Interesting. Let me ask (without seeming like a troll here), if this technology is so reliable and available, why isn't it used already in place of, for example, high tension lines. I can think of many applications where transmission of power without the use of wires would be hugely successful and I can't figure out why this technology wouldn't be applied if it truly is so available.
From TFA
The Space Frontier Foundation believes there are energy and environmental benefits that could come from space-based solar power - collecting solar power in space and transmitting it back to Earth Oh, yeah, that minor detail of "transmitting it back to Earth" might be a bit of a hitch. Given that we have yet to find a way to reliably, efficiently, and safely "transmit" energy (particularly in these magnitudes) over any significant distance, I'd say this discussion is a little premature at best.
"While many technology companies load their products up with buttons, Steve Jobs treats them as blemishes that add complexity and hinder their clean aesthetics ...this is a hot button issue!
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses.
If that's the code snippet they're talking about, that is some strange terminology. It seems like an odd mix of very technical terms with almost creepy descriptions (i.e. describing the birth, maturity, death, limbo of processes). I'm not a professional coder (though I did study programming for a few years and am an amateur geek), these comments seem really strange even by computer code comment standards.
Parent comment, even if intended to be a joke just about the name of the Uni (I do not believe it is, based on having RTFA, shock amazement) is still entirely apt. Perhaps the bonehead who modded it troll should check out the moderation guidelines? Actually, I was intending both (and thanks for the defensive argument). I too thought the article was a little light on facts and made some admittedly juvenile cracks about the name of the Uni (gimme a break, it's late in the day and I'm tired). I was definitely not trolling.
A University of Bologna team says a lake near the epicenter of the blast may be occupying a crater hollowed out by a chunk of rock that hit the ground.
An official with the University of Horseshit was quoted as saying "That's not a lake, that's partially liquified alien spaceships.". Reached for a response prior to teaching a class at the College of Bullcrap, Professor Dumbass had the following to say, "Well, it could be a meteor, it could be a meatball, who can say really?"
Agreed. In addition to this possibly being an Achilles' Heel in the sense that it gives government opponents a unifying cause, it would be interesting to find out how much of a "black market" this has/will cause(d). Surely there are legions of people both inside or nearby China that could benefit from providing unfettered access to people on the inside (for a fee). While I realize that a vast portion of the population is very poor and thus quite unlikely to have the means to procure such "unauthorized" connections, assuredly some people have both the desire and the means. Combine this with the government's totalitarian attempts to control information, and you've got a powder keg.
Monopoly does not mean that they put a gun to your head, it means that you have no other good choice but to buy from the monopolist. No, it doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that you have no other good choice. A monopoly means that you have absolutely no other choice. See references in this comment.
Look, I'm not saying Microsoft isn't playing hardball here, I agree, they are definitely the 800lb gorilla here. But for people to cry foul as though they're taking unfair advantage over their presence in the marketplace as though it were just magically handed to them is petty. Like it or not, Microsoft did a f**king great job at branding their product and at partnering with key players in related industries and as a result, they steamrolled everyone. They sure did some crappy things to get in that dominant position, and they're acting like the schoolyard bully now that they're on top of the hill, but you can't say that they're the only choice.
From Merriam-Webster: Monopoly: Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
Proprietary: Etymology: Middle English propietarie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin propietarius, from Late Latin, adjective
1 : one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; specifically : PROPRIETOR
2 : something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; specifically : a drug (as a patent medicine) that is protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture
3 : a business secretly owned by and run as a cover for an intelligence organization
I must respectfully disagree with you. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop. My Ubuntu and Fedora installs are proof of that very important fact. Now, I'll agree that Microsoft has done a very good job of aligning itself with various hardware and software vendors/companies, but to make the argument that they are the only option is just a red herring.
I readily admit that I do use Microsoft Windows because frankly, there is not a viable option that I am willing to compromise and use as an alternative for pro-audio on linux. However, that is my choice. I am exercising my option to choose another product and all of the requirements therein (i.e. operating system). I can do so begrudgingly, but I'm still making a choice.
You know what? I gotta say I agree with you. I'm no Microsoft fanboi (though I do admit to using it for work, pro audio, etc). I think it's unreasonable to expect that Microsoft should be barred from being able to make their products work better on their operating system. While the practice is unsavory at best, I don't know if I can buy into this "illegal" or "monopoly" thing.
