New York Times Takes Aim At Data Center

Nerval's Lobster writes "The New York Times' latest expose takes on data centers, but the Gray Lady's investigation has prompted its own criticism. While the paper correctly noted that there's a backend cost attached to the storage of photos, cat videos, and old shopping lists, many critics are taking issue with how the Times addresses the issue of those data centers' power consumption. While the Times' contention that the majority of data-center operators prefer secrecy is probably accurate, this industry is public enough that the paper's approach to the article exposes a few puzzling choices. Here are five trouble areas."

Comments

Link to Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a link to the New York Times article in question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This again?

[Revotron]

I would feign outrage and harshly criticize the submitter and /. editors, but it would be futile because this isn't the first same-24hr-period dupe I've seen here.

What I would like to see is some editors that actually read the site they edit for. You know, one of those "eat your own dog food" approaches. That way, maybe they might actually notice that it's the same damn thing we already read 24 hours ago.

Actually, knowing this site, even that's a bit much to ask for.

big picture

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually absurd out of context.
Someone builds a web-based tool that millions use, and consumes X amount of energy.
Meanwhile, thanks to this tool, those millions no longer drive around window shopping, or purchasing the wrong product/service, or the not purchasing the product/service they need, etc etc, saving 50X the amount of energy.
Some people will not be happy until everyone (except them) goes back to living in the stone age, logic be damned.

Re:big picture

[Revotron]

logic be damned.

Stop dragging logic into this. A New York Times op-ed writer read something that said servers use a lot of energy and realized that he could save the world as we know it by convincing others to turn off all those whiz-bang servers, computermotrons, and internet kajiggers to save lots of energy. This man has my eternal gratitude! We demand federally mandated computer blackouts at night because that's when nobody uses them!

Re:big picture

[PapayaSF]

Someone builds a web-based tool that millions use, and consumes X amount of energy. Meanwhile, thanks to this tool, those millions no longer drive around window shopping, or purchasing the wrong product/service, or the not purchasing the product/service they need, etc etc, saving 50X the amount of energy.

And it all gets criticized by a business that puts tons of ink on many thousands of dead trees, sends the result around on trucks and airplanes, and which everyone throws away the next day.

mainstream tech reporting is poor...

[MickyTheIdiot]

You can't take anything a news source like NYT, CNN, or any of groups take seriously.

Reporting about everything is bad these days, but it is especially true in tech. Reporters are some of the most arrogant people on the planet and they are *sure* that they know more than the techs do. They're to arrogant to let someone with real knowledge look over their work and say whether it makes any sense.

The fact that they would get a good percentage of it wrong comes to no surprise. CNN, for instance, has mentioned Linux on air maybe two times in the last decade. Meanwhile, they can't go two minutes without mentioning Apple.

Then there was the Fox news story last week that has the phrase "so-called patch" in it. Yeah... patches are so new and mysterious.

Re:mainstream tech reporting is poor...

[girlintraining]

Reporters are some of the most arrogant people on the planet and they are *sure* that they know more than the techs do. They're to arrogant to[sic] let someone with real knowledge look over their work and say whether it makes any sense.

Reporters aren't arrogant. Editors demand it. Ever since computers went mainstream, and gadget-collection became a "hip" thing to do, everybody (especially men) have been claiming to be tech-savvy. Apple stores stock "geniuses", there's massive age bias in our industry, and people use utility devices like cell phones as status symbols. The problem is not the reporters: The problem is our culture. Yes, we made our bona fides professionally. Yes, we can run circles around the idiots at the genius-bar, whose credentials include "fixed mom's computer that had that virus" and "member of the computer club in high school". Well, duh.

But let's be honest here: Most people consider themselves above-average drivers too. Is it any surprise the average person also has an inflated sense of understanding regarding IT? No, no it isn't. And when you're surrounded with egotistical asshats that are all saying "I'm Sparticus!" how is the average person supposed to separate the truly knowledgeable from the posers? See also: Every HR department you've applied for a job with.

Don't blame reporters for a societal problem.

Re:mainstream tech reporting is poor...

