Slashdot Mirror


What Kind of Data Center Can You Build With $500M?

coondoggie writes "So, if the government gave your company $500 million to spend on building a new data center what would you buy and how would you build it? Well, the Social Security Administration is about to find out. As part of the stimulus bill, or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the SSA got the tidy little sum to replace its National Computer Center. The SSA in fact says it will need closer to $800 million to fund a new IT infrastructure, including the new data center — the physical building, power and cooling infrastructure, IT hardware, and systems applications. (This is addition to a $72 million backup facility currently under construction in Durham, North Carolina)."

43 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will start with the assumption that this data center must be non-homogeneous. Get an assessment of all the projects that are using the current system you're going to replace (you know, the one with 36 million lines of COBOL code?). Because the number one priority of the customer (other projects) is going to be the lengthy transition from that to current technology. Prepare yourselves for this: Some of the projects aren't going to have any funding to do jackshit. Which means that the awesome spaghetti coded current system that's held together with COBOL duct tape needs to remain intact in some form. Not ideal situation but an uncomfortable truth. I'm thinking you would want to set aside 10% or $50 million or so for this (just throwing out a figure).

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As someone who maintains (part of) that 36 million lines of COBOL code, it's not as spaghetti as you might think. Many parts of it are quite clean, they just haven't been touched in years but they're simple and they work. The problem is, we're facing a demographic time bomb. The folks who wrote the system got hired in a huge spree in the 60s and 70s, and are reaching retirement age with full government pensions. Lots of them retire and come back as contractors, but we're still losing a lot of them.

    2. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think more colleges as part of their Computer Science Elective they should be a class on Legacy System Maintenance. Legacy systems are not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. As well for the most part languages such as COBOL and FORTRAN are really not that hard to follow and learn. In many ways they are easier then the newer languages, as they are designed to do particular things and do them well, and not like C,C++,Java,.NET try to be the end all be all language. The old code is usually focused on the business logic while newer code seems to be working more with trying to get the formatting correct, and being well organized and modularized (which is a good thing too). But the old code you get PROCESS_CLAIM.CBL all the code that you need to process the claims are there, so when you fix the code there the problem is fixed. Having done a lot of work in FORTRAN myself I have found that there isn't that much spaghetti going on. Yes there is the GOTO statement but it is usually limited to ERROR cases where if something critical failes it GOTO ErrorNum and displays the error and quits the app.

      For these legacy apps normally when something needs to be changed is because there was a change in the business process not because of a bug.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is not that the COBOL coders are retiring. The problem is that the government made the decision to rewrite the code 20 years too late. Everybody else knew the language was dead.

      If this were a commercial company, they would go out of business for making such a stupid decision.

    4. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by AlecC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are plenty of not-out-of business companies still running COBOL for good reason. Admittedly, many of them are banks who are now going out of business, but not because of their COBOL. Look how much money IBM's mainframe division is still quietly making: many of these are COBOL engines.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    5. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      COBOL's a hell of a lot simpler than C++ or Java, and training people to read it well enough to rewrite legacy apps in a modern language just isn't that hard.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who maintains COBOL driven legacy systems, I disagree. Why teach that stuff in college? Those jobs are much more rare than other programming gigs, and they tend to be held by lifers (I inhereted mine when 2 people hit retirement age, and the third decided she didn't want to do it alone). If you DO get one of those jobs, the learning code for the obscure hand-coded systems is going to be vastly higher than the language.

      COBOL isn't that hard to pick up. Maintaining legacy crap code is the same whether it's VB or COBOL or RPG, and the vast vast majority of your headaches will come from environmental quirks (old school databases with fixed width data, packed binary decimal numbers that no one uses anymore, etc).

      The biggest problem with COBOL in the modern world is that its designed in reverse. It treats CPU cycles and RAM like they're the most precious things on earth, so a program will make live changes as it goes along (to conserve RAM and minimize disk IO), and is designed to fail in a dirty state (in the middle of everything, so you can't re-run it) on the chance that it'll preserve cycles. It's a real maintenance headache.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    7. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everybody* else knew the language was dead.**

      *everybody: the disturbingly large subset of programmers who are unaware that COBOL and FORTRAN still power the vast majority of the financial and healthcare infrastructures of the world.

      **dead: working quietly in the background without need of constant updates and maintenance

    8. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US gov't IS out of business... We're bankrupt. No one has the balls to say it on camera, but every person with common sense knows what it means when (money in) - (money out) is consistently 0.

