Why do you think Apple is putting up data centers in various parts of the country
Data centers are more efficient in rural areas because land is cheaper. They need lots of land for the solar arrays. Ideally you need to be near enough to a medium sized city for access to qualified employees and fuel for back up generators and close enough to Interstate highways as that is where the fiber conduits run. Dispersing your data centers in different regions provides better redundancy in case of a regional network outage. I would not be surprised if the Oregon data center and the Nevada data center are mirrored backups for one another. For that same reason I expect Apple to build another east coast data center to back up North Carolina.
Data centers are more efficient in rural areas because land is cheaper. They need lots of land for the solar arrays. Ideally you need to be near enough to a medium sized city for access to qualified employees and fuel for back up generators and close enough to Interstate highways as that is where the fiber paths run. Dispersing your data centers in different regions provides better redundancy in case of a regional network outage.
I already know all of this information, you aren't telling me anything I don't already know about. But I was just wondering if anyone has looked into sticking them under ground because the ambient temperature is lower, it's well insulated. plus they would free up land to put the solar arrays on TOP of the Data Center. It's just an idea for a potential idea for a Data Center. Look at the land they are occupying for both the solar array and the data center. Imagine if they occupied the same area but the Data Center could be double the size as well as the Solar Array. OR they could occupy less land to accomplish the same thing. Sure it would be expensive excavate, but they might have some overall cost benefits.
Maybe they could design a ROUND muliti story data center and build a UNIFIED GEOTHERMAL CORE similar to the Mac Pro, but underground. They just have to get air pumped in underneath on the bottom floor with some massive fan on top which could double as a power source. /s
I saw that on the evening news, What bunch of horse***t. An iPhone comes with a 5W charger. Even if you were using up the iPhone battery as fast as it could recharge it would take 200 hours to use 1 KW hour. So an iPhone is supposed to use 361 KW hours per year? Impossible. They are supposedly calculating the network, wifi, etc in their estimate but I think it is not possible to accurately assess that usage because the networks are used for so many other devices and many people like me barely use any data on their cell phone.
They might as well add in the electricity used to manufacture the device which is probably more than the amount of electricity that the iPhone itself uses in 3 years.
Just for kicks I did a calculation that a Tesla uses about 2,000 KW hours per year (based on 15,000 miles). Oh, I forgot to add in the amount of energy required for street lights, traffic signals, pot hole repair, policing, line striping and street cleaning.
Well, the evening news is probably full of HORSE***T on most things. That's why I don't watch the evening news.
I already know all of this information, you aren't telling me anything I don't already know about. But I was just wondering if anyone has looked into sticking them under ground because the ambient temperature is lower, it's well insulated. plus they would free up land to put the solar arrays on TOP of the Data Center. It's just an idea for a potential idea for a Data Center. Look at the land they are occupying for both the solar array and the data center. Imagine if they occupied the same area but the Data Center could be double the size as well as the Solar Array. OR they could occupy less land to accomplish the same thing. Sure it would be expensive excavate, but they might have some overall cost benefits.
Unlikely. All the heat that is being generated is from the servers not the sun. The roof is already reflective and the insulated. Plus, during winter in Nevada you can use free air to cool the servers. You would have to excavate down to 20-30m before accessing cooler soil temperatures in 12° C range which ironically is also the average air temperature for Reno. If you are just trying to save space you could design a building with solar arrays on the roof however generally speaking you need much more area for the solar panels than the data center they can power.
Unlikely. All the heat that is being generated is from the servers not the sun. The roof is already reflective and the insulated. Plus, during winter in Nevada you can use free air to cool the servers. You would have to excavate down to 20-30m before accessing cooler soil temperatures in 12° C range which ironically is also the average air temperature for Reno. If you are just trying to save space you could design a building with solar arrays on the roof however generally speaking you need much more area for the solar panels than the data center they can power.
that's in Reno, but that's not the same in all of the other locations. Yeah, I know they should consider putting solar arrays on top of the building as much as possible. I don't know why they don't do that.
that's in Reno, but that's not the same in all of the other locations. Yeah, I know they should consider putting solar arrays on top of the building as much as possible. I don't know why they don't do that.
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
For those that don't know. Iron Mountain was sold to Automony, which was sold to HP. So, I"m sure it's a big HP shop. Yeah, when you run out of customers, buy them, then they won't switch.
Looks like a unique situation since they built it inside of a former limestone mine. The idea was probably for physical security from attack since they have a lot of government customers. It is unlikely built in the mine to save on cooling costs or to allow for solar arrays on top.
Looks like a unique situation since they built it inside of a former limestone mine. The idea was probably for physical security from attack since they have a lot of government customers. It is unlikely built in the mine to save on cooling costs or to allow for solar arrays on top.
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
There is also a large ISP in Sweden that's built one underground..
