That has to be the whitest building I've ever seen.
It's likely painted white to reflect sunlight so the sun doesn't heat the building so much. Something tells me that they won't need additional heating.
For the power that place needs they need small transmission lines - not services. These larger power lines are never buried underground for safety reasons. Now I might believe a tunnel from a local switching station but the cost would be prohibitive.
In areas like mine they have mixed underground and overhead. The underground is for service lines and the transmission/distribution system is always overhead. It is funny to see but sometimes a brand new subdivision will be built advertising underground electric etc but you still see overhead at the perimeter to distribute the power.
It would be nice if possible but I have yet to see a solution that is prevalent (or generally cost effective - which has little to do with this since we are talking aesthetics at any cost here.)
SIZE. 500,000 square feet is huge for a data center. Most data centers have standardized on ultra-high-density blade servers; even though Apple doesn't build their own blade product, they can fit 42 of their 1U Xserves in a single data center rack that takes up less than a square meter. Huge multi-national corporations can run all their data center operations out of facilities as small as 2,000 square feet. Even with "modules" for SAN storage, robotic backup silos, power backup units, staging labs and workspaces for people it's really unlikely Apple would run out of space in a 500,000 sf facility anytime soon, especially considering that server footprints are shrinking.
PARKING LOT/EXPANSION AREA. I believe this is simply the construction parking and staging area, which is now likely being lightly terraformed with plantings, etc. to lessen the environmental impact. This is not a long-term parking lot; data centers like this typically would be staffed with fewer than 30 employees per shift. Even adding some "burst" parking capacity for emergencies, special projects, etc. it's unlikely they would ever need more parking than what currently surrounds the facility. This isn't a Wal-Mart, it's a data center.
TANKS. I believe those silos out back are the diesel tanks for the backup generators. They are large, but realize that high computing density requires high power density. Apple's Xserves, if I recall correctly, could theoretically eat up 168 amps per rack @240V at 100% density. It would take some monstrous generator capacity to power a 500,000 sf data center of these machines. Data centers typically have enough diesel on-hand to power the entire facility for 3-5 days (I worked in one that had two weeks of capacity), with contracts to provide continuous refueling to keep it running indefinitely. Why two? Redundancy-- everything in a DC is redundant. Power typically comes from two different substations into two different locations on the building, Internet connectivity normally comes from two different carriers (at least) into two ingress points on the building, etc. AC units, power backup units, etc. all include hot spares to take over and maintain capacity in the event of a multi-unit failure. Serious enterprise-class data centers are built to withstand terrorist attacks.
POWER LINES. They're underground; you wouldn't want to give a guy with a stick of dynamite the ability to take down an above-ground power line and blackout your data center. It's not for aesthetics, it's for reliability.
ROOF: This is a cool roof. It's all-white to minimize thermal load on a data center that probably needs to be cooled to 60 degrees despite tens of thousands of running servers. Yes, adding solar would have been cool but it's not practical. Remember that the sun probably puts out about 600 watts per square meter on a clear day (that's a guess for this latitude). The best solar cells are only about 20% efficient now, so (rough estimate) you'd need about 3 square meters to offset the average wattage of just one of the 42 x-serves in a single rack. And that's assuming 100% sun load (no clouds). Also, data centers try to be as anonymous as possible so you'll likely not see any logos or signs. Most people work next to data centers for years without even realizing what they are.
Seriously, all someone needs to do is check the permits with the municipality to find out what's really going on. As a rumor, this is interesting to debate but as a news story, it lacks any reasonable investigation.
UPDATE: MacRumors has a photo from the county that shows two buildings. An assumption is made that since the size was always pegged at 500,000 sf, it may be that the first building we see now is 250,000 sf and that the construction parking/staging area I referenced above could actually be for the second half of the 500,000 sf building.
Underground, like the majority of power lines in most modern cities.
Thompson
Those are in tunnels though - not simply buried cable and you would be able to see some evidence of them - especially while being built. It would have attracted a large amount of attention - especially where they junction vaults were built at each end.
...These larger power lines are never buried underground for safety reasons....
...It is funny to see but sometimes a brand new subdivision will be built advertising underground electric etc but you still see overhead at the perimeter to distribute the power...
