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

Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 386 posts

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#181

Post by scrollaway »

hinkley wrote: post #170
scrollaway wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we make more of them, it's because there's a need for it. There isn't an "increased demand in datacenters" just because datacenters are more efficient. There's still the same demand, but it can now be met more efficiently. If the process was not as efficient, you would still attempt to meet the demand, except that you're producing more waste (waste heat especially in this case), over a longer period of time . Wast…

Nobody needs more data centers, except for people trying to build their empires. People need services and data centers are how they get them. If data centers are expensive then I invest in efficiency work because 3 FTEs are cheaper than 2 additional data centers. If the centers are cheaper I will just burn watts to solve my problem, and spend those employees on something else.

You're describing demand.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#182

Post by hangonhn »

mips_avatar wrote: post #3

It 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.

Is that really still an issue? From my understanding, it's sort of a solved problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AdW030xQB4

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#183

Post by rplnt »

spamizbad wrote: post #8

Very interesting to see a lower failure rate. Is it simply a function of possibly better thermals than your average datacenter? Less EMR?

Besides reasons mentioned in the article (no oxygen, no humans to bump into stuff), I wonder if radiation could play a role. Cosmic rays, maybe just less radio sources around (tons of other servers).

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#184

Post by jacquesm »

outworlder wrote: post #163
StavrosK wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is CO2, though, not heat per se. Yes, the two are correlated, but if you use renewables to power your things, it doesn't really matter how much heat you generate. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> but if you use renewables to power your things, it doesn't really matter how much heat you generate. Thermodynamics should really be emphasized in schools. You are getting some amazing responses that are completely ignoring the fact that our renewable energy solutions are not increasing the overall heat in our planet. They are just moving energy around. The only thing that really matters is how are the emissions go…

That's faulty. Solar installations change the albedo of the planet. That's not a problem if the fraction is a very small one and it is spread out. But if it is concentrated or relatively large it certainly could have an effect.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#185

Post by Const-me »

mips_avatar wrote: post #3

It 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.

The container is huge, and the insulation by algae is not that good. Anti-fouling matters for boats because increases energy consumption when it sails. Pretty sure for the datacenter it only contributes to a few degrees C.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#186

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

jakear wrote: post #153
s_dev wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think these quotes are coming from either end of the spectrum of physics and biology and don't necessarily say the same thing.

The beauty of the phrase is that it’s universal.

Is it?

I want to talk with aliens as much as the next guy, but so far it seems like the vast majority of the universe is a vacuum--biologically speaking.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#187

Post by teknopaul »

fblp wrote: post #86
jacquesm wrote: post #10

Why 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,…

Ocean water is already used to cool nuclear and coal power plants. I suspect these would radiate far more heat than a data centre. I'm surprised msft wouldn't propose to pipe the ocean water in like these power plants before going through the challenge of building under the ocean...

I suspect one of Bill Gate's plans is to defend data against solar flares. Deeper the better.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#188

Post by outworlder »

jacquesm wrote: post #184
outworlder wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if you use renewables to power your things, it doesn't really matter how much heat you generate. Thermodynamics should really be emphasized in schools. You are getting some amazing responses that are completely ignoring the fact that our renewable energy solutions are not increasing the overall heat in our planet. They are just moving energy around. The only thing that really matters is how are the emissions go…

That's faulty. Solar installations change the albedo of the planet. That's not a problem if the fraction is a very small one and it is spread out. But if it is concentrated or relatively large it certainly could have an effect.

> Solar installations change the albedo of the planet

They do. And so does every single thing we build that's exposed to the outside - bulding, cars, even you when you are out and about.

The effect is minuscule unless we are turning the planet into Coruscant or this is a gray goo scenario.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#189

Post by adrianmonk »

angry_octet wrote: post #43

Another example of the journalistic malpractice of not linking to the original articles or data. https://natick.research.microsoft.com/ https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick... One of the facts left unmentioned is that this was built and operated by Naval, the French state-owned submarine and shipbuilding corporation.

> journalistic malpractice of not linking

That disease is very prevalent, and I don't understand why.

My less-cynical guess is that the industry is stuck in the past, and journalists need better training and tools.

My more-cynical guess is that they are afraid of irrelevance, so they are defensively trying to keep you in their walled garden of information instead of encouraging you to get into the habit of getting info more directly.

Re: Microsoft's underwater data centre resurfaces after two years

#190

Post by maxander »

24gttghh wrote: post #179

5 years planned with no maintenance (e.g. no storage disk failures to replace). I wonder how many spare drives were slapped in that tube to make that feasible?

I would bet they just used SSDs and made sure that the workload they were giving these servers wouldn’t tend to hit the rewrite limit over that time period. (Even then, I’d bet the expected writes-per-time was the source of the “five year” figure.)
Post reply on HN