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
There is also a large ISP in Sweden that's built one underground..
Please stop. Again they did not excavate it they repurposed a former nuclear bunker for security reasons not for cooling or solar panel purposes. Apple is not spending any unnecessary money to build theirs underground. Look at the construction materials they are using, sheet metal walls, etc. These are not even class A concrete buildings. Clearly they are not spending big bucks on the building structure.
I saw that on the evening news, What bunch of horse***t. An iPhone comes with a 5W charger. Even if you were using up the iPhone battery as fast as it could recharge it would take 200 hours to use 1 KW hour. So an iPhone is supposed to use 361 KW hours per year? Impossible. They are supposedly calculating the network, wifi, etc in their estimate but I think it is not possible to accurately assess that usage because the networks are used for so many other devices and many people like me barely use any data on their cell phone.
They might as well add in the electricity used to manufacture the device which is probably more than the amount of electricity that the iPhone itself uses in 3 years.
Just for kicks I did a calculation that a Tesla uses about 2,000 KW hours per year (based on 15,000 miles). Oh, I forgot to add in the amount of energy required for street lights, traffic signals, pot hole repair, policing, line striping and street cleaning.
It is possible to give an estimate following DPG logic. But I think their estimate is orders of magnitude too large. Here is my estimate. Say you have an AT&T 3GB plan. Each month you use 3GB of cellular data. How much time does various servers take to deliver the 3GB to your iPhone? The speed of the LTE varies. 25 25Mb/s is reasonable. 3GB will take 960 seconds or 16 minutes. How much power does a computer use in 16 minutes? Of course the 3GB may require the work of several computers to complete. Let's say four computers. So each month your 3GB requires one computer to run one hour. This energy is actually quite small than what DPG estimated.
So each month your 3GB requires one computer to run one hour.
The computer is running 24/7 anyway. By your logic each server can only service 720 iPhones a month?
I have over 3000 simultaneous connections on a 1U linux server often pushing several hundred GBs per day.
I don't know how you can calculate all the power being used by servers, routers, switches, wifi access points...but only for iPhones, all other devices excluded.
The computer is running 24/7 anyway. By your logic each server can only service 720 iPhones a month?
I have over 3000 simultaneous connections on a 1U linux server often pushing several hundred GBs per day.
I don't know how you can calculate all the power being used by servers, routers, switches, wifi access points...but only for iPhones, all other devices excluded.
No way.
My estimate is a high estimate. My point is even with my estimate, the iPhone can not use the same power as a refrigerator. My estimate provide a workable way to calculate the power usage of an iPhone.
Please stop. Again they did not excavate it they repurposed a former nuclear bunker for security reasons not for cooling or solar panel purposes. Apple is not spending any unnecessary money to build theirs underground. Look at the construction materials they are using, sheet metal walls, etc. These are not even class A concrete buildings. Clearly they are not spending big bucks on the building structure.
Exactly. It costs a lot of money to put things underground. And as for cooling, the ground itself is not enough to cool the servers. They would need to extend cooling pipes are out into the surrounding area in order to dissipate the heat. A server farm generates several orders of magnitude of heat for a given area than other structures would and can't simply rely on passive cooling (like the surrounding ground).
For a single company, Apple has almost unlimited wealth. Apple could spend enough money on server farms more than many companies are worth. Netflix relies on Amazon's servers. Apple wouldn't have to rely on anyone's servers if they wanted it to be so. Apple could build a half-dozen server farms in Europe with the overseas cash hoard and the cost would barely scratch the surface. How can a company that can do so much more to strengthen its infrastructure than nearly any other tech company around be doomed?
Wall Street says Amazon's AWS cloud service is quite profitable for Amazon, even more so than their Kindle franchise. Why doesn't Apple just take a bundle of reserve cash and blow the doors off Amazon's cloud services? It seems to me Apple is just walking away from a buffet, leaving full trays of food on the table for rival companies to feast on.
If Lake Tahoe overflows, goodbye to Apple's Reno data center. Just kidding. There are a couple of rivers near Reno, but the yearly precipitation is next to zero.
Will you just your pie hole for once. It's getting old.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I don't see any river near by.
Perhaps you should look again
Originally Posted by drblank
Why do you think Apple is putting up data centers in various parts of the country
Data centers are more efficient in rural areas because land is cheaper. They need lots of land for the solar arrays. Ideally you need to be near enough to a medium sized city for access to qualified employees and fuel for back up generators and close enough to Interstate highways as that is where the fiber conduits run. Dispersing your data centers in different regions provides better redundancy in case of a regional network outage. I would not be surprised if the Oregon data center and the Nevada data center are mirrored backups for one another. For that same reason I expect Apple to build another east coast data center to back up North Carolina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Data centers are more efficient in rural areas because land is cheaper. They need lots of land for the solar arrays. Ideally you need to be near enough to a medium sized city for access to qualified employees and fuel for back up generators and close enough to Interstate highways as that is where the fiber paths run. Dispersing your data centers in different regions provides better redundancy in case of a regional network outage.
