Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 172 posts

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#71

Post by cr0sh »

baking wrote: post #53
jpm_sd wrote: post #45

This is ridiculous. Data centers contain thousands of racks like the single rack shown in the demo "pod" and they all require hands-on human maintenance from time to time. This becomes quite a bit harder when your server rack is in a sealed steel tube on the seafloor. Splitting the data center into thousands of "pods" will also greatly increase the cost of cabling and connectors for power and data distribution (we're…

If one server goes down and they are not able to restore it remotely they will just write it off. If a large number go down due to some common failure, it might make sense to haul the whole thing up and refurbish it.

I've heard that this is what many data centers currently do anyhow. That when a client "moves on" (moves out, dissolves, etc) - the machines are just left behind, because it costs more to unrack/transport/etc than it does to leave them in place.

/source: worked for a small cloud computing VPS provider

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#72

Post by Nostromov »

Lots of comments already, but 100% this is complete bullshit. If they manage to make it a diverse project (branching into other possible fields) and even if not, this is part of a cat-and-mouse game of placing live electronics for purposes of underwater warfare, espionage and such.

For example smart mines that will be powered, but indistinguishable from the signature of these "server farms", then hydrophones and other such technology for locating and tracking submarines and so on.

"About the Authors" makes clear how no thoughts other than the clown game were entertained by the article, but aren't we past the times that things get written about 20-30-50 years down the line. :)

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#73

Post by ThrustVectoring »

jefflombardjr wrote: post #24

I'm all for exploring new approaches, however: a) Salt water is highly corrosive. Wouldn't maintenance costs be high? b) Isn't marine biology highly sensitive to heat pollution? For high latency services like Amazon Glacier, wouldn't it make sense to host in a place like Iceland? Really cheap hydrothermic/clean power. Highly educated local talent pool, and relatively consistent cool temperatures. If you're maintainin…

>Isn't marine biology highly sensitive to heat pollution?

The ocean is really, really big.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#75

Post by klodolph »

afarrell wrote: post #68
ouid wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunlight imparts about a kilowatt per square meter to the surface of the ocean at noon, I'm not exactly sure how to use that information, but it does seem relevant for bounding the problem.

The specific heat of water is much higher than that of air.

Right, but the data center heat output will also be measured in (mega)watts.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#76

Post by [deleted] »

jefflombardjr wrote: post #24

I'm all for exploring new approaches, however: a) Salt water is highly corrosive. Wouldn't maintenance costs be high? b) Isn't marine biology highly sensitive to heat pollution? For high latency services like Amazon Glacier, wouldn't it make sense to host in a place like Iceland? Really cheap hydrothermic/clean power. Highly educated local talent pool, and relatively consistent cool temperatures. If you're maintainin…

[deleted]

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#77

Post by wtbob »

> The reason underwater data centers could be built more quickly than land-based ones is easy enough to understand. Today, the construction of each such installation is unique. The equipment might be the same, but building codes, taxes, climate, workforce, electricity supply, and network connectivity are different everywhere. And those variables affect how long construction takes. We also observe their effects in the performance of our facilities, where otherwise identical equipment exhibits different levels of reliability depending on where it is located.

In the context of the discussion about cost disease, this is quite remarkable for demonstrating how regulation and local differences have raised costs to the point that a large company is seriously considering building data centres beneath the waves.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#78

Post by linkregister »

fryguy wrote: post #37
jefflombardjr wrote: post #24

I'm all for exploring new approaches, however: a) Salt water is highly corrosive. Wouldn't maintenance costs be high? b) Isn't marine biology highly sensitive to heat pollution? For high latency services like Amazon Glacier, wouldn't it make sense to host in a place like Iceland? Really cheap hydrothermic/clean power. Highly educated local talent pool, and relatively consistent cool temperatures. If you're maintainin…

For a, you can put a sacrificial anode on the frame. Given that the rate of corrosion should be known, the size of it can be calculated to however long the pod is expected to be in service.

This sounds really interesting, can you explain it further for a layman? (Not being snarky, I genuinely know very little about chemistry)

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#79

Post by baking »

thephyber wrote: post #19
_wmd wrote: post #3

This is a fun concept with potentially even more interesting consequences. Using the ocean as a giant heatsink would result in a water temperature slightly higher than elsewhere, I wonder if over time it would suffice to attract the attention of non-local aquatic life, or affect the migratory habits of the existing species

Nuclear power plant water exchangers in both California and Sweden have attracted blooms of jellyfish[1], who then clogged the heat exchangers and caused the power plants to cut power output to mitigate the efficiency loss. [1] http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/jellyfish-shut-down...

Looking at this more closely, it would seem that the primary test they were doing with this was the effectiveness of the external heat exchangers. They had one rack consuming 27kW maximum, but they had 5 large external heat exchangers (of two different designs) and all kinds of external tubing and valves to manage the cooling fluid flow. Seems like overkill unless they were running tests on the effect of different operating temperatures on biofouling and vice versa.

Re: Want an energy efficient datacenter? Build it underwater

#80

Post by badosu »

linkregister wrote: post #78
fryguy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a, you can put a sacrificial anode on the frame. Given that the rate of corrosion should be known, the size of it can be calculated to however long the pod is expected to be in service.

This sounds really interesting, can you explain it further for a layman? (Not being snarky, I genuinely know very little about chemistry)

See this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection
Post reply on HN