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

311–320 of 386 posts

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

#311

Post by eru »

HenryBemis wrote: post #208
ehsankia wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they patented it in 2017, I'm guessing it probably didn't make it in to this one, but the assumption is that the next version may have that technology.

That's a good enough reason to pull it out, replace/upgrade the equip, and drop it back in with the new setup (new sources of energy), and if they get the whole thing to transmit wireless-ly with a 1% failures per 2 years (8 out of the 855 servers) then it's a truly set-and-forget thing. And they can be bringing them up every 2-5-10 years to replace/upgrade the HW and drop it back in.

Microsoft probably has enough money that they could leave the original one in, and pop down a new one with the new green energy.

(Of course, individual projects still have finite budgets.)

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

#312

Post by irjustin »

eru wrote: post #308
tyingq wrote: post #307

"The team is speculating that the greater reliability may be connected to the fact that there were no humans on board, and that nitrogen rather than oxygen was pumped into the capsule." That does sound plausible. But I do wonder how much might have been due to extra care. If I were the sysadmin on the project, I probably would have spent extra time on component selection, cable seating, burn-in testing, etc. Lots of…

They should have probably prepared two tubes like that, and flipped a coin to randomly dunk one in water, and leave the other one up?

The outcome you're looking for is pumping one full of oxygen and one full of nitrogen - at least to verify care vs nitrogen.

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

#313

Post by therealdrag0 »

chmod775 wrote: post #283
gregd wrote: post #247

Does anyone know what the environmental ramifications are of sinking presumably noisy and hot tubes into the ocean? I've been in server rooms and they aren't exactly quiet. The picture of the racks look to me like standard 1U servers.

Well, marine life is not going to give a damn about warm tubes. There's plenty of natural heat sources in the ocean way more extreme than that. As for the noise, that can have a negative impact, but it's going to be nothing compared to the noise ships are making: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/891854646/whales-get-a-break-... Whether it's high-pitched or low-pitched noise also makes a huge difference underwater.

Isn’t one of the environmentalist complaints against nuclear is they heat up the water near shore, which changes the ecology?

One of these might not be a big deal, but a thousand? Worth questioning.

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

#314

Post by SoylentOrange »

tyingq wrote: post #307

"The team is speculating that the greater reliability may be connected to the fact that there were no humans on board, and that nitrogen rather than oxygen was pumped into the capsule." That does sound plausible. But I do wonder how much might have been due to extra care. If I were the sysadmin on the project, I probably would have spent extra time on component selection, cable seating, burn-in testing, etc. Lots of…

A friend of mine wrote a paper on the effects of cosmic rays on memory errors in data centers a few years ago[1]. He also posited they had effects on hard drive reliability.

The first thing I thought of when reading this article is whether the increased shielding from the water reduced the impact of cosmic rays on the hardware.

[1]: https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/ASPLOS2012.pdf

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

#315

Post by perl4ever »

tyingq wrote: post #307

"The team is speculating that the greater reliability may be connected to the fact that there were no humans on board, and that nitrogen rather than oxygen was pumped into the capsule." That does sound plausible. But I do wonder how much might have been due to extra care. If I were the sysadmin on the project, I probably would have spent extra time on component selection, cable seating, burn-in testing, etc. Lots of…

This:

"there were no humans on board"

Made me think of this:

"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment."

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

#317

Post by tyingq »

SoylentOrange wrote: post #314
tyingq wrote: post #307

"The team is speculating that the greater reliability may be connected to the fact that there were no humans on board, and that nitrogen rather than oxygen was pumped into the capsule." That does sound plausible. But I do wonder how much might have been due to extra care. If I were the sysadmin on the project, I probably would have spent extra time on component selection, cable seating, burn-in testing, etc. Lots of…

A friend of mine wrote a paper on the effects of cosmic rays on memory errors in data centers a few years ago[1]. He also posited they had effects on hard drive reliability. The first thing I thought of when reading this article is whether the increased shielding from the water reduced the impact of cosmic rays on the hardware. [1]: https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/ASPLOS2012.pdf

Sun Microsystems had some Sparc servers where the on die cache didn't have ECC. And, cosmic rays created issues: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19095-01/sf4810.srvr/816-5053-10...

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

#319

Post by Zenbit_UX »

perl4ever wrote: post #315
tyingq wrote: post #307

"The team is speculating that the greater reliability may be connected to the fact that there were no humans on board, and that nitrogen rather than oxygen was pumped into the capsule." That does sound plausible. But I do wonder how much might have been due to extra care. If I were the sysadmin on the project, I probably would have spent extra time on component selection, cable seating, burn-in testing, etc. Lots of…

This: "there were no humans on board" Made me think of this: "The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment."

Is there more to that quote that makes it make sense? Otherwise both the human and the dog are redundant as a pair as their purposes are circular and don't benefit the factory.

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

#320

Post by 13of40 »

tyingq wrote: post #317
SoylentOrange wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine wrote a paper on the effects of cosmic rays on memory errors in data centers a few years ago[1]. He also posited they had effects on hard drive reliability. The first thing I thought of when reading this article is whether the increased shielding from the water reduced the impact of cosmic rays on the hardware. [1]: https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/ASPLOS2012.pdf

Sun Microsystems had some Sparc servers where the on die cache didn't have ECC. And, cosmic rays created issues: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19095-01/sf4810.srvr/816-5053-10...

I've always wondered whether the orientation of the memory chips in your computer made a difference for cosmic ray errors. That is to say, if their face is to the sky vs. their edge, will it affect the error rate?
Post reply on HN