room, holodeck, etc.
timothy
Re:No real impact on nature (Score:2)
The handful of roads and trucks that do exist there are built for the pipeline security and maintainace folks, this has been in place for years and no offence, but it's damn hard to miss a 7 foot moose with a 6 foot acrossed rack in a giant field of white. For the 14 years my relative worked up there, there was only 1 moose fatiality due to a truck and thats cause the moose rammed it while it was parked.
This new facility in the short term will have some effect yes, due to noise of construction ect. Once the facility is built things will return to normal (if it can be called that). As for high voltage systems, guess they will have to use those fences or do what most of the buildings there do, keep them on the inside and underground. Same for the cooling systems.
Most people don't know that almost everything ever done on the north slope had to go through tremendous amounts regulations as to have as little of an effect on the wild life as possible. So there was much moved into areas that just can't be accessed by animals. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best jobs that humans could do aside from not building anything there at all.
No real impact on nature (Score:5)
Many were shocked to find that after the construction was finished the wildlife moved right back in and hardly payed the large pipes any attention. While they will keep their distance from humans they seem to care less about all the steel and concreat.
As for who would stay up there and for how long, my relatives shift was 3 weeks up at the slope and 2 weeks at home and the company flew him there and back. He always seemed to like the schedule as he felt like he was always getting a 2 week vacation.
The only real problems I can see with something liek this is hardware breakage and replacement. If something goes down and there isn't a replacement on site, it could take a few days pending on a few factors.
1. Availability of a replacement
2. Shipping time to a staging point (Usualy Ancorage)
3. Flight time (weather is a massive factor here as the cross to the slope is well into the arctice circle and the plane must cross the Brooks Range)
Other then those areas, the only other thing I could suggest is that there be 3-4 ppl on site all the time since human interaction is a must even for the most anti-social person in a place like that where going outside could mean facing -70+ temps and everyting is all white for most of the year.
Re:Tell the SA's they are in training for MARS (Score:1)
Re:Easy to Warm (Score:2)
Just throw engine-block heaters on the suckers, for starting up only.
--
Wyoming. (Score:1)
Also, if you buy 3 cows and graze them on your cluster farm, the state will lease you a few thousand acres for a little over a dollar - and then subsidize your water costs, which you could use for cooling purposes prior to hosing down the 3 cows (in the summer time, that is. In the winter cooling will be free, but you may need to buy a bit of hay for the cows...)
At night, the SysAdmins (probably imported from Colorado) can sneak out and Tip The Cows Over [patent pending].
I've been to the North Slope, I've been to Wyoming, and I think the choice is clear.
"Preservation of nature"??!! (Score:1)
"Preservation of nature"??!! Render unto me a ****ing break!
A datacenter isn't even on the same order of magnitude as other, probably more vital, things we're doing in Alaska. On the grand scale of things, it's hardly even a blip. Only the most rabid, anti-development environmentalist would even consider the idea that it might be a problem. $DEITY save us from rabid environmentalists.
--
that area is so huge (Score:1)
North slope? (Score:1)
What kind of hazard-duty pay for the admins?
BOFH Excuse #321 (Score:1)
Re:Has anyone considered (Score:1)
It may be that this is already quite widespread, but that's not the case from my experience in the field (== substantial). Let's stop to think about this for a second.
"Going down, instead of out" preserves land space and offers several additional benefits:
Relatively constant temperature.
Um, there is the phenomenon called "permafrost" which exists throughout the area. Assuming your post refers to the proposed server farm, the heat would melt this into a pudding-like mud.
Heightened protection from the elements (earthqakes included to a certain degree, since your buidling won't "fall over."
Yes, it would. Not quickly, but inevitably, see above.
Maybe somewhat increased physical security (depends).
This is true, since potential attackers would have a hard time finding the building once the mud had closed over the top of it.
issues with this (Score:2)
Might sound like a cool idea but I think it has issues. Sweden, Norway, and parts of Finland (their nothern parts) have equally cool places full of the resources too, maybe the EU should jump at the idea. Maybe not, when the crap hits the fan who are you going to turn to an Eskimo who only knows fishing and shit?
They should set up a colo space in meat market like environments filled with freon cooled rack spaces powered by potatoes is what I think somewhere in Idaho
Re:Easy to cool (Score:1)
and insulate the room a bit.