There are loads of things on the market that are proprietary and no one balks at all. Try sticking a Square D circuit breaker in a GE electrical panel, using a Schlage Key on a Kwikset Lock, or (to use the trite Slashdot analogy du jour) buying Ford parts for your Chevy car. It ain't happening.
True. Besides, when I hear LANdroid, I think of the poor intern being blown about by cold air as he pops his head up from raised floor tiles like a meerkat while holding miles of tangled CAT5.
Most other businesses might not even survive the onslaught faced by the DHS and other government sites. I agree with you that DHS is a "juicier" target than some businesses, I'm willing to bet that the attacks (and the frequency of them) against Bank of America, Citibank, Equifax, etc, are just as bad if not worse.
From TFA
The graphical programs displayed are: the mail announcer faces(1), the system statistics watcher stats(8), the text editor acme(1), the sky catalog scat(1), the image viewer I'm not sure I'm ready to check out any "graphical" items called scat.
While I certainly agree with you that doing what you love for a living makes the most sense, I'm reminded of the quote from Michael Bolton in "Office Space"
"No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars. Obviously, if we could all do what we loved, no one would take the miserable jobs. Unfortunately, a lot of us are forced to take/keep jobs that, while we might be good at them, don't particularly like. Ideally, you figure a way to meld what you love with what you do professionally, but if you can't, the next best thing is to find that "balance" between what you have to do to pay the bills, and what you want to do with your free time. In my case, I'm a musician and composer. However, like most parts of the music/entertainment industry, it is extremely difficult to find gainful, steady employment (the kind you can feed a family on), so I work in Engineering by day and work with independent filmmakers in my spare time. Maybe one day I'll stumble on a partnership with the next Steven Spielberg and I can go full time into scoring movies. If not, I can pay for my daughter's food, clothes, school, and still have enough to take her to the beach this summer. While it's not ideal, it'll work for me, it's better than no job at all.
Nowhere in the wikipedia entry does it say that is "criteria" for a data center. In fact, it says things like "they generally include..." or "are usually" While it doesn't say that those are the "criteria", you even concede that the article says that they "generally include" or "are usually" comprised of the listed criteria, so I don't think I'm that far off the mark in thinking that the items mentioned would be considered "standard".
But that's no reason to go on a rant about what a "data center" vs. a "server room" is. In fairness, I didn't go on a rant. I made a rather succinct (and ok maybe a little sarcastic) comment about the scope of what is generally considered a datacenter, and subsequently responded to various differing opinions. If I had posted some lengthy diatribe about how "real men work in datacenters of X size" or something to that effect, I'd admit I'd flown off the handle, but I was merely trying to make a point and for some reason it seemed to really piss a few people off.
I have to ask - what is your exact minimum qualifications of square footage, number of racks, kw density, storage density, and kw requirements before you would consider it a "data center"? As I stated in this reply, I don't think there's a minimum of square footage or even necessarily minimum capacity in terms of KW consumption or data throughput. I DO, however, contend that there are certain "benchmark" levels of infrastructure that one must have to call a facility a datacenter (versus a server room, colo room, IT lab, etc etc). Some of those levels are truly redundant utility feeds (from different substations/grids), redundant generators (if you need 1, you have 2, just in case), redundant UPS's (ditto), static switches and associated gear (for moving a "live" critical load), FM-200, real access control (physical security, biometrics, motion detector camera systems, etc).
I guess I'm just surprised that a few people are really bothered by this. I've got guys arguing with me that their buddy's garage with a UPS and an air conditioner is a datacenter for crying out loud!! This isn't about my trying to be egocentric or playing "my datacenter can beat up your datacenter" at all, I'm merely pointing out that it's not really fair to use the same term to refer to places like mentioned in the article and places like these, or this, or this, or this.
You make a good point that it is all relative to a degree, and perhaps people are reacting to what I'm saying because quite frankly, some of them might not have seen a large datacenter before (other than in the movies) and thus are perceiving that I'm trying to dump on where they work/have worked. In truth, I'm just taking issue with everything being lumped together, particularly within the context of a discussion of building one (apparently from start to finish) in 60 days. It's just a ridiculous suggestion. It's no more ridiculous than suggesting that a drive across town in a Yugo is the same thing as a drive across the country in a Ferrari (yes, I even had someone in another thread use the old Slashdot car analogy on me) because they're both taking place in cars. I'm not dumping on the Yugo or claiming the Ferrari's better, I'm just saying it's not really the same thing and one's definitely going to cost more and take longer.
