Like, would a skyscraper-style datacenter be practical? Or is just a matter of big, flat buildings being cheaper?
Weight. If you load a 42u rack up with 30lb servers you’re at 1280lbs spread out over about 4sqft, which is over the floor loading limit for most buildings. It’s much cheaper to support the weight in a wider building compared to a taller one.
That being said I’ve been in many data centers in the middle of a giant office towers, but they have lower weight limits generally.
This is armchair nonsense.
Slab reinforcement in skyscrapers can literally hold fucking skyscrapers.
If you want to call this a limit, the limit is the expense. Not the weight. That’s absurd. We’re so far past that.
I’ve deployed substantial quantities of gear in 9 datacenters across 4 countries in my career. I’ve gotten a panicked call from Bell Canada when they realized our deployment density in an older facility, then had to work with them to provide weights of all of our cabinets. Sure though, all armchair nonsense. What’s your background?
30 seconds searching will back me up. https://www.digitalrealty.com/resources/articles/what-floor-loading-capacity-do-dlr-data-centers-have
I’m just going to repeat myself. Ildeploying a day center isn’t building one. If you’d architected a data center I’d give a fuck about what you’re saying
Again:
Slab reinforcement in skyscrapers can literally hold fucking skyscrapers.
If you want to call this a limit, the limit is the expense. Not the weight. That’s absurd. We’re so far past that.
This isn’t rocket science. No one cares about your profession, that’s an obnoxious childish thing to flex about over the internet and doesn’t give you the credibility you think it does.
Sincerely: literate.
You started off with an ad hominem attack calling it armchair nonsense, that the weight argument has no merit. I’m pointing out i have actual experience in this area. If you hadn’t been an asshole with your initial reply I wouldn’t have bothered replying, instead here we are.
Everything is a money problem when you get down to it far enough. Why don’t we have mars colonies? Money. Why don’t cars fly? Money. Why doesn’t everyone live in super tall towers that touch the atmosphere? Money. Sure let’s just ignore all the engineering considerations and reduce it down to the absolute basic explanation of “money” so that nobody in this thread will learn anything.
Why don’t we have super tall datacenters? It’s not worth the money to sustain that level of weight in a new tower, and definitely not worth it to overhaul an existing tower.
It’s pointless to call out money as the limit, that’s completely obvious.
Anyways I’m over this thread, byeeeee.
We do have tall (not super tall, but over a dozen stories) data centers, you overconfidently and provably incorrect human.
They’re in Manhattan, Tokyo, etc. Where the aforementioned cost of that weight does not surpass the cost of la d sprawl.
They don’t get ‘super’ tall bc heat goes up. Not because of weight. (Handling that heat is also cost, it is less exponential).
Tagged as overconfidently incorrect.
Byeeee.
But the reason for the expense is largely the weight.
Yes we can at great expense support massive weights. But even in skyscrapers, you aren’t expecting to just cram every floor with equipment that weighs over a ton and supported by less than a square meter of floor.
It’s not just armchair engineering, i work in the industry and commonly you have racks preferring the ground floor and weight restrictions going up and even marked paths that the racks need to stay on when on upper floors due to limitations of the reinforcements.
Skyscrapers are largely impractical structures done for the sake of showing off, with any value based on keeping people close to each other. No one builds a skyscraper by itself miles from anything else. This is where they build the datacenters because they don’t need proximity.
Weight is not the limiting factor.
Money is.
Most obvious reason that comes to mind is cooling. All the HVAC in the world isnt going to be able to stop 50 floors of server rack heat from spilling onto the 51st floor, etc.
This is also a nightmare for fire suppression systems.
Electricity has a hard time flowing up and requires a special pumping system.
Which begs the question why not magnets at the top of the building to help pull the electricity up?
Because nobody knows how magnets work.
Solution: construct the buildings upside down, so the foundations are up in the air and the roofs are underground. That way, the electricity will flow down instead of up.
But then the roof has to support the entire weight of planet Earth on top of it, which is a much harder engineering challenge than pumping the electricity in the first place.
No, it’s not. It’s all empty space under the foundation. There’s nothing to create crushing force against the building.
You are failing to account for the weight of the atmosphere on the foundation
The atmosphere is just air. Air doesn’t have mass or weight, that’s why it floats.
Because the electricity pulls the magnets down in the same measure, so they meet in the middle. Newton’s 2nd law or something.
You joke, but heat does rise and a tall building would need to make extra concessions for cooling concerns, while also dealing with the issues if weight. Large racks of servers are actually quite heavy, which is why many datacenters in i.e Toronto were built in an ex parking garage
Heat is no issue of relevance for the question. The rising effect it negligible compared to what has to be transported anyway. I also can’t imagine racks being heavier than eg books in s library.