      Every person indeed does: if we had a government that had "(money in) - (money out) = 0", "efficient" and "well run" would be the words you're looking for.

      Here in the real world "(money in) - (money out) = -11,000,000,000,000" and counting.

    9. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by bdenton42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is nothing wrong with a functional 20 year out of date COBOL application. It is a bigger waste of company/governmental resources to rewrite it just because you want to use the language flavor of the month.

      So they should have rewritten it in 'C' 20 years ago, then of course you have to go OO and rewrite it to C++ 15 years ago, then Java was really cool so 10 years ago rewrite again, and now M$ has taken over the world so we better port it to .NET today, but you've just wasted 4 projects to simply get the existing functionality and your company is out of business (or added 0.0001% more to the national debt if you are the government).

      There are very good reasons to port old projects but just doing it because it's 20 years out of date is not one of them.

    10. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by mmaniaci · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NO! They already teach us enough superfluous crap to make me wish I was a business major.

      What colleges need to do is stop teaching history lessons and begin teaching students how to learn on their own. Face it, your job will not mimic what you learned in college no matter how good the school was, or how good of a student you were. Real life != school life.

      Don't give a man a fish. Don't teach a man to fish. Teach a man to learn how to fish.

    11. Re:The Unfortunate Reality of Maintaining Legacy by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Classic COBOL is something of a special case:

      No real user types. There were things you could do to fake this but its hard to maintain.

      Very limited procedure capability. There is a perform A through B capability (so the extent of the routine is defined at the call site! - but there is a way to avoid that using SECTIONs or internal labels) but there is no way to pass parameters - other than as global data. You can also write a subroutine as a separate compilation unit.

      Modifiable (at run time) GOTO statements. Nobody in their right mind would allow this in new code even back in the late seventies (well, I wouldn't at least) but there was a lot of legacy code written by people not in their right mind. If I remember correctly PERFORMing a bunch of code would mess with the last paragraph so that if you subsequently fell through that code it would not in fact fall through. Doing this is, of course, evil, but see remarks above.

      A large number of subsets. The language allowed you to subset. For example, one really nice feature was the report writer that would allow you to bang out a report program in a couple of hours, but lots of processors did not implement it. I actually had my own report program generator to avoid this problem.

      What all this means is while its not that much easier to write bad programs in COBOL than in other languages, if you work at it, you can really make life difficult for someone coming to clean up your mess later.

      --
      Squirrel!
  2. A really strong neural net... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At $8.95/45 specimens (http://sciencekit.com/harvester-ants%2C-live/p/IG0034483/), the newly constructed Hex would have the most powerful neural net we've ever seen!

    But that wouldn't leave any money for the clacks...

  3. Mimicking Private Industry? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could you approach Google and ask them to license their ideas on server and data 'pod' technology for your sharded databases? I'm not saying build the whole thing like this but with $500 million, you could probably have a large section to search and sharded databases that mimics Google. I don't think there's anything wrong with following the leader in that department. This probably isn't the best solution for relational databases so I would think another architecture would be in place for your MySQL and Postgres traditional database layouts. And that would be just huge centralized servers running virtualized instances of Linux with MySQL or Postgres.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  4. Die Hard 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Die Hard 4 pretty much set the standard for design here.

  5. Why build one... by Bandman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...when you could have two for twice as much?

    OK, actually two 250 million dollar datacenters, but I love that quote from Contact.

    Why tie up that much money in one site when you could build two world class structures and have full redundancy?

    1. Re:Why build one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I concur. There are 3 empty data centers along the I-81 corridor (within 2-3 hours of DC) that stand empty, reminders of the dot com bust. Why build new when you can retrofit an existing center.

    2. Re:Why build one... by untouchableForce · · Score: 2

      I believe it's actually Why build one when you can have two for twice the price. The twice and the price kinda rhyme so it rolls off the tongue a bit better and is more movieesque.

      --
      Moderation is not supposed to be used as an indicator of agreement.
    3. Re:Why build one... by timelorde · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they're not in my Congressional district?

    4. Re:Why build one... by necro81 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      reminders of the dot com bust. Why build

      I could think of three reasons:
      * Because those data centers are probably 10 years old already?
      * Because government data centers may have different requirements than internet startups?
      * Because 2-3 hours is too far away for social security administrators to drop by for a quick visit?

  6. We don't need no stinkin' data center. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Build? I'd take it as a retention bonus and retire. I just want to immulate our most sucessful bankers.

