As another response said, low humidity increases damaging static electric charges, though most modern electronics are more tolerant than in the past.
As far as bubbling warm air through water and similar to humidify and cool, this has been done, but it's not as simple as it sounds. Depending on how you do it, you have to deal with mold, bacteria, particulates added to the air stream, etc. Not impossible to deal with, but not cheap. Most Owners opt for fewer maintenance issues instead of lower energy bills.
THe Chicago Board of Trade once had to close down because they overheated when record cold killed their AC system to operate (I believe that they couldn't pump the glycol at -23F+/-(-30C+/-), though they might have had 'winterized' open cooling towers )
I have to disagree, though maybe some of my point are too pedantic.
If a new data center is coming to town in 6 months, they better have had the planning of construction and staffing done already.
As far as the design of the construction goes, there's nothing saying that the engineers have to be located in the town. I've designed systems constructed in about 35 different states without moving from my state.
For mechanical operation and maintenance, they might want, but probably don't need, to employ a licensed operating engineer (not the same as a licensed Professional Engineer). If they offer decent compensation, they ought to be able to attract decent workers, and you can be sure that any reasonable corporation (is that an oxymoron?) has already researched the ability to attract the workers they think they need to the site before committing to that site.
Having worked on design of both data centers and hospitals (among other things) I know that designing, staffing, and operating a hospital has a lot more stringent and critical requirements than a critical data center.
The Bible is definitely not a novel, not even a single book (as you indirectly allude to).
It's not really a work of fiction, either (true or not). It is partly historically, partly mythological, and somewhat akin to a docudrama with a purpose, trying to answer the question "Why?".
One should expect contradiction within it, since it is a collection of a number of books written by different authors at different times for different purposes. That does not make it irrelevant or unhelpful.
Out of curiousity, what is there that makes that location appealing?
Looking on Google maps, I do see a lot of what looks like dry-coolers on the roof. (resolution isn't good enough to tell for sure, they may be condensing units)
By coincidence, last summer my company bid on a job for a major financial company across the street from there, though we withdrew at the last moment due to concerns about the scope.
Not sayin you have time for it
(hell I don't even have time to be posting on Slashdot),
but, assuming all your Data Center equipment is thru a UPS, most UPS's will give a readout of power usage, many of them will even log it.
In most place I've worked on, I've been involved in designing Building Automation Systems that connect to the UPS's, etc., relay alarms to the proper people, gather histories on usage, and generally monitor and control everything in sight (or hidden).
. . . the patent will prevent competent companies from implementing it.
That's not addressing the problem, to me.
The really disturbing issue here is that such a vague generalization of an undefined decision-making process can possibly be thought of as patentable by some patent attorney and written into "claims".
If this is actually granted a patent, the patent office should be nuked. (note to Homeland Security: I'm speaking metaphorically)
Every time a browser renders a document, Google caches a web site, a printer "receives" a document, or a graphics card transfers data, they are violating copyright law
No, in the USA at least, the law explicitly allows the transient copies made by computers, network transfers, etc. Google cahces are a little les clear, though.
Sorry for double posting.
(why does the submit button appear at the same location as the previous preview button?
In one sense, productivity has increased since the advent of computers, though not across the board. For example, repetitive drawing (blocks) and "erasing" are definitely easier on a computer, but in some other aspects drawing by hand is just as fast or faster. In general, making changes is much easier on a computer (consider a spreadsheet vs hand calculations)
But in other ways, there has been regression. Because we can do things, we do, whether it's wise to do it or not. Thus, changes are more frequent and planning less well thought out.
Volume/profits/amount of work (number of jobs per worker/square feet per hour worked) has not gone up because of computers. Rather more tasks have been undertaken. I would like to think that this results in better end results, but it does not always work out that way.
But this is no different to your assumption in the opposite direction. That is, that we'd be able to work at the same levels without the advantages that computers deliver
I am not making any assumptions about the "level" of work with and without computers. I am just making a point that, in at least one common case, the use of computers has brought the use of more paper, not less.