How many high-rise libraries do you see? Weight is absolutely a factor in data center design, as is airflow/heat
Unironically, I’ve had people telling me they save electric energy by inserting the angled Schuko plugs of their electric devices ‘upwards’.
I used to have a rack in a colo in the middle of Portland Oregon. The 3rd floor was the colo and they also had telecom equipment on the roof, but the rest of the building was normal commercial real-estate.
They spent so much reinforcing the floor, sound proofing the floor and ceiling, building a giant door in the wall (so they could crane in equipment), and helping pay for a new local substation that when P.a.a.S. services (AWS, Azure, etc) started they quickly started to struggle to keep the bills paid.
Soundproofing wouldn’t be needed if the whole building were servers, but the rest would be.
This. It’s the weight.
Tall data centers do exist in cities where land is expensive. It’s the same reason everyone builds up in cities. Where land is cheap and available it’s usually easier and less expensive to build things low and wide.
Tall data centers do exist in cities where land is expensive.
Probably a bit of “hiding in plain sight” that way, too. There are a few big datacenters relatively near me, and they’re massive compounds in the middle of even more massive corn fields. Kind of stick out like a sore thumb when you’re driving by.
Cost. It’s slightly cheaper. And I do mean slightly.
Depends on the price of the land.
Yeah that’s the only difference. Usually land is cheaper. But building high in the middle of nowhere is only like 5% more expensive.
That’s complete bullshit. Building one floor on cheap land is way, way cheaper than building high on expensive land.
source: Wyoming.
and of course, building one floor of data center is exponentially cheaper than building two floors.
It’s also not the core purpose of the data center. The building is a shell protecting racks of servers, the core purpose of a data center. Why spend anymore than absolutely necessary when it would not increase the output of that core purpose.
There are a few skyscraper server farms, but they are usually in major metropolitan areas like Manhattan. But, as you touched on, it is usually cheaper to build out instead of up.
In the past, we did have a need for purpose-built skyscrapers meant to house dense racks of electronic machines, but it wasn’t for data centers. No, it was for telephone equipment. See the AT&T Long Lines building in NYC, a windowless monolith of a structure in Lower Manhattan. It stands at 170 meters (550 ft).
This NYC example shows that it’s entirely possible for telephone equipment to build up, and was very necessary considering the cost of real estate in that city. But if we look at the difference between a telephone exchange and a data center, we quickly realize why the latter can’t practically achieve skyscraper heights.
Data centers consume enormous amounts of electric power, and this produces a near-equivalent amount of heat. The chiller units for a data center are themselves estimated to consume something around a quarter of the site’s power consumption, to dissipate the heat energy of the computing equipment. For a data center that’s a few stories tall, the heat density per land area is enough that a roof-top chiller can cool it. But if the data center grows taller, it has a lower ratio of rooftop to interior volume.
This is not unlike the ratio of surface area to interior volume, which is a limiting factor for how large (or small) animals can be, before they overheat themselves. So even if we could mount chiller units up the sides of a building – which we can’t, because heat from the lower unit would affect an upper unit – we still have this problem of too much heat in a limited land area.
Probably a combination of it being cheaper (as the others said) and data centers not really having to be near right next to cities. It’s easier to plop them in the middle of nowhere.
Taller is more expensive. That’s all.
If you have the space to go wider, that’s what everyone does.Well, data centers require a lot of water for cooling. It’s harder to pump water up high.
It’s harder to do anything up high. Construction, climate control, transportation (moving something from one end to another), managing fires, additions, evacuation of personnel in an emergency, etc. etc., all get much harder when you build up up versus across.
Guess it depends on the height, but yeah. Otherwise, we manage to pump a town’s worth of water to the top of a tower well enough. From there, gravity can do the rest.
But there’s probably a point where cost for that vs height becomes prohibitive.
There’s a slow, steady source of water being pumped into those towers, so the water level fluctuates through the day. They use gravity to get high pressure from your tap, but I’m the world of liquid cooling, you gotta go fast!
The taller it goes the more they’ll have to value human life.
Cheaper and easier, perhaps? If the costs of engineering a tower is more than just buying more land, then why build taller?
It could also be local ordinances. Maybe they can’t get permission to build higher than 2 or 3 stories. I know that’s common for residential areas; it might be a thing in commercial or industrial areas too.
If the costs of engineering a tower is more than just buying more land, then why build taller?
Figured it’d be something like that. Explains why they get built out in the middle of nowhere since land is cheap.