I'm not believing your assertions of "never" here. I see numerous counterexamples in the greater metropolitan Phoenix area.
Those are in tunnels though - not simply buried cable and you would be able to see some evidence of them - especially while being built. It would have attracted a large amount of attention - especially where they junction vaults were built at each end.
Do I understand you correctly? Is the following your argument?
(1) If there were underground power lines at the facility, then there would have to be tunnels.
(2) If there were tunnels, then there would have been a large amount of attention, or at least obvious evidence.
(3) There was no such attention or evidence.
(4) Therefore, there are no underground power lines at the facility.
If that is indeed your argument, then I think it fails somewhere around step number two. Step three is also flawed. Perhaps if we were to have better pictures or (better yet) if we could visit the site, we might see evidence galore.
Also, data centers try to be as anonymous as possible so you'll likely not see any logos or signs. Most people work next to data centers for years without even realizing what they are.
Well, this particular data center has been all over the news because of the sweetheart deal made in order for Apple to choose the site. Any notion of anonymity is completely out the window from the get-go.
The lack of a logo on top of the building is probably more a function of the fact that there is no reason to put one there, and it could actually harm the function of the roof (which you pointed out).
SIZE. 500,000 square feet is huge for a data center. Most data centers have standardized on ultra-high-density blade servers; even though Apple doesn't build their own blade product, they can fit 42 of their 1U Xserves in a single data center rack that takes up less than a square meter. Huge multi-national corporations can run all their data center operations out of facilities as small as 2,000 square feet. Even with "modules" for SAN storage, robotic backup silos, power backup units, staging labs and workspaces for people it's really unlikely Apple would run out of space in a 500,000 sf facility anytime soon, especially considering that server footprints are shrinking.
PARKING LOT/EXPANSION AREA. I believe this is simply the construction parking and staging area, which is now likely being lightly terraformed with plantings, etc. to lessen the environmental impact. This is not a long-term parking lot; data centers like this typically would be staffed with fewer than 30 employees per shift. Even adding some "burst" parking capacity for emergencies, special projects, etc. it's unlikely they would ever need more parking than what currently surrounds the facility. This isn't a Wal-Mart, it's a data center.
TANKS. I believe those silos out back are the diesel tanks for the backup generators. They are large, but realize that high computing density requires high power density. Apple's Xserves, if I recall correctly, could theoretically eat up 168 amps per rack @240V at 100% density. It would take some monstrous generator capacity to power a 500,000 sf data center of these machines. Data centers typically have enough diesel on-hand to power the entire facility for 3-5 days (I worked in one that had two weeks of capacity), with contracts to provide continuous refueling to keep it running indefinitely. Why two? Redundancy-- everything in a DC is redundant. Power typically comes from two different substations into two different locations on the building, Internet connectivity normally comes from two different carriers (at least) into two ingress points on the building, etc. AC units, power backup units, etc. all include hot spares to take over and maintain capacity in the event of a multi-unit failure. Serious enterprise-class data centers are built to withstand terrorist attacks.
POWER LINES. They're underground; you wouldn't want to give a guy with a stick of dynamite the ability to take down an above-ground power line and blackout your data center. It's not for aesthetics, it's for reliability.
ROOF: This is a cool roof. It's all-white to minimize thermal load on a data center that probably needs to be cooled to 60 degrees despite tens of thousands of running servers. Yes, adding solar would have been cool but it's not practical. Remember that the sun probably puts out about 600 watts per square meter on a clear day (that's a guess for this latitude). The best solar cells are only about 20% efficient now, so (rough estimate) you'd need about 3 square meters to offset the average wattage of just one of the 42 x-serves in a single rack. And that's assuming 100% sun load (no clouds). Also, data centers try to be as anonymous as possible so you'll likely not see any logos or signs. Most people work next to data centers for years without even realizing what they are.
Seriously, all someone needs to do is check the permits with the municipality to find out what's really going on. As a rumor, this is interesting to debate but as a news story, it lacks any reasonable investigation.