Summers are hot there (Score:2)
Re:Summers are hot there (Score:2)
No. (Score:1)
Alaska is one of the last few true wildernesses in the United States. There is enough of an ecological threat to the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) from oil drilling, that tech-heads, imbuing urbanesque idealized idiocy need not contribute to the generalized threat to Alaska. Consider the ramifications of your actions to a fragile eco-system. Yes, cool weather is ideal for storage, but think about the infrastructure necessary to support such a data warehouse. Think about the land, think about the number of people which would be needed to maintain both the data warehouse and the line between there and the rest of the world.
Yes, there is significant less ecological damage which a data warehouse specifically puts out than an oil drill, but you are still making an impact on the environment. Don't think in terms of local economic boosts, but think in terms of world environmental responsobility. We've already ruined a good portion of the lower 48 with overly congested highways, air pollution, and our ideals. Most of us have already entered into volounteer slavery to the allmighty dollar. Don't foist these mistakes on one of the last true paradises based on economic greed for both the corporations and the tech-centric living in the lower 48 (and elsewhere).
Backpackers, environmentalists, and nature lovers in general have generally adopted a leave no trace philosophy, bent on maintainig the natural beauty of the land. Thousands of people spend many hours volounteering each year to repair simple hiking trails, which are well overgrown with people. Forget what sounds cool. Consider the consequences. We have as much a responsibility to maintaining the environment as we try to convice Brazil they do, when they slash and burn portions of the amazon. Alaska is one of the last few places in the US which is truly wild. Its not like we're taking an existing structure and refurbishing or rebuilding it, this requires entirely new construction on a massive scale. The pipeline already has caused major migration shifts for caribou and other animals. This is NOT like dropping in an alaskan office for IBM.
Just because the dotcom-mega-spend plan fell through, don't start taking your business plan from big oil or timber. Make an effort to remain concious of the impact you truly make.
Note: I'm an east-coast lower 48er.
Re:No. (Score:1)
Its a shame you didn't post your actual account, I'd have been curious to see if you were really from Alaska or a Sunny Californian High School Poser...who has never been to Alaska.
But anyway, wrong about both of those. For starters, I'm not an "environmental whacko" as you'd like to believe. While I do raise environmental concerns, its because industry, including the tech industry, commonly overlooks them. Constant industrial expansion without maintenance to the environment, is extremely nearsighted, and not planning for the long haul. Maine (where I grew up), has commonly sought the ballance between the timber industry and its environmental policies. Yes the paper companies bring in business, but go up to Millonocket and breathe the air on the east side of the city... Tell me if its healthy.
While a data center doesn't cause that kind of direct polution it does cause other problems. For starters, you have increased emissions of vehicles during construciton and later as support to the structure. Ecologically whatever land within 25 miles of said construction will experience upheaval from noise (construction and vehicles frightening animals), pollution (tools and automobiles) and a degree of contamination (building materials). Expect major migratory patterns for some animals to be forced to change.
The things about animals however, is that they don't change migratory patterns well. Usually they pick the "best route." Forcing them to take an alternate means that there may be less food or more dangers (of course the danger was expanded when the construction took place). This leads to a disruption in the food chain, and you start to see every aninimal which is intertwined in that be slowly driven down in numbers. Take a basic bio-101 and you'll learn it.
Oh yeah, and I've done some pretty good backpacking and kayaking up in Alaska. Gotta say, the rain up there is pretty
When I state the ecosystem is fragile, I mean that minimal impact destroys a large portion of growth for a given year. Its like leaving a board over a portion of your front yard for a week, soon you find dead yellow grass under it, which will take about two weeks to regrow. Yet in a fragile environment, that may be a single night, and it may take a full year to regrow. That is common in Alaska, especially when you start to get as far north as the north slope.
You've just swallowed some eco-terrorist propaganda about how precious our hunk of frozen tundra is. You're as clueless as the people who're wondering about volcanoes on the North Slope.
While I do have some friends who did go the eco-terrorist route (really, tree sitters and everything)... I believe on working within the system, and making slow changes to a more environmentally friendly system. Its not an effort to limit expansion, its an effort to manage expansion in an environmentally friendly manner - which I believe is possible.
In this case it means limiting such massive new growth in a highly under-developed area because the infrastructure growth necessary to supply the larger structure would be taxing on the environment. A better place winds up being North Dakota or eve the Upper Peninsula, assuming that they would want such development. Granted it is not as cold for as long, but cooling costs are minimized.