These are insightful replies to nothing but apathetic excuses. I too grow weary of people making these bleeding heart sob stories about how it's too difficult for them to vote. While I'm sure we'd all love it to be quicker/easier, it's not a perfect world and sometimes, people, you just gotta suck it up.
All I'm saying is that it should cost less.
Trip to the library and a stamp As such, your point about polls being held open longer really doesn't solve the problems I am talking about.
Of course not, nothing can solve this problem captain hyperbole! we need the UN to come in here and fix this so you don't have to even get out of bed to vote.
Nicely stated, N3WBI3, and it pretty much hits the nail on the head. In short, while sometimes a hassle, voting is everyone's responsibility and if you have to drag your kids with you and stand in line with them, then that's what you have to do (and you'll be teaching them the value of voting).
Sure it is, check here or here or here or here. Also, by the link you provided, some of the criteria for a datacenter include
To prevent single points of failure, all elements of the electrical systems, including backup system, are typically fully duplicated, and critical servers are connected to both the "A-side" and "B-side" power feeds. which doesn't appear in the description of the facility listed in the article.
What, are trying to compensate vicariously or something?
Most people's houses are less than 4800 square feet.
Are you trying to compare datacenters/computer rooms with people's homes? Where's bad analogy guy when you need him.
* A "data centre" is a "center for data", not "a giant room filled with thousands of computers". So by that account the two racks in my garage count. They've got raid arrays, multiple servers and switches, UPS, etc..
No, the two racks in your garage do not count. Unless that is you've got dedicated, redundant utility feeds (from different grids), dedicated and redundant cooling/humidity control, backup generators, access control, FM-200 fire supression tanks, and about 1000 other things. I think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say here. That is, I'm not arguing that a datacenter needs to be any certain size (or contain any number of servers) but has to be a dedicated facility capable of existing totally on its own in the event of a disaster. Your garage definitely does not qualify for this. When you've got it set up so that you can provide support for a few thousand customers and have no interruption while experiencing a hurricane and running on generators for days afterward, gimme a shout, I want the 50 cent tour of that garage.
What's Google have to do with this? Are you saying that they are the minimum for a datacenter, or are you saying that it's offenseive to think of "datacenter" to cover both 170 rack installations as well as Google's facilities? With illogic like that, a Ferrari and a Yugo can't both be cars, since they are so dissimilar in action, ignoring that they both have 4-wheels and an engine.
No I'm not saying they're the minimum, I'm just trying to illustrate how extreme the differences can be. While we're on that, your obligatory car analogy is a little skewed too. Ok, you can call both a Ferrari and a Yugo cars. Can you call them both Performance Vehicles? Sports Cars? Racing Cars? This point I'm trying to make about datacenters isn't about size inherently, it's about infrastructure.
A "datacenter" could be quite small, if it has the proper features (at a minimum, I'd say constructed to withstand the natural disasters for the area, independent power with unlimited run-time, proper cooling, open racks available for public rental, and adequate connectivity to the outside world). I know people that ran "datacenters" out of their garage with these features and more,
Please tell me you're kidding here. So you're claiming that your friend(s) have redundant feeds from their utility provider, redundant cooling/humidity control, all the necessary electrical components to ensure 100% uptime (static transfer switches, UPS modules and syncing gear, diesel generators, enterprise grade surge supression, harmonics mitigating transformers, etc), and that it was built to withstand natural disasters? How much did this garage cost?
It just seems senseless that you declare this to be insufficient to be a "datacenter" but are completely unable to define a datacenter.
Look, I'm taking issue with the idea that any place that is made to accommodate computer equipment automatically makes it a datacenter. It doesn't necessarily have to do with the size (or the number of servers), but has to do with DEDICATED resources. It's possible, but unlikely that a 4800 sq ft (about 70' x 70') is a standalone facility. But, I think it's pretty common that when people in the industry refer to datacenters, they're referring to facilities that are not only at least in the 10's of thousands of square feet, but that they're truly diversified from other portions of the facility. That means, it's got to be totally off of any of the other building's electrical systems and have it's own redundant and dedicated feeds from the utility provider, it's got to have dedicated (and redundant) cooling, it's got to realistically be able to survive on it's own in the event of a natural disaster (i.e. run on generators for several days at least with no interruption of service).
I never called 170 server racks a "few". As far as it having to be a fresh build, no, it doesn't have to be, but the headline says "Building a Data Center in 60 days", so maybe I inferred a bit.