UPDATE: MacRumors has a photo from the county that shows two buildings. An assumption is made that since the size was always pegged at 500,000 sf, it may be that the first building we see now is 250,000 sf and that the construction parking/staging area I referenced above could actually be for the second half of the 500,000 sf building.
I just posted this over there. The first build is actually 646,802 according to the assessment information for the parcel.
So they will have over 1,000,000 square feet when they build that second building. I'm sure that was just the master plan as fully developed. They generally figure out what they are doing with the site before they start building on it.
New home of the App Store? With the Mac App Store coming within 90 days, this new data centre is approaching ready.
It makes sense for Apple to have their app stores in a data center they control. They know what their future plans are and can add/upgrade the hardware before they add/update any services.
Wouldn't checking local county building permits lay the expansion speculation to rest?
Lord knows building anything, including an outhouse, requires signatures and paperwork. For a data centre expansion? Umm, I'm guessing, yes.
It would. With all the wild guessing going on, I'm surprised that nobody has bothered to check with the local permitting authorities. It's cheaper and more accurate than flying a helicopter over the site and guessing, though not as much fun.
Also FWIW, parking requirements are generally figured on a per square foot basis. Typical industrial parking requirements are in the range one space to 500-1000 square feet, so Apple may have to reserve area for 500-1000 parking spaces, even if the number of employees is much less.
gee why not go ask the construction workers on the site do you really think Apple has control over what they say and do, hell go to the local bar they all hang out after work and you will find out exactly what they are prepping the land for whether it a parking lot or another building.
Do you really this is as much of a secret as a new product....
It would. With all the wild guessing going on, I'm surprised that nobody has bothered to check with the local permitting authorities. It's cheaper and more accurate than flying a helicopter over the site and guessing, though not as much fun.
Also FWIW, parking requirements are generally figured on a per square foot basis. Typical industrial parking requirements are in the range one space to 500-1000 square feet, so Apple may have to reserve area for 500-1000 parking spaces, even if the number of employees is much less.
Ack! That would be pretty disgusting if the zoning ordinance required Apple to build 500-1000 parking spaces for a facility that's going to employ only 300 people. It would make sense if it was a shopping mall or sports arena?they have to have enough parking spaces to accommodate employees and customers. The data center presumably is not going to be hosting hundreds of customers on a daily basis, so I really hope they're not forced to waste space for that sort of thing.
I think that this data center is for all the mac apps that will be coming out in the next few months. They need a place to store all the crap and this could be the place. They must be expecting a ton of apps so that's why they are doing this. This is my guess.
Why don't they just store in the "cloud" like everyone else? Why to they have to have a big, white building?
"Call it the Foothills Data Center Corridor. Maybe the Hwy 321 Data Center Corridor. Or perhaps the Apple-Google Corridor. Whatever nickname eventually sticks, the region north of Charlotte stretching to the base of the Blue Ridge Mountains is evolving from its traditional textile-furniture manufacturing roots. The emerging data center cluster got its northern anchor with the opening of a $600-million Google server farm in Lenoir in 2008. Now, another iconic name, Apple, is rapidly moving toward construction of a data center in Maiden, about 30 miles (48 km.) south....
"...Apple has hired Holder Construction as general contractor for the project and the company's Charlotte office will be in charge, he says. Holder is a specialist in data center construction...
"...The Catawba County Economic Development Corp. booted up its data center recruiting effort in 2006 as a follow-up to inquiries by Duke Energy and the Charlotte Regional Partnership regarding data center potential... The site had the infrastructure data centers require, such as plentiful power and water and fiber-optic connectivity...
"... "When we took on our first site, we presented it to a number of companies, one of which was Apple, and through those discussions, we acted to bring Apple to North Carolina." Marin says. "We were involved early on as a consultant to show them the pros and cons as to why to choose North Carolina over another location. Apple saw the same things we saw. They like the low cost of power, of which almost 50 percent comes from nuclear. They like the favorable business climate and, ultimately, the favorable incentives. A North Carolina location allows them to serve the East Coast and ultimately go international."
Comments
That has to be the whitest building I've ever seen.
It's likely painted white to reflect sunlight so the sun doesn't heat the building so much. Something tells me that they won't need additional heating.
Does anyone have a clue where are the power lines!?