Do I think that a frozen hunk of tundra is precious? Yes.
Just because you dweebs down there screwed up your own backyards doesn't mean that you have some "been there, done that" morally superior position from which you can dictate to Alaska on how to balance environmentalism and economics.
...And I wouldn't propose such a thing. But the jump on the band wagon and get screwed by the tech-sector for a garounteed loss is probably not a good idea either. If you don't think that the tech sector is only looking at it because they think they can squeeze some lax regulations for a rotten business trade (growth is not just a good thing) then you are wrong. I garountee that they are trying to hoodwink what they percieve as a bunch of back-water buffoons.
And I'm sure you've heard it before: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
You want to talk to Alaska from the environmental high ground? Fix your own back yards, and stop trying to meddle in ours.
And I promise you I spend my time working in my backyard as well...
We (the human race) are parisites. We use until an area is destroyed, and then only (a few) try to fix the damages which we've caused. To not make any effort to learn from the past efforts (i.e. the lower 48) is asking to repeat our mistakes. If Alaska chooses to repeat such mistakes, don't be surprised when big business skips out on them as well at signs of trouble.
I don't expect you to agree with me, I expect you to recognize my right to a differing opinion.
Re:Yes (Score:1)
Northern as well... so don't forget the inclusion of "pomous" in your description as well.
The whole "preserve the wildlife refuge" is such a piece of !@#@#!!! Do you even realize HOW big Alaska is? It's not a little bitty speck off of California, dude. It is gargantuan! You could cut it in half and make Texas the third largest state instead of second.
While I have been to Alaska, I'll freely admit that I can't fathom how big Alaska actually is. I spent a week there and didn't even cover a significant amount of one park let alone the entire state. I could spend my entire life there (hint hint) and I don't think that I would. But if you think that size is all that matters in terms of ecological risk then, you are wrong. There is so much more. Following your arguement in reverse, take all the land in the US, lump it together, and compare the park/protected land vs. the rest. It is a miniscule ammount, and Alaska contributes far more than the rest. But lets ignore that for right now...
Did you know that the amount of State and Federal parklands and refuges already exceeds the a good deal of your east coast? I don't remember the exact figures but it is million of millions of acres of land-- already set aside. You can't even ride a bicycle through Denali National Park without a super-special impossible to obtain permit. A BICYCLE?! GIMME A BREAK! That is ridiculous.
We are not talking about devistation on a percentage of the whole here, we are talking about devistation as a single event. If you inflict any ecological damage within a small portino of alaska, the ecological damage, is still severe to that area because it can't handle the growth, regardless of how much land you don't hurt. This isn't about minimizing an average ecological damage, this is about minimizing direct ecological damage. With the case of Denali (beautiful park), this is the exact problem. Any damage done to the area is still damage, and the question of what is a reasonable expectation for the land to cope. There are limits to
Geez louise, I like hiking and having natural areas just like the next person. But you really need to charter a flight and try to see all of the natural area of Alaska before start spouting off something you don't understand.
I've chartered the plane. It was awe inspiring. But you stated one of the big problems, you like hiking and having natual areas just like the next person. The question is, what are you willing to do to protect them, and insure their survival? Probably the same as the rest of the
So go blow off, you East-coaster. Go pick hypodermic needles off your shore and hike your little bitty Apalachians and leave regional politics to those who know their region.
And I'll continue hike the Candian Rockies, the Sierras, out through Yellowstone, through the Tetons, Denali, the obligatory Apalachians, and so on. Every single park I hit, I garountee I try to make some difference. I have a vested interest in both outdoor recreation throughout the US, including in Alaska. I also have a vested intrest in maintaining an awareness of what the heck is going on up there. I just wish you did too. If you've never seen what rapid corporate expansion does to a natural habitat, its a not a pretty sight. You won't see it in TX, as they've pretty much already succumbed to the allmighty dollar. A rapid insurgence of technology into an area usually comes at a massive ecological cost. It won't be different this time.
Oh, and maybe I'll organize a beach cleaning in your name for next month.
(OT)The next time I shoot a caribou for dinner... (Score:2)
Its probably good you can't finish the caribou in one sitting, otherwise you'd never get to experience caribou jerky, or freeze it, thaw it and grind it into caribou chili (not as good as moose chili though).
As I said, I'm environmentally concious. I did not say I'm a (...ponder what I used to taunt my ex as...) a tree-hugging, whale-kissing earth-muffin with a big bowl of granola on the side.
