Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
1–10 of 386 posts
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#2It would be nice to see some numbers on energy used to power this versus a regular set of servers.
Also nice if they discussed the energy/cost involved with deploying and retrieving these capsules and how well that would amortize if this became a commercial solution.
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#3It seems an additional hurdle is anti-fouling. Those barnacles and algae act as an insulator, making the cold-water cooling advantage less and less of an advantage.
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#4It seems an additional hurdle is anti-fouling. Those barnacles and algae act as an insulator, making the cold-water cooling advantage less and less of an advantage.
Maybe there’s a temp at which it’s too warm for barnacles —question is can the systems within operate at that temperature?
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#5It seems an additional hurdle is anti-fouling. Those barnacles and algae act as an insulator, making the cold-water cooling advantage less and less of an advantage.
Maybe they will release some cooling data that quantifies the effect!
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#6It seems an additional hurdle is anti-fouling. Those barnacles and algae act as an insulator, making the cold-water cooling advantage less and less of an advantage.
If the surface were that hot, would sea creatures still want to live on it? I have no idea what their range of tolerance is, but I'd assume that they're well adapted for living on relatively cool rocks. And if it's not that hot, then it seems like there's not a cooling problem.
(To be clear, I'm speculating without any real knowledge of this subject, and welcome the inevitable corrections.)
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#7Interestingly in the original article it said that the datacenter was meant to stay under water for five years. I wonder why they have pulled it out ahead of time.
(source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44368813 -- see video)
edit: just to be clear, my questioning isn't meant to be read in a denigratory way. just wondering. Also thank to Kydlaw for pointing out that it actually said "up to five years".
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#8Very interesting to see a lower failure rate. Is it simply a function of possibly better thermals than your average datacenter? Less EMR?
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#9I must ask, apart from the renewable energy factor, why do it in Orkney?
There are many islands and archipelagos in Scotland, the Hebrides which are closer to the mainland but still out of the way of fishing.
Many of them are going to be setup with tidal and wind generators.
Would be interesting to see how it was tethered to the shore with networking and power.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/mar/17/10megawa...
Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years
#10Why heat the oceans indirectly when you can just place the heatsource directly in them? Much less chance of losing precious ergs.
Seriously though, what is the direct ecological impact of doing this at scale, would the local increase in temperature have an immediate effect on the life around it? If so how much of an impact?
What about the effect on surface life and life in intermediary layers of the water? After all, a body this size radiating 10's of KW of heat would cause substantial convection. At data-centre scale could it conceivably shut-down ocean currents or re-route them?