Such a remote building, that needs so much power and no power lines visible!!?
The fusion reactors in the secret sub-basement of course.
The power lines are probably buried.
For the power that place needs they need small transmission lines - not services. These larger power lines are never buried underground for safety reasons. Now I might believe a tunnel from a local switching station but the cost would be prohibitive.
In areas like mine they have mixed underground and overhead. The underground is for service lines and the transmission/distribution system is always overhead. It is funny to see but sometimes a brand new subdivision will be built advertising underground electric etc but you still see overhead at the perimeter to distribute the power.
It would be nice if possible but I have yet to see a solution that is prevalent (or generally cost effective - which has little to do with this since we are talking aesthetics at any cost here.)
SIZE. 500,000 square feet is huge for a data center. Most data centers have standardized on ultra-high-density blade servers; even though Apple doesn't build their own blade product, they can fit 42 of their 1U Xserves in a single data center rack that takes up less than a square meter. Huge multi-national corporations can run all their data center operations out of facilities as small as 2,000 square feet. Even with "modules" for SAN storage, robotic backup silos, power backup units, staging labs and workspaces for people it's really unlikely Apple would run out of space in a 500,000 sf facility anytime soon, especially considering that server footprints are shrinking.
PARKING LOT/EXPANSION AREA. I believe this is simply the construction parking and staging area, which is now likely being lightly terraformed with plantings, etc. to lessen the environmental impact. This is not a long-term parking lot; data centers like this typically would be staffed with fewer than 30 employees per shift. Even adding some "burst" parking capacity for emergencies, special projects, etc. it's unlikely they would ever need more parking than what currently surrounds the facility. This isn't a Wal-Mart, it's a data center.
TANKS. I believe those silos out back are the diesel tanks for the backup generators. They are large, but realize that high computing density requires high power density. Apple's Xserves, if I recall correctly, could theoretically eat up 168 amps per rack @240V at 100% density. It would take some monstrous generator capacity to power a 500,000 sf data center of these machines. Data centers typically have enough diesel on-hand to power the entire facility for 3-5 days (I worked in one that had two weeks of capacity), with contracts to provide continuous refueling to keep it running indefinitely. Why two? Redundancy-- everything in a DC is redundant. Power typically comes from two different substations into two different locations on the building, Internet connectivity normally comes from two different carriers (at least) into two ingress points on the building, etc. AC units, power backup units, etc. all include hot spares to take over and maintain capacity in the event of a multi-unit failure. Serious enterprise-class data centers are built to withstand terrorist attacks.
POWER LINES. They're underground; you wouldn't want to give a guy with a stick of dynamite the ability to take down an above-ground power line and blackout your data center. It's not for aesthetics, it's for reliability.
ROOF: This is a cool roof. It's all-white to minimize thermal load on a data center that probably needs to be cooled to 60 degrees despite tens of thousands of running servers. Yes, adding solar would have been cool but it's not practical. Remember that the sun probably puts out about 600 watts per square meter on a clear day (that's a guess for this latitude). The best solar cells are only about 20% efficient now, so (rough estimate) you'd need about 3 square meters to offset the average wattage of just one of the 42 x-serves in a single rack. And that's assuming 100% sun load (no clouds). Also, data centers try to be as anonymous as possible so you'll likely not see any logos or signs. Most people work next to data centers for years without even realizing what they are.
Seriously, all someone needs to do is check the permits with the municipality to find out what's really going on. As a rumor, this is interesting to debate but as a news story, it lacks any reasonable investigation.
UPDATE: MacRumors has a photo from the county that shows two buildings. An assumption is made that since the size was always pegged at 500,000 sf, it may be that the first building we see now is 250,000 sf and that the construction parking/staging area I referenced above could actually be for the second half of the 500,000 sf building.
Underground, like the majority of power lines in most modern cities.
Thompson
Those are in tunnels though - not simply buried cable and you would be able to see some evidence of them - especially while being built. It would have attracted a large amount of attention - especially where they junction vaults were built at each end.
...These larger power lines are never buried underground for safety reasons....
...It is funny to see but sometimes a brand new subdivision will be built advertising underground electric etc but you still see overhead at the perimeter to distribute the power...