Bandwidth more important than electricity - Bogus! (Score:2)
Is this really a media hack to tweak people about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Buch League's plans to drill it for oil and cut down all the trees to make government paperwork?
You'd have much better luck putting a hosting center on one of the First Nations reservations outside of Victoria BC. Some of them don't have treaties with the Canadian government, so there're interesting possibilities for using their sovereignty rights and tax status, and they're English-speaking and near the networks.
For that matter, you'd have much better luck putting a hosting center on some or a [havenco.com]slightly-used nuclear missile bunker in the UK [slashdot.org].
Re:Because there are many SysAdmins in Alaska.... (Score:2)
Live in the facility. Seems logical.
Re:Natural cooling (Score:1)
a. generate some electricity, not nearly enough, but enough solar panels around will help the situation a lot.
b. Reduce the amount solar energy heating the building or getting reflected back into the atmosphere by converting that photonic energy into electricity. We should be mass-producing solar panels and putting them on top of all building in sunny areas.
Natural cooling (Score:4)
Instead of building a co-lo facility where you couldn't find any skilled labor to run it, why not build one near a source of cool water instead. Then you could exchange the heat into a moving current of a large body of water. The heat you add would be negligible to the environment, and you'd save money. It could also be built near a source of skilled labor. Nuclear power plants already do this.
Some more ideas on better co-lo facilities:
a. Don't build them in hot climates.
b. If you do build them in hot climates you should have to build a large solar panel array on the top of the facility.
c. When it's cold outside, open the windows. Nothing is dumber than having the air conditioning on in the winter! If dust bothers you, suck in outside air and filter it.
d. In hot climates build them underground. Once you get a few feet down the earth's crust is actually pretty cool. Extend large heat sinks into the surrounding terrain to use the earth's natural cooling.
e. the source of the problem is the heat generated by equipment, why not design coller equipment instead? This is possible, there just is a lack of motivation to do it
Re: Has anyone considered (Score:1)
Permafrost is totally unworkable. This is why the Alaska Pipeline is raised for well over half of its length. They would have buried it if they could, it would have been much cheaper and would have posed less risk for disaster. But the existence of permafrost made this completely impossible.
I have personally seen bulldozers whose blades are bent and twisted from trying to dig down a foot or two into the frozen ground.
The other nasty problem with permafrost, aside from it being unworkable, is that if you do manage to bury something within it the heat differential between the ground and the buried object is great enough at times to cause melting. Melted permafrost causes heaves and sinkholes to form as the thawing ground expands and contracts under thermal pressure. The ingenious solution that the pipeline engineers had for this problem (since even a raised pipeline needs buried supports) was to fill the support pylons with ammonia and put radiator fins at the tops of the pylons up in the air. The ammonia circulates from the bottom of the pylons where it heats up, then through convection raises to the radiator fins where it cools and then convects downward. This prevents the permafrost from melting.
It is absolutely impossible to bury anything in the Arctic. Everything that is buried is either destroyed from the melting and refreezing process, or the ground itself can't be dug without high explosives.
As for local geothermal energy, most of the Arctic is a barren treeless plain of nothing but wet, swampy muskeg and mosquitoes, with almost no major geological activity. There are thermokarsts, pingoes, and sinkholes caused by the freeze/thaw cycle, the occasional earthquake from shifting tectonic plates, and the slow but steady upthrust of the Arctic mountain ranges. Little in the way of exploitable energy sources, except for the obvious petrochemicals.
Also, buried buildings stand a much *higher* risk from earthquakes in some areas, particularly because the surrounding earth has a tendency to collapse in on itself due to relatively low-density soil. Burying in bedrock alleviates this, of course, but increases the development expense dramatically.
As far as actually building a networked computer processing center on the Arctic Slope, the whole idea is ridiculous. There isn't enough bandwidth as it is (the whole state has perpetually suffered from connectivity shortages and transient outages since its inception), the cost of moving people into the location is not economically feasible (the only reason the Oil companies have people up there is because they have to, not because it's cheap), the projected average cost of development in that region is higher than the projected average cost of development on the Moon (the Oil companies often joke about this, that they'd rather drill for oil on the moon because it'd be cheaper with less environmental constraints), and the permitting process for development in the region can take decades.