[DJ Jones]

Actually, if you read the original NYT article and Mark Hachman's "critique" of it, you'll find that the NYT article technically didn't contain any inaccuracies. Hachman points out (rather bitterly) that the article doesn't talk about recent improvements in PUE, visualization, and other green movements in data center design. While I agree, the article left out some "techy" points, none of this changes the fact that data centers consume enormous amounts of energy whether you have a good PUE or not and that is the point of the article. The more data you store, the more energy you consume and it's on an enormous scale at this point and growing every day. Whether your PUE is 1 or 5, data costs energy and money and that's what the article is about.

And please, do not compare Fox News with an organization that still has journalistic integrity like the New York Times.

Re:mainstream tech reporting is poor...

[tragedy]

Nice theory. The reality is, unfortunately, that a basic cable channel that tries to specialize will face enormous pressure to generalize. It might be acclaimed and beloved by its (limited) audience for a few years, but would rapidly end up being just another network full of reality shows about child beauty pageants, weddings and cake competitions. Possibly they'll mix it up and make it about wedding cake competitions for the marriages of child beauty queens.

Re:Stop the presses

[vlm]

And at the NYT the presses sit idle most of the day.

I worked at two printing companies in the past, doing IT type stuff. The local newspaper prints spam when they're not printing newspapers, and quite a bit of it. Low quality, however, the "real" printing company had much nicer output. I'm sure that in the mail you periodically get some type of "coupon shopper" printed on newspaper which is pure spam. To be honest, I think that deal might be the only thing keeping the newspaper company afloat. Also maintenance requirements are disturbingly high for a press... lots of moving parts, and they tend to be old moving parts. "Not printing" does not mean press operators are not crawling all over it. Finally, if you think about the content, most of a sunday newspaper can be printed up in advance.... so it is. Presses are a big capital expense, so humorously they probably do a better job than data center operators at keeping the machinery in production. If a press is collecting dust, competition means they're going out of business, and soon.

Secrecy?

[girlintraining]

It's kind of hard to hide massive power consumption and air conditioning boxes the size of garbage trucks on the roof or sides of the building. It's stupid to think you can hide a data center anymore than you can hide a power substation. They might not be on the map, but it's all right there in public records, and building plans are required to be filed with the local city its built in. Those are also public records.

Also, greenies have been complaining about anyone doing more than banging rocks together. Remember, 50 years ago, these same people were moving into communes and trying to live off-grid. Of course, as quick as they moved into the communes, they moved back out. Whenever I read someone complaining about electricity use, nuclear power, plastics, e-waste, etc., unless it's in the context of scientific research or a business analysis, I shit can it -- to me, they're no better than anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, alternative medicine freaks, and those people that crash boats into the sides of other boats while chanting "save the whales". I care about the environment, I recycle, but I'm not going to advocate we abandon modern conveniences and run off to the communes to satisfy some sense of ideological purity regarding the environment. Data centers cost a lot of money -- the electricity and air conditioning often cost more than the computers. I trust that if there are ways to reduce those costs (instead of just offsetting them), businesses that own them are going to migrate to those technologies. It's just good business. It doesn't need a New York Times op-ed piece to shame them into doing it...

Re:Secrecy?

[girlintraining]

First, I'm not disagreeing with you. There will always be a core of people in any ideological movement that manage to achieve a measure of success, dedication, etc. And good for them; I happen to agree with a lot of the ideology of environmentalism. We should save and reuse, if only because much of our society runs on non-renewable resources, and those that don't can still benefit from reuse. But much of the green movement is about identity, not actuality, and it also makes unrealistic demands. I can live without plastic spoons; But asking me to give up plastic entirely is silly. I can live with a toilet that doesn't flush 8 gallons of water everytime I go pee; I am not going to do my business in a compost heap in an outhouse. There's a certain degree of "one-upsmanship" present in the movement, where people who drive electric cars are somehow better than those who drive regular ones. But when you look at the big picture -- the electric car isn't necessarily any better for the environment. Using less water doesn't necessarily translate to a better environment either -- a lot of cities treat their sewage, separating out the water, treating it, and then recycling it back into the drinking water. Most people don't want to consider the idea that the water they're drinking might have been pissed out only a week ago, but there it is. So using more water doesn't necessarily harm the environment.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm for realistic environmental regulation and ideology, not wishful thinking. And the NY Times article is mostly wishful thinking -- we needed those data centers today. In 5 years, they'll be more efficient, and use less electricity, because the equipment has reached end of life and been replaced. Asking them to do it now is silly. That's an example of environmentalism that's unrealistic.