I'm not believing your assertions of "never" here. I see numerous counterexamples in the greater metropolitan Phoenix area.
Thompson
My long shot bet would be bunches of A4's on blades with Flash storage.
Those are in tunnels though - not simply buried cable and you would be able to see some evidence of them - especially while being built. It would have attracted a large amount of attention - especially where they junction vaults were built at each end.
Do I understand you correctly? Is the following your argument?
(1) If there were underground power lines at the facility, then there would have to be tunnels.
(2) If there were tunnels, then there would have been a large amount of attention, or at least obvious evidence.
(3) There was no such attention or evidence.
(4) Therefore, there are no underground power lines at the facility.
If that is indeed your argument, then I think it fails somewhere around step number two. Step three is also flawed. Perhaps if we were to have better pictures or (better yet) if we could visit the site, we might see evidence galore.
Thompson
Also, data centers try to be as anonymous as possible so you'll likely not see any logos or signs. Most people work next to data centers for years without even realizing what they are.
Well, this particular data center has been all over the news because of the sweetheart deal made in order for Apple to choose the site. Any notion of anonymity is completely out the window from the get-go.
The lack of a logo on top of the building is probably more a function of the fact that there is no reason to put one there, and it could actually harm the function of the roof (which you pointed out).
Thompson
I was assuming the data center would be machined out of a solid block of aluminum.
My thoughts...
SIZE. 500,000 square feet is huge for a data center. Most data centers have standardized on ultra-high-density blade servers; even though Apple doesn't build their own blade product, they can fit 42 of their 1U Xserves in a single data center rack that takes up less than a square meter. Huge multi-national corporations can run all their data center operations out of facilities as small as 2,000 square feet. Even with "modules" for SAN storage, robotic backup silos, power backup units, staging labs and workspaces for people it's really unlikely Apple would run out of space in a 500,000 sf facility anytime soon, especially considering that server footprints are shrinking.
PARKING LOT/EXPANSION AREA. I believe this is simply the construction parking and staging area, which is now likely being lightly terraformed with plantings, etc. to lessen the environmental impact. This is not a long-term parking lot; data centers like this typically would be staffed with fewer than 30 employees per shift. Even adding some "burst" parking capacity for emergencies, special projects, etc. it's unlikely they would ever need more parking than what currently surrounds the facility. This isn't a Wal-Mart, it's a data center.
TANKS. I believe those silos out back are the diesel tanks for the backup generators. They are large, but realize that high computing density requires high power density. Apple's Xserves, if I recall correctly, could theoretically eat up 168 amps per rack @240V at 100% density. It would take some monstrous generator capacity to power a 500,000 sf data center of these machines. Data centers typically have enough diesel on-hand to power the entire facility for 3-5 days (I worked in one that had two weeks of capacity), with contracts to provide continuous refueling to keep it running indefinitely. Why two? Redundancy-- everything in a DC is redundant. Power typically comes from two different substations into two different locations on the building, Internet connectivity normally comes from two different carriers (at least) into two ingress points on the building, etc. AC units, power backup units, etc. all include hot spares to take over and maintain capacity in the event of a multi-unit failure. Serious enterprise-class data centers are built to withstand terrorist attacks.
POWER LINES. They're underground; you wouldn't want to give a guy with a stick of dynamite the ability to take down an above-ground power line and blackout your data center. It's not for aesthetics, it's for reliability.
ROOF: This is a cool roof. It's all-white to minimize thermal load on a data center that probably needs to be cooled to 60 degrees despite tens of thousands of running servers. Yes, adding solar would have been cool but it's not practical. Remember that the sun probably puts out about 600 watts per square meter on a clear day (that's a guess for this latitude). The best solar cells are only about 20% efficient now, so (rough estimate) you'd need about 3 square meters to offset the average wattage of just one of the 42 x-serves in a single rack. And that's assuming 100% sun load (no clouds). Also, data centers try to be as anonymous as possible so you'll likely not see any logos or signs. Most people work next to data centers for years without even realizing what they are.
Seriously, all someone needs to do is check the permits with the municipality to find out what's really going on. As a rumor, this is interesting to debate but as a news story, it lacks any reasonable investigation.