Obviously this announcement was just a marketing ploy to make this company's stock price increase. There can't be any content involved here. Particularly because the story only made the Anchorage Daily News, not a real newspaper. It sounds to me like the article was bought and paid for, which is typical for the Daily News (who is often a mouthpiece for the local government and development companies).
Let's just go back to the ANWR debate. At least that one has some realism to it. This is just Silicon Valley hucksters selling vaporous hype.
(If you're wondering, I'm a lifelong Alaskan. I've seen this BS over and over. This is just like the Point Mackensie Tidal Power Plant Bridge, the Copper River Highway and the Million Dollar Bridge, the Wrangell Highway, the Nome to Siberia Tunnel, and the Delta Barley Project. Another giant project envisioned on a whim from someone with too much money, doomed to failure.)
Because there are many SysAdmins in Alaska.... (Score:4)
If they need lots of gas, why not locate near a gas pipeline, and for cooling, near a river or other large body of water? Nuclear power plants use rivers/lakes/ocean for cooling, why not data centers?
Never mind the fact that there seems to be only one (!!) fiber optic cable connecting them to the internet.... Let's talk about the cost of laying another cable going through another location.
Sounds like a stupid idea thought up by some marketing idiots.
-- CKM
internet systems architect - scalability - commerce
Some Doubts (Score:2)
Re:Natural cooling (Score:3)
Just one problem with the whole river scheme, environmentalists are already criticizing nuclear plants for doing this. Its called thermal pollution.
Shows what I knew. (Score:2)
I thought the days of insane dot-com concepts were over.
Silly me.
Re:Permafrost (Score:2)
Buildings that have to be on the ground, eg. Airplane Hangars, Firestations, have thermal siphons that are like radiators for the ground.
They keep the ground frozen with metal fins and ammonia.
Re:Permafrost (Score:2)
I have a fan running in my room and office because it's *over* insulated.
Email me if you want a picture, i'll send you JPG.
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:2)
The database is a real-time relational database, sort of like Oracle on good steroids.
I work on tools for the petroleum engineers and operators to optimize oil production.
Re:Big $$$ (Score:3)
The problem is going to be permitting. You can't build anything on tundra without asking all kinds of people. It's still years away.
They could however lease one of the decommissioned facilities, if they are still around. They are *enormous* to put it lightly. Hell, there are oil storage tanks here that are 50,000 bbls of oil in volume.
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:4)
We work shifts either 1 week or 2 week shifts. I'm a two weeks on, two weeks off schedule. I actually live in Philadelphia and fly up here every two weeks.
and yes, the money is good enough for me to cover travel costs, and live pretty well.
Easy to cool (Score:4)
Solid-state components prob'ly don't mind subzero temps, but the drives sure will. To pick one example, this Maxtor SCSI drive [maxtor.com] is only rated to run above 5C. Heck, NON-operating temperature is only -40C.
--
Comfort only matters if you go outdoors (Score:2)
Skeptical (Score:2)
I am skeptical about the purpose of doing this. Granted it is isolated, but if you can get people and equipment there, it is not isolated enough to discourage anyone who really wanted to get there. Isolation has its disadvantages as well, the police/fire/rescue people would have as much difficulty getting there as anyone and not to mention replacement parts. Since there is only one pipeline, it is easy to cut. Alaska is still inside the United States and is therefore still subject to U.S. law and Alaska State law. I really see no advantage to building there as opposed to some other less isolated area such as Montana where there might be a road and a small town nearby. Heck I hear Area 51 is vacant now.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
Preservation of nature vs. Human comfort? (Score:4)
North slope would be ideal... (Score:2)
I would consider working for the company if I could be assured that I would get the standard 2 week on/2 week off slope schedule. The commute is a pain, though.
#use Standard::Disclaimer;
gimmick... (Score:2)
It just doesn't add up to me.. I mean lately we've seen "lets build a data center on an island", and now "lets build a data center up in glacial cold of Alaska", what's next; "let's build a data center in the middle of the jungle (anyone who can get through all the vines would be good at cabling), or maybe "let's build a data center at the bottom of the ocean (everthing water cooled!, plus there's fat data lines, and power running down there too!"
pitfalls (Score:2)
Things like thousands of miles of data cables. Never mind that you might want to hook up not just to North America, but also to Asia and Europe. Enviromental factors in terms of the cold effect on equipment. Effects from Solar Storms (northern lights, etc)
I am not completely sold on this. Maybe something closer to the Bering Straights.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Big $$$ -- Please (Score:5)
Re:Big $$$ -- Please (Score:5)
Hogwash. The reality is that even with technologies like DWDM, you still have to have fiber that has sufficient reflective qualities along the walls of the fiber across a broader range of frequency. Yes, most fiber these days are adequate to one extent or another for DWDM, but you can't safely make that assumption when you're budgeting a project of this scale, can you? I thought not.