As I reflect on it, the increasing ease of printing and plotting may have more to do with the increasing use paper, but this comes hand in hand with the computing environment.
Correlation != causation. How much would you have increased its use if you *hadn't* started using computers.
Paper use would not have increased much if we had not begun to use computers. Computers are what have made it possible to have laser printers at my beck and call; have allowed us to work electronically while being able to quickly plot out hard copies, instead of working on a single hard copy that uses erasers instead of new prints; have allowed us to make changes more often, necessitating more records and more check sets; etc.
How many people do you know who print every email they send and receive ?
How many people do you know would have sent so many messages if there were no email?
There are a lot of comments here that are making the false assumption that if it weren't for computers, we would be doing the same things, but with paper. Then, they're concluding that computers save paper.
Here's a counterexample, anecdotal though it is:
I work as an mechanical engineer (HVAC, Fire Protection, and Plumbing), our typical clients are architects. They send us backgrounds of the basic building for us to draw our systems on.
They used to send us physical paper or mylar backgrounds made with various more or less expensive copying processes. Any changes made to them were a lot of work, everyone knew this, and if changes were extensive enough or late enough, we would get paid for making them, and probably delay the job. Therefoee the architects and the bnuilding developers would plan ahead and make sure that most planning was complete before getting us started. We would occasionally make blueprints (bluelines, actually) of our work to review, mark-up, and share with other trades.
Now, "everything" is done by electronic drawing files gotten by e-mail, ftp, or occasionally CDs. The architects drawings are external references linked into our drawings, so it is very easy to simply replace the backgrounds to pick up changes. As a consequence, changes come frequently and furiously, and aren't allowed to delay the job. We are constantly printing out changes received, and check sets of our own plans to keep up (21" screens are still small compared to 48"x36" drawings), and we need hard copy check sets of the architect's drawings because a lot of information can be hidden or confused by turning on or off different combinations of the hundreds of different layers involved.
Similarly, we have increased paper use for regular letter-sized documents since computers came along, especially since printing got faster and better.
We have easily quadrupled the use of paper since we changed over to computers.
what resources would be consumed if we DIDN'T use computers for these jobs?
Often, none. We could live just fine without doing a lot of these tasks, or by doing them in different ways. And without computers, some of these tasks wouldn't be done at all, if they were even thought of.
how many forests would we cut down to store the data in the worlds data centers?
How many forests are we cutting down now to print out some information temporarily, only to throw it away and print it out again when we need it again.
When a practically brand new data center needs to be shut down for a weekend after 5 years because the power needs are inadequate and need to upgraded something wasn't planned right.
I my experience designing buildings, including call centers, data centers, and server rooms, the specifications for the equipment to be used typcially isn't finalized until after the construction of the building is complete.
To guess that evident continuing improvements in computer efficiencies will cause your data center to use much more power 5 years from now will only bring on rounds of "Value Engineering" to bring the construction costs down. A good, experienced engineer will argue against those cost "savings", but will often lose.
What percentage of the power consumption of running a data center is cooling?
With decent conventional A/C systems, about 3 to 4 watts of power consumed requires about 1 additional watt (+/-) to run cooling equipment. In addition, in the summer there are cooling requirements for walls, roofs etc, and, at least where people are, ventilation. So maybe 25%+/- to 50%+/-, depending on climate, season, efficiencies, etc.
"zipper" is perhaps the best example of a lost trademark.
Xerox vigorously defends the "Xerox"® trademark, to little avail. Ironically, the growing ubiquity of copiers and printers seems (anecdotally) to be reducing the use of 'xerox' as a verb and an increasing the use of 'copy'. ('photocopy' is too long to catch on, I guess)
. . . LastMinute does not qualify to me as a trademark that has transcended into being a generic term . . .
As the poster above yours pointed out, it appears to be more of a case of trying to make a trademark out of ordinary words, and then complaining when the words are used.
Everybody should be able to use others' trademarks for statements such as "similar to $TM", "better than $TM", "works with $TM" and so on, provided the statements are true.