UPDATE: MacRumors has a photo from the county that shows two buildings. An assumption is made that since the size was always pegged at 500,000 sf, it may be that the first building we see now is 250,000 sf and that the construction parking/staging area I referenced above could actually be for the second half of the 500,000 sf building.
I just posted this over there. The first build is actually 646,802 according to the assessment information for the parcel.
So they will have over 1,000,000 square feet when they build that second building. I'm sure that was just the master plan as fully developed. They generally figure out what they are doing with the site before they start building on it.
New home of the App Store? With the Mac App Store coming within 90 days, this new data centre is approaching ready.
It makes sense for Apple to have their app stores in a data center they control. They know what their future plans are and can add/upgrade the hardware before they add/update any services.
I was assuming the data center would be machined out of a solid block of aluminum.
I just laughed outloud in a quiet room had a dozen starring at me, probably wondetmring if I had a jovial form of Tourette Syndrome.
Wouldn't checking local county building permits lay the expansion speculation to rest?
Lord knows building anything, including an outhouse, requires signatures and paperwork. For a data centre expansion? Umm, I'm guessing, yes.
It would. With all the wild guessing going on, I'm surprised that nobody has bothered to check with the local permitting authorities. It's cheaper and more accurate than flying a helicopter over the site and guessing, though not as much fun.
Also FWIW, parking requirements are generally figured on a per square foot basis. Typical industrial parking requirements are in the range one space to 500-1000 square feet, so Apple may have to reserve area for 500-1000 parking spaces, even if the number of employees is much less.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you ED209
"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Do you really this is as much of a secret as a new product....
It would. With all the wild guessing going on, I'm surprised that nobody has bothered to check with the local permitting authorities. It's cheaper and more accurate than flying a helicopter over the site and guessing, though not as much fun.
Also FWIW, parking requirements are generally figured on a per square foot basis. Typical industrial parking requirements are in the range one space to 500-1000 square feet, so Apple may have to reserve area for 500-1000 parking spaces, even if the number of employees is much less.
Ack! That would be pretty disgusting if the zoning ordinance required Apple to build 500-1000 parking spaces for a facility that's going to employ only 300 people. It would make sense if it was a shopping mall or sports arena?they have to have enough parking spaces to accommodate employees and customers. The data center presumably is not going to be hosting hundreds of customers on a daily basis, so I really hope they're not forced to waste space for that sort of thing.
I think that this data center is for all the mac apps that will be coming out in the next few months. They need a place to store all the crap and this could be the place. They must be expecting a ton of apps so that's why they are doing this. This is my guess.
Why don't they just store in the "cloud" like everyone else? Why to they have to have a big, white building?
Best
http://www.siteselection.com/feature...orth-Carolina/
"Call it the Foothills Data Center Corridor. Maybe the Hwy 321 Data Center Corridor. Or perhaps the Apple-Google Corridor. Whatever nickname eventually sticks, the region north of Charlotte stretching to the base of the Blue Ridge Mountains is evolving from its traditional textile-furniture manufacturing roots. The emerging data center cluster got its northern anchor with the opening of a $600-million Google server farm in Lenoir in 2008. Now, another iconic name, Apple, is rapidly moving toward construction of a data center in Maiden, about 30 miles (48 km.) south....
"...Apple has hired Holder Construction as general contractor for the project and the company's Charlotte office will be in charge, he says. Holder is a specialist in data center construction...
"...The Catawba County Economic Development Corp. booted up its data center recruiting effort in 2006 as a follow-up to inquiries by Duke Energy and the Charlotte Regional Partnership regarding data center potential... The site had the infrastructure data centers require, such as plentiful power and water and fiber-optic connectivity...
"... "When we took on our first site, we presented it to a number of companies, one of which was Apple, and through those discussions, we acted to bring Apple to North Carolina." Marin says. "We were involved early on as a consultant to show them the pros and cons as to why to choose North Carolina over another location. Apple saw the same things we saw. They like the low cost of power, of which almost 50 percent comes from nuclear. They like the favorable business climate and, ultimately, the favorable incentives. A North Carolina location allows them to serve the East Coast and ultimately go international."