    1. Re:We don't need no stinkin' data center. by Bandman · · Score: 2, Funny

      the typo was really close to immolate...probably psychological

  7. How about a location first by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Putting the operation in a location that is cost effective would make the taxpayers very happy. The DC area is too expensive. Maybe an old missile facility in Wyoming or the Dakotas.

    1. Re:How about a location first by duckintheface · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look at the locations where Google is putting it's new data centers. They are in rural parts of the Carolinas on property adjacent to power plants. Google negotiates uninterruptable power contracts in fast growing states on cheap land.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    2. Re:How about a location first by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your location also needs some competent staffing....

    3. Re:How about a location first by SirKron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can also negotiate allowing the power company use of your backup generators for their needs if during peak load times.

  8. Mantraps by n1ckml007 · · Score: 2
  9. Re:Sharks with frikken lasers by Bandman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Exactly.

    Just copy the general ideas of this datacenter in Sweden.

    Sharks and laser beams would fit right in.

  10. Something modest by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then spend the rest on hookers and blow.

    Hey, the gov't does that all the time, why are you staring at me like that??

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  11. Ummm.... by Wanon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a really really bad place to ask how to spend $500000000....

    1. Re:Ummm.... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, he could have asked the government or investment bankers...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. ..near an industry that can use hot water. by paul.schulz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Find an industry that would otherwise need a gas fired boiler and on-sell the heat.

    Other options:
    - Heated public swimming pool
    - Source of community/public heating

  13. Ask Google by mcwop · · Score: 2, Informative

    I bet they could do it for less, and on schedule.
    http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/googles-data-center-secrets-revealed/

    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  14. What Kind of Data Center Can You Build With $500M? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Data Center: $10M*

    Hookers and Beer: $490M

    *I reckon I could get that down to $6M by cutting corners though, so that's another $4M for the beer :)

  15. Simple by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    200m for me, 200m for you, 100m for the guy in India who builds a data center.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. I don't know... by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but I'll bet you $500 million that: 1) It won't be nearly enough money; 2) It will be obsolete before it is finished; 3) It won't be finished before Social Security runs completely out of money (which will coincide nicely with my scheduled retirement); 4) [Fill in the blank]

  17. OR,,,, by phrostie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    or they could contract it out to google.
    someone who knows how to manage large data centers correctly.

  18. How government would do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dislaimer: I have worked for a contractor to the Air Force, and I have some insight as to government bidding, contracting, and results.

    Well, if I were responsible for results, I would get requirements from staff, send out RFPs, hire the best people, manage the project, and deliver on time and on budget a state-of-the-art data center.

    If I worked for the government, I would do the following:
      - Find a company I would like to work for as a six-figure lobbyist, and hire them without regard to experience or practicality. I will have personal contacts with the CEO, and if I don't, I soon will.
      - Get my "requirements" from that company, and have them provide the solution they specialize in without looking at my environment.
      - I would not supervise them. I am too important for that.
      - I would ask for more money as the project spirals out of control. The government would give it to me.
      - The project would drag on for a decade, would never finish, and would ultimately get scrapped. I wouldn't care, because I now work for the vendor, lobbying the government for more projects. I get my own private limo and driver, and I don't have to declare it on my taxes, unless I want a very visible government job again.

    Someone might raise a fuss in the public about this, but all that proves is that the government need more money to fix it.

    P.S. The contractor I worked for beat out a lower-bidding, "women-owned", "development-zoned", and much more local company. By any government calculus, the local company should have won the bid hands-down. But there were, shall we say, non-written reasons the local company lost and the gigantic out-of-state, double-the-bid, next door to DC company won.

  19. Build a cloud facility by spike2131 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Commodity hardware
    Full virtualization at the OS level
    And a second, mirrored data center on the other side of the country

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
  20. Why do they need a data center that large? by ciellarg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congress has already bankrupted the SSA fund, so all they need is one computeer that can add and subtract "0" very quickly....unless they need something that can divide by zero :)

  21. I'd do the right thing... by steveb964 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cardboard box, tin cans and string.

    I'd then proceed to give the rest to support the bailout of the severely ailing and deserving auto and financial institutions.

    sb

    1. Re:I'd do the right thing... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Once you're done bailing out the deservingauto and financial institutions, you should still have about 499m left (let's assume you bought a LOT of boxes, tin cans and a few miles of string...).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re:I do know by CorporateSuit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or they could do something really novel like let *me* handle *my* own money bypassing SS entirely.

    Careful, you try not paying your taxes and Obama will tap you as a cabinet member so fast your head will spin.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.