Microsoft Building Underwater Data Centers?

While the idea is pretty neat, what happens when a drive goes bad? Imagine what it would cost to pull that entire unit for maintenance. :eek:

I didn't read the article but it is possible there are redundant drives on standby to auto-switch into.
 
I can't see this as a long term solution because of the corrosive nature of salt water.
If there is a hull breech; kiss it all goodbye.
 
Just build a SeaLab.

b9f5cbb8ab2a99196324335b2066b153.jpg
 
"How long is it designed to last down there?
A Natick datacenter deployment is intended to last up to 5 years, which is the anticipated lifespan of the computers contained within. After each 5-year deployment cycle, the datacenter would be retrieved, reloaded with new computers, and redeployed. The target lifespan of a Natick datacenter is at least 20 years. After that, the datacenter is designed to be retrieved and recycled. "
 
Interesting idea for them to try out as part of their research team. I am just not sure how reasonable this will be for what they have planned. Is it really faster / easier to drop these into the water and get fiber ran to them vs building a data center and having fiber ran to that. Or finding a old building that you can turn into a datacenter and run fiber to that.

I can't see this as a long term solution because of the corrosive nature of salt water.
If there is a hull breech; kiss it all goodbye.

What do you mean by long term?

Project's plan is every 5 years you pull it out and replace all hardware inside. Then after 4 trips down you recycle the unit and replace it. So every 5 years they could replace whatever needs fixed up on the outside also. meaning new paint job real quick or whatever. That said, subs and boats last 20 years so this should also.
 
I found this gem from their website:

How would a Natick datacenter impact the environment?
Natick datacenters consume no water for cooling or any other purpose.

Then what is the point? If it isn't even going to leverage the temperature of the water, what is the point of putting it in the ocean? security?

Unless they are just lying, and arent calling the fact that a large metal container in the ocean is going to act as one big heat exchanger.
 
Isn't this NSA's wet dream? (pun intended)
Put computers and storage on major internet trunks?
 
I can't see this as a long term solution because of the corrosive nature of salt water.
If there is a hull breech; kiss it all goodbye.

It's like no one ever builds very technically challenging pieces of equipment that are designed for long-term marine exposure... :rolleyes:

Would be triply cool if used near large off-shore wind installations. (Provided backup power/etc).

I'd be surprised if these would be used in mature markets, but rather rapidly emerging population centers where the infrastructure is otherwise not there.
 
I found this gem from their website:

How would a Natick datacenter impact the environment?
Natick datacenters consume no water for cooling or any other purpose.

Then what is the point? If it isn't even going to leverage the temperature of the water, what is the point of putting it in the ocean? security?

Unless they are just lying, and arent calling the fact that a large metal container in the ocean is going to act as one big heat exchanger.

The point is, these modules aren't taking the water in. Of course the hulls are going to be passive heat exchangers.
 
Actually reading a description on another site (I couldn't load the link from work) this doesn't sound that bad ... it is basically a way to provide data services to cities near the ocean without the expense of buying land based facilities ... if it is able to generate its own power or sustain itself then this could be much cheaper than building local land based facilities (where you inherit land costs, labor, electricity, etc) ... similar economic calculations have driven Google and Facebook to look at air based solutions (clouds in the clouds :) ) ... will be interesting to see if MS can make this into a viable option
 
If I were a malevolent rogue AI... which I'm not btw... this is the exact kind of thing I would want to hide out in.
 
I didn't read the article but it is possible there are redundant drives on standby to auto-switch into.

Correct, it's the same situation as a data center in a shipping container. Lots of redundant hardware is already built in and when failures hit a predetermined threshold, a new container is brought in, data cloned and old container sent in for refurbishment.
 
I found this gem from their website:

How would a Natick datacenter impact the environment?
Natick datacenters consume no water for cooling or any other purpose.

Then what is the point? If it isn't even going to leverage the temperature of the water, what is the point of putting it in the ocean? security?

Unless they are just lying, and arent calling the fact that a large metal container in the ocean is going to act as one big heat exchanger.

Dodging taxes.
 
I found this gem from their website:

How would a Natick datacenter impact the environment?
Natick datacenters consume no water for cooling or any other purpose.

Then what is the point? If it isn't even going to leverage the temperature of the water, what is the point of putting it in the ocean? security?

Unless they are just lying, and arent calling the fact that a large metal container in the ocean is going to act as one big heat exchanger.

They said it's because it puts it closer to most people. Right now, data centers, I suspect, are in areas with low population density. Putting a data center, for example, in NYC, would be insanely expensive. Dropping it in the ocean is probably cheaper than buying property near Manhattan
 
My first thought was this is a terrible idea...

But it might make sense. prime real estate is hard to come by and expensive. If these can be reasonably deployed and mass produced (relatively), then maybe the total cost of ownership is lower. It should make it easy for them to deploy DC's in many different countries, fulfilling government requirements to keep data local and whatnot.

Guess we'll see.
 
They're going to have a huge problem with splicers down there.
 
Using a body of water for heat disposal from a sealed water cooling loop makes sense. Running a server underwater does not.
 
This is actually pretty cool. It's a sealed, water cooled floating server you can run offshore anywhere.
 
So.. in a few years we could have all datacenters at the bottom of the ocean.

Then in a nice, easily hidden attack, they could all be taken out in one fell swoop by some other country or even just a few "terrorists".

Seems legit.
 
They said it's because it puts it closer to most people. Right now, data centers, I suspect, are in areas with low population density. Putting a data center, for example, in NYC, would be insanely expensive. Dropping it in the ocean is probably cheaper than buying property near Manhattan

Actually the majority of the worlds datacenters are in or near major cities, it seems the exception to the rule are the huge facilities built by certain internet companies (for the incentives) or by government agencies/military (who value more remote locations for security).
 
Think of the tax implications if you can put them far enough offshore to be in international waters.
 
Think of the tax implications if you can put them far enough offshore to be in international waters.

And then think of the lack of protection they'll have as a byproduct. Gotta set up some mines around them. :D
 
While the idea is pretty neat, what happens when a drive goes bad? Imagine what it would cost to pull that entire unit for maintenance. :eek:



I didn't read the article but I'd think they'd do it the way they do the container Datacenters, which is that each unit isn't ran at full capacity and systems fail over to other systems. When there is too much failure then the container is pulled and replaced.
 
Back
Top