I'm not "whining" about anything at all, I'm just suggesting that the headline is a little misleading and senstaional. The largest facility in your state that you refer to, did they build it in 60 days? In 180 days? In 365 days? If you've been around environments like these (which I'm assuming you have) you realize how much is involved with building and operating them, so it shouldn't be that big of a mental leap to see how I might think suggesting that it can be done on a fairly large scale (and done well) in 60 days is a bit exaggerated.
I'm not even going to get into this whole "how many racks are required" business, but suffice to say, there's a big difference between the facility being referred to in TFA and any of Google's data centers, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to try to lump them both into the same category. I don't think the facility in The Dalles, OR could be slapped together in 60 days, do you?
Give me a break, mods. I was RESPONDING to a troll, and I thought I showed a decent bit of restraint in even responding. Ok, I took a little dig, but geez I still think I made a point with what I said.
You think a 150KVA UPS will service 170 racks?!?!?
No, I don't think that a 150kva UPS will service 170 modern rack servers, I was making an exaggerated example of what sometimes gets referred to as a datacenter/data center. However, by your Wikipedia "definition", a closet with a few servers and a window air conditioner would constitute a data center since "large amount of electronic equipment" is a very subjective term.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. Let me ask (without seeming like a troll here), if this technology is so reliable and available, why isn't it used already in place of, for example, high tension lines. I can think of many applications where transmission of power without the use of wires would be hugely successful and I can't figure out why this technology wouldn't be applied if it truly is so available.
The Space Frontier Foundation believes there are energy and environmental benefits that could come from space-based solar power - collecting solar power in space and transmitting it back to Earth
Oh, yeah, that minor detail of "transmitting it back to Earth" might be a bit of a hitch. Given that we have yet to find a way to reliably, efficiently, and safely "transmit" energy (particularly in these magnitudes) over any significant distance, I'd say this discussion is a little premature at best.
...this is a hot button issue!
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses.
Connnnnn!!!!!
..oh wait.
"Hey guys, watch this"
If that's the code snippet they're talking about, that is some strange terminology. It seems like an odd mix of very technical terms with almost creepy descriptions (i.e. describing the birth, maturity, death, limbo of processes). I'm not a professional coder (though I did study programming for a few years and am an amateur geek), these comments seem really strange even by computer code comment standards.
Actually, I was intending both (and thanks for the defensive argument). I too thought the article was a little light on facts and made some admittedly juvenile cracks about the name of the Uni (gimme a break, it's late in the day and I'm tired). I was definitely not trolling.
An official with the University of Horseshit was quoted as saying "That's not a lake, that's partially liquified alien spaceships.". Reached for a response prior to teaching a class at the College of Bullcrap, Professor Dumbass had the following to say, "Well, it could be a meteor, it could be a meatball, who can say really?"
Agreed. In addition to this possibly being an Achilles' Heel in the sense that it gives government opponents a unifying cause, it would be interesting to find out how much of a "black market" this has/will cause(d). Surely there are legions of people both inside or nearby China that could benefit from providing unfettered access to people on the inside (for a fee).
While I realize that a vast portion of the population is very poor and thus quite unlikely to have the means to procure such "unauthorized" connections, assuredly some people have both the desire and the means. Combine this with the government's totalitarian attempts to control information, and you've got a powder keg.
No, it doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that you have no other good choice. A monopoly means that you have absolutely no other choice. See references in this comment.
Look, I'm not saying Microsoft isn't playing hardball here, I agree, they are definitely the 800lb gorilla here. But for people to cry foul as though they're taking unfair advantage over their presence in the marketplace as though it were just magically handed to them is petty. Like it or not, Microsoft did a f**king great job at branding their product and at partnering with key players in related industries and as a result, they steamrolled everyone. They sure did some crappy things to get in that dominant position, and they're acting like the schoolyard bully now that they're on top of the hill, but you can't say that they're the only choice.
I still contend that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
I must respectfully disagree with you. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop. My Ubuntu and Fedora installs are proof of that very important fact. Now, I'll agree that Microsoft has done a very good job of aligning itself with various hardware and software vendors/companies, but to make the argument that they are the only option is just a red herring.
I readily admit that I do use Microsoft Windows because frankly, there is not a viable option that I am willing to compromise and use as an alternative for pro-audio on linux. However, that is my choice. I am exercising my option to choose another product and all of the requirements therein (i.e. operating system). I can do so begrudgingly, but I'm still making a choice.