Futhermore, a cable like GCI's, which lays in the ocean, requires repeaters at given intervals. Each repeater is designed to operate over a specific range of frequencies, so one again, you have no guarantees that they're already prepared to do heavy DWDM. As I recall, when they laid their cable, DWDM was still in the early stages in the industry, and didn't have the acceptance levels they do today.
In short, don't think you can solve all of your problems by whipping some magic fiber-fairy out of your ass. Alaska is *not* the most well connected state on the Internet, and that *has* to be a consideration for any Alaskan-based data center.
As an additional side note, did you know that Alaska wastes an incredible amount of bandwidth to the lower 48 just to view Alaskan web sites? The lack of a peering agreement between the two biggest players, ACS & GCI, forces any subscriber on one to send all of their traffic through Seattle, WA, just to visit a site on the other. It's things like that which should illuminate the somewhat ludicrous bandwidth predicaments we find ourselves in up here.
Re:Natural cooling (Score:2)
So you're a karma whore, eh? For the right price, I'll be a karma pimp...
Re:Natural cooling (Score:2)
First with DC voltage: DC voltage (I think) can be stepped down without AC conversion. If it couldn't, then why is your computer capable of running that proc of yours at different voltages just by changing a jumper? After all, the PS for a computer only puts out 5 and 12 volt DC. Feed it 12, and step down some of that to 5.
As for the condensation: You only let in enough air to keep the temperature for the room at say 70.
So you're a karma whore, eh? For the right price, I'll be a karma pimp...
Re:"Two good targets..."? (Score:2)
Re:Easy to cool (Score:2)
Re:pitfalls (Score:2)
Tell the SA's they are in training for MARS (Score:4)
But, you get full internet connectivity, and you can be put on the waiting list for a trip to Mars.
The next time I shoot a caribou for dinner... (Score:2)
I love caribou, but I've never been able to finish a whole one at one sitting.
Believe me, there is plenty of already less-than-pristine area to but a data center and its attendant folks on, even up on the slope. Too bad the oil company tore down the annex, would have made a good place for the workers building this thing, and the food was better than the BOC.
one small suggestion (Score:2)
Re:Big $$$ -- Please (Score:5)
I think I am going to live my life by that axiom.
--
why now? (Score:2)
---
Re:Tell the SA's they are in training for MARS (Score:2)
Mmmmm. Slow packets.
---
Re:Big $$$ -- Please (Score:2)
However, I've never seen any large server project so exposed to a single point of failure -- when frost heaves or sabotage break that fiber, it might take a week to get it back online.
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:2)
Re:Permafrost (Score:2)
Re:Permafrost (Score:2)
talk about a pipe dream... (Score:2)
Easy to Warm (Score:2)
Alternatively, you could set the place up to cool the solid state components separately from the drives.
cryptochrome
Re:What about the sysadmin? (Score:2)
There's a rumour going roung that there's a couple of places selling stuff over the internet now. Also in return for your credit card number, apparently some nice foreign ladies will give you phone sex, but over the internet! Imagine that! ;)
Stupid Idea (Score:2)
Easy to heat (numbers) (Score:3)
Cooling is going to be the problem, even on the North Slope. It would be smart to run a pipe out into the Arctic ocean and bring in cold seawater for cooling purposes; a secondary glycol loop running to chiller plates in the servers would make for a relatively cheap and reliable cooling system for the summers. For winter, just circulate the glycol through pipes on the roof or dry cooling towers.
--
Having 50 karma is an itchy feeling; I know I'll get
Has anyone considered (Score:2)
It may be that this is already quite widespread, but that's not the case from my experience in the field (== substantial). Let's stop to think about this for a second.
"Going down, instead of out" preserves land space and offers several additional benefits:
Of course, this doesn't help the environment out much on the pollution scene, unless of course you happen to utilize local geothermal energy. This frequently has the side effect of putting you at high risk for tremors, however...
Any thoughts?
Re:Better to put it in Edmonton (Score:2)
I can see it now... (Score:5)