I already know all of this information, you aren't telling me anything I don't already know about. But I was just wondering if anyone has looked into sticking them under ground because the ambient temperature is lower, it's well insulated. plus they would free up land to put the solar arrays on TOP of the Data Center. It's just an idea for a potential idea for a Data Center. Look at the land they are occupying for both the solar array and the data center. Imagine if they occupied the same area but the Data Center could be double the size as well as the Solar Array. OR they could occupy less land to accomplish the same thing. Sure it would be expensive excavate, but they might have some overall cost benefits.
Maybe they could design a ROUND muliti story data center and build a UNIFIED GEOTHERMAL CORE similar to the Mac Pro, but underground. They just have to get air pumped in underneath on the bottom floor with some massive fan on top which could double as a power source. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I saw that on the evening news, What bunch of horse***t. An iPhone comes with a 5W charger. Even if you were using up the iPhone battery as fast as it could recharge it would take 200 hours to use 1 KW hour. So an iPhone is supposed to use 361 KW hours per year? Impossible. They are supposedly calculating the network, wifi, etc in their estimate but I think it is not possible to accurately assess that usage because the networks are used for so many other devices and many people like me barely use any data on their cell phone.
They might as well add in the electricity used to manufacture the device which is probably more than the amount of electricity that the iPhone itself uses in 3 years.
Just for kicks I did a calculation that a Tesla uses about 2,000 KW hours per year (based on 15,000 miles). Oh, I forgot to add in the amount of energy required for street lights, traffic signals, pot hole repair, policing, line striping and street cleaning.
Well, the evening news is probably full of HORSE***T on most things. That's why I don't watch the evening news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I already know all of this information, you aren't telling me anything I don't already know about. But I was just wondering if anyone has looked into sticking them under ground because the ambient temperature is lower, it's well insulated. plus they would free up land to put the solar arrays on TOP of the Data Center. It's just an idea for a potential idea for a Data Center. Look at the land they are occupying for both the solar array and the data center. Imagine if they occupied the same area but the Data Center could be double the size as well as the Solar Array. OR they could occupy less land to accomplish the same thing. Sure it would be expensive excavate, but they might have some overall cost benefits.
Unlikely. All the heat that is being generated is from the servers not the sun. The roof is already reflective and the insulated. Plus, during winter in Nevada you can use free air to cool the servers. You would have to excavate down to 20-30m before accessing cooler soil temperatures in 12° C range which ironically is also the average air temperature for Reno. If you are just trying to save space you could design a building with solar arrays on the roof however generally speaking you need much more area for the solar panels than the data center they can power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Unlikely. All the heat that is being generated is from the servers not the sun. The roof is already reflective and the insulated. Plus, during winter in Nevada you can use free air to cool the servers. You would have to excavate down to 20-30m before accessing cooler soil temperatures in 12° C range which ironically is also the average air temperature for Reno. If you are just trying to save space you could design a building with solar arrays on the roof however generally speaking you need much more area for the solar panels than the data center they can power.
that's in Reno, but that's not the same in all of the other locations. Yeah, I know they should consider putting solar arrays on top of the building as much as possible. I don't know why they don't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
Is it just me or does this land parcel look like it's in a low spot terrain wise? Like may be prone to flooding during some freakish weather event?
Nah, it's actually on a mountain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
that's in Reno, but that's not the same in all of the other locations. Yeah, I know they should consider putting solar arrays on top of the building as much as possible. I don't know why they don't do that.
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
There's no river nearby
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I don't see any river near by.
I color coded the building site and the river for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
I color coded the building site and the river for you.
They can also divert any problems with the river by blowing up sections on the opposite side to divert water flow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
I just for grins looked up underground data centers and apparently, there are some being built by others. Iron Mountain is one...http://www.networkcomputing.com/next-generation-data-center/news/storage/iron-mountain-opens-underground-data-cen/240154866
For those that don't know. Iron Mountain was sold to Automony, which was sold to HP. So, I"m sure it's a big HP shop. Yeah, when you run out of customers, buy them, then they won't switch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I just for grins looked up underground data centers and apparently, there are some being built by others. Iron Mountain is one...http://www.networkcomputing.com/next-generation-data-center/news/storage/iron-mountain-opens-underground-data-cen/240154866
Looks like a unique situation since they built it inside of a former limestone mine. The idea was probably for physical security from attack since they have a lot of government customers. It is unlikely built in the mine to save on cooling costs or to allow for solar arrays on top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Looks like a unique situation since they built it inside of a former limestone mine. The idea was probably for physical security from attack since they have a lot of government customers. It is unlikely built in the mine to save on cooling costs or to allow for solar arrays on top.