You know what? I gotta say I agree with you. I'm no Microsoft fanboi (though I do admit to using it for work, pro audio, etc). I think it's unreasonable to expect that Microsoft should be barred from being able to make their products work better on their operating system. While the practice is unsavory at best, I don't know if I can buy into this "illegal" or "monopoly" thing.
There are loads of things on the market that are proprietary and no one balks at all. Try sticking a Square D circuit breaker in a GE electrical panel, using a Schlage Key on a Kwikset Lock, or (to use the trite Slashdot analogy du jour) buying Ford parts for your Chevy car. It ain't happening.
True. Besides, when I hear LANdroid, I think of the poor intern being blown about by cold air as he pops his head up from raised floor tiles like a meerkat while holding miles of tangled CAT5.
I agree with you that DHS is a "juicier" target than some businesses, I'm willing to bet that the attacks (and the frequency of them) against Bank of America, Citibank, Equifax, etc, are just as bad if not worse.
The graphical programs displayed are: the mail announcer faces(1), the system statistics watcher stats(8), the text editor acme(1), the sky catalog scat(1), the image viewer
I'm not sure I'm ready to check out any "graphical" items called scat.
"No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
Obviously, if we could all do what we loved, no one would take the miserable jobs. Unfortunately, a lot of us are forced to take/keep jobs that, while we might be good at them, don't particularly like. Ideally, you figure a way to meld what you love with what you do professionally, but if you can't, the next best thing is to find that "balance" between what you have to do to pay the bills, and what you want to do with your free time.
In my case, I'm a musician and composer. However, like most parts of the music/entertainment industry, it is extremely difficult to find gainful, steady employment (the kind you can feed a family on), so I work in Engineering by day and work with independent filmmakers in my spare time. Maybe one day I'll stumble on a partnership with the next Steven Spielberg and I can go full time into scoring movies. If not, I can pay for my daughter's food, clothes, school, and still have enough to take her to the beach this summer. While it's not ideal, it'll work for me, it's better than no job at all.
While it doesn't say that those are the "criteria", you even concede that the article says that they "generally include" or "are usually" comprised of the listed criteria, so I don't think I'm that far off the mark in thinking that the items mentioned would be considered "standard".
But that's no reason to go on a rant about what a "data center" vs. a "server room" is.
In fairness, I didn't go on a rant. I made a rather succinct (and ok maybe a little sarcastic) comment about the scope of what is generally considered a datacenter, and subsequently responded to various differing opinions. If I had posted some lengthy diatribe about how "real men work in datacenters of X size" or something to that effect, I'd admit I'd flown off the handle, but I was merely trying to make a point and for some reason it seemed to really piss a few people off.
I have to ask - what is your exact minimum qualifications of square footage, number of racks, kw density, storage density, and kw requirements before you would consider it a "data center"? As I stated in this reply, I don't think there's a minimum of square footage or even necessarily minimum capacity in terms of KW consumption or data throughput. I DO, however, contend that there are certain "benchmark" levels of infrastructure that one must have to call a facility a datacenter (versus a server room, colo room, IT lab, etc etc). Some of those levels are truly redundant utility feeds (from different substations/grids), redundant generators (if you need 1, you have 2, just in case), redundant UPS's (ditto), static switches and associated gear (for moving a "live" critical load), FM-200, real access control (physical security, biometrics, motion detector camera systems, etc).
I guess I'm just surprised that a few people are really bothered by this. I've got guys arguing with me that their buddy's garage with a UPS and an air conditioner is a datacenter for crying out loud!! This isn't about my trying to be egocentric or playing "my datacenter can beat up your datacenter" at all, I'm merely pointing out that it's not really fair to use the same term to refer to places like mentioned in the article and places like these, or this, or this, or this.
You make a good point that it is all relative to a degree, and perhaps people are reacting to what I'm saying because quite frankly, some of them might not have seen a large datacenter before (other than in the movies) and thus are perceiving that I'm trying to dump on where they work/have worked. In truth, I'm just taking issue with everything being lumped together, particularly within the context of a discussion of building one (apparently from start to finish) in 60 days. It's just a ridiculous suggestion. It's no more ridiculous than suggesting that a drive across town in a Yugo is the same thing as a drive across the country in a Ferrari (yes, I even had someone in another thread use the old Slashdot car analogy on me) because they're both taking place in cars. I'm not dumping on the Yugo or claiming the Ferrari's better, I'm just saying it's not really the same thing and one's definitely going to cost more and take longer.
Trip to the library and a stamp
As such, your point about polls being held open longer really doesn't solve the problems I am talking about.
Of course not, nothing can solve this problem captain hyperbole! we need the UN to come in here and fix this so you don't have to even get out of bed to vote.
Nicely stated, N3WBI3, and it pretty much hits the nail on the head. In short, while sometimes a hassle, voting is everyone's responsibility and if you have to drag your kids with you and stand in line with them, then that's what you have to do (and you'll be teaching them the value of voting).
Also, by the link you provided, some of the criteria for a datacenter include To prevent single points of failure, all elements of the electrical systems, including backup system, are typically fully duplicated, and critical servers are connected to both the "A-side" and "B-side" power feeds. which doesn't appear in the description of the facility listed in the article.
Are you trying to compare datacenters/computer rooms with people's homes? Where's bad analogy guy when you need him.
No, the two racks in your garage do not count. Unless that is you've got dedicated, redundant utility feeds (from different grids), dedicated and redundant cooling/humidity control, backup generators, access control, FM-200 fire supression tanks, and about 1000 other things. I think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say here. That is, I'm not arguing that a datacenter needs to be any certain size (or contain any number of servers) but has to be a dedicated facility capable of existing totally on its own in the event of a disaster. Your garage definitely does not qualify for this. When you've got it set up so that you can provide support for a few thousand customers and have no interruption while experiencing a hurricane and running on generators for days afterward, gimme a shout, I want the 50 cent tour of that garage.
No I'm not saying they're the minimum, I'm just trying to illustrate how extreme the differences can be. While we're on that, your obligatory car analogy is a little skewed too. Ok, you can call both a Ferrari and a Yugo cars. Can you call them both Performance Vehicles? Sports Cars? Racing Cars? This point I'm trying to make about datacenters isn't about size inherently, it's about infrastructure.
Please tell me you're kidding here. So you're claiming that your friend(s) have redundant feeds from their utility provider, redundant cooling/humidity control, all the necessary electrical components to ensure 100% uptime (static transfer switches, UPS modules and syncing gear, diesel generators, enterprise grade surge supression, harmonics mitigating transformers, etc), and that it was built to withstand natural disasters? How much did this garage cost?
Look, I'm taking issue with the idea that any place that is made to accommodate computer equipment automatically makes it a datacenter. It doesn't necessarily have to do with the size (or the number of servers), but has to do with DEDICATED resources. It's possible, but unlikely that a 4800 sq ft (about 70' x 70') is a standalone facility. But, I think it's pretty common that when people in the industry refer to datacenters, they're referring to facilities that are not only at least in the 10's of thousands of square feet, but that they're truly diversified from other portions of the facility. That means, it's got to be totally off of any of the other building's electrical systems and have it's own redundant and dedicated feeds from the utility provider, it's got to have dedicated (and redundant) cooling, it's got to realistically be able to survive on it's own in the event of a natural disaster (i.e. run on generators for several days at least with no interruption of service).
I never called 170 server racks a "few". As far as it having to be a fresh build, no, it doesn't have to be, but the headline says "Building a Data Center in 60 days", so maybe I inferred a bit.
I'm not "whining" about anything at all, I'm just suggesting that the headline is a little misleading and senstaional. The largest facility in your state that you refer to, did they build it in 60 days? In 180 days? In 365 days? If you've been around environments like these (which I'm assuming you have) you realize how much is involved with building and operating them, so it shouldn't be that big of a mental leap to see how I might think suggesting that it can be done on a fairly large scale (and done well) in 60 days is a bit exaggerated.
I'm not even going to get into this whole "how many racks are required" business, but suffice to say, there's a big difference between the facility being referred to in TFA and any of Google's data centers, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to try to lump them both into the same category. I don't think the facility in The Dalles, OR could be slapped together in 60 days, do you?
Give me a break, mods. I was RESPONDING to a troll, and I thought I showed a decent bit of restraint in even responding. Ok, I took a little dig, but geez I still think I made a point with what I said.
No, I don't think that a 150kva UPS will service 170 modern rack servers, I was making an exaggerated example of what sometimes gets referred to as a datacenter/data center. However, by your Wikipedia "definition", a closet with a few servers and a window air conditioner would constitute a data center since "large amount of electronic equipment" is a very subjective term.