Yeah, the article isn't real specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
There is also a large ISP in Sweden that's built one underground..
http://hothardware.com/News/Swedens-UltraModern-Underground-Data-Center/
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
They are less expensive on the ground. The reinforced structural design for the building would cost more than the land, has less accessibility for maintenance and the roof is not a large enough area for the number of panels required, causing them to have some on the ground anyway. Two different systems is more expensive. It is just much easier to have all the panels identical and in the same location, especially the new single axis tracking systems.
There is also a large ISP in Sweden that's built one underground..
http://hothardware.com/News/Swedens-UltraModern-Underground-Data-Center/
Please stop. Again they did not excavate it they repurposed a former nuclear bunker for security reasons not for cooling or solar panel purposes. Apple is not spending any unnecessary money to build theirs underground. Look at the construction materials they are using, sheet metal walls, etc. These are not even class A concrete buildings. Clearly they are not spending big bucks on the building structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I saw that on the evening news, What bunch of horse***t. An iPhone comes with a 5W charger. Even if you were using up the iPhone battery as fast as it could recharge it would take 200 hours to use 1 KW hour. So an iPhone is supposed to use 361 KW hours per year? Impossible. They are supposedly calculating the network, wifi, etc in their estimate but I think it is not possible to accurately assess that usage because the networks are used for so many other devices and many people like me barely use any data on their cell phone.
They might as well add in the electricity used to manufacture the device which is probably more than the amount of electricity that the iPhone itself uses in 3 years.
Just for kicks I did a calculation that a Tesla uses about 2,000 KW hours per year (based on 15,000 miles). Oh, I forgot to add in the amount of energy required for street lights, traffic signals, pot hole repair, policing, line striping and street cleaning.
It is possible to give an estimate following DPG logic. But I think their estimate is orders of magnitude too large. Here is my estimate. Say you have an AT&T 3GB plan. Each month you use 3GB of cellular data. How much time does various servers take to deliver the 3GB to your iPhone? The speed of the LTE varies. 25 25Mb/s is reasonable. 3GB will take 960 seconds or 16 minutes. How much power does a computer use in 16 minutes? Of course the 3GB may require the work of several computers to complete. Let's say four computers. So each month your 3GB requires one computer to run one hour. This energy is actually quite small than what DPG estimated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Quote:
So each month your 3GB requires one computer to run one hour.
The computer is running 24/7 anyway. By your logic each server can only service 720 iPhones a month?
I have over 3000 simultaneous connections on a 1U linux server often pushing several hundred GBs per day.
I don't know how you can calculate all the power being used by servers, routers, switches, wifi access points...but only for iPhones, all other devices excluded.
No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The computer is running 24/7 anyway. By your logic each server can only service 720 iPhones a month?
I have over 3000 simultaneous connections on a 1U linux server often pushing several hundred GBs per day.
I don't know how you can calculate all the power being used by servers, routers, switches, wifi access points...but only for iPhones, all other devices excluded.
No way.
My estimate is a high estimate. My point is even with my estimate, the iPhone can not use the same power as a refrigerator. My estimate provide a workable way to calculate the power usage of an iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Please stop. Again they did not excavate it they repurposed a former nuclear bunker for security reasons not for cooling or solar panel purposes. Apple is not spending any unnecessary money to build theirs underground. Look at the construction materials they are using, sheet metal walls, etc. These are not even class A concrete buildings. Clearly they are not spending big bucks on the building structure.
Exactly. It costs a lot of money to put things underground. And as for cooling, the ground itself is not enough to cool the servers. They would need to extend cooling pipes are out into the surrounding area in order to dissipate the heat. A server farm generates several orders of magnitude of heat for a given area than other structures would and can't simply rely on passive cooling (like the surrounding ground).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
For a single company, Apple has almost unlimited wealth. Apple could spend enough money on server farms more than many companies are worth. Netflix relies on Amazon's servers. Apple wouldn't have to rely on anyone's servers if they wanted it to be so. Apple could build a half-dozen server farms in Europe with the overseas cash hoard and the cost would barely scratch the surface. How can a company that can do so much more to strengthen its infrastructure than nearly any other tech company around be doomed?
Wall Street says Amazon's AWS cloud service is quite profitable for Amazon, even more so than their Kindle franchise. Why doesn't Apple just take a bundle of reserve cash and blow the doors off Amazon's cloud services? It seems to me Apple is just walking away from a buffet, leaving full trays of food on the table for rival companies to feast on.
If Lake Tahoe overflows, goodbye to Apple's Reno data center. Just kidding. There are a couple of rivers near Reno, but the yearly precipitation is next to zero.
Will you just your pie hole for once. It's getting old.
Great! Now maybe iCloud will only go down once every 2 weeks instead of every week.