IANAL, but as far as I know (at least here in the USA you can use such statements in advertisements, as long as you include the or ® mark.
However, advertisers don't like to do that usually, because, in the spirit of "any publicity is good publicity", they try to avoid mentioning their competition by name.
I think they should be going after the companies buying the search terms that are trademarked though and not google.
Unless the ads are set up in a sneaky enough way so as to confuse people into thinking one brand is another, there should be no trademark infringement.
Portable Chillers, including pumps, on a tractor-trailer are fairly easy to obtain (but expensive). I've seen plenty of these running in downtown Chicago during the big basement flood (when a contractor punched a hole in a tunnel running under the Chicago river, and flooded out hundreds of high-rise basements, shorting out lots of electrical services and submerging many cooling plants)
75 F wet bulb is fairly common in Chicago, (designing for 78 F wet bulb is not unusual here for sizing evaporative cooling equipment) You would typically end up with temperatures over 85 F using direct evaporative cooling at 75 F wet bulb. Most data center equipment doesn't like temperatures over 75 F to 78 F, though it's possible that the containerized equipment is made to be more rugged.
Slashdot Mirror
As another response said, low humidity increases damaging static electric charges, though most modern electronics are more tolerant than in the past. As far as bubbling warm air through water and similar to humidify and cool, this has been done, but it's not as simple as it sounds. Depending on how you do it, you have to deal with mold, bacteria, particulates added to the air stream, etc. Not impossible to deal with, but not cheap. Most Owners opt for fewer maintenance issues instead of lower energy bills.
THe Chicago Board of Trade once had to close down because they overheated when record cold killed their AC system to operate (I believe that they couldn't pump the glycol at -23F+/-(-30C+/-), though they might have had 'winterized' open cooling towers )
I have to disagree, though maybe some of my point are too pedantic.
If a new data center is coming to town in 6 months, they better have had the planning of construction and staffing done already.
As far as the design of the construction goes, there's nothing saying that the engineers have to be located in the town. I've designed systems constructed in about 35 different states without moving from my state.
For mechanical operation and maintenance, they might want, but probably don't need, to employ a licensed operating engineer (not the same as a licensed Professional Engineer). If they offer decent compensation, they ought to be able to attract decent workers, and you can be sure that any reasonable corporation (is that an oxymoron?) has already researched the ability to attract the workers they think they need to the site before committing to that site.
Having worked on design of both data centers and hospitals (among other things) I know that designing, staffing, and operating a hospital has a lot more stringent and critical requirements than a critical data center.
It's not really a work of fiction, either (true or not). It is partly historically, partly mythological, and somewhat akin to a docudrama with a purpose, trying to answer the question "Why?".
One should expect contradiction within it, since it is a collection of a number of books written by different authors at different times for different purposes. That does not make it irrelevant or unhelpful.
Out of curiousity, what is there that makes that location appealing?
Looking on Google maps, I do see a lot of what looks like dry-coolers on the roof. (resolution isn't good enough to tell for sure, they may be condensing units)
By coincidence, last summer my company bid on a job for a major financial company across the street from there, though we withdrew at the last moment due to concerns about the scope.
Not sayin you have time for it (hell I don't even have time to be posting on Slashdot), but, assuming all your Data Center equipment is thru a UPS, most UPS's will give a readout of power usage, many of them will even log it.
In most place I've worked on, I've been involved in designing Building Automation Systems that connect to the UPS's, etc., relay alarms to the proper people, gather histories on usage, and generally monitor and control everything in sight (or hidden).
If this is actually granted a patent, the patent office should be nuked. (note to Homeland Security: I'm speaking metaphorically)
. . . and illegible
Sorry for double posting.
(why does the submit button appear at the same location as the previous preview button?
In one sense, productivity has increased since the advent of computers, though not across the board. For example, repetitive drawing (blocks) and "erasing" are definitely easier on a computer, but in some other aspects drawing by hand is just as fast or faster. In general, making changes is much easier on a computer (consider a spreadsheet vs hand calculations)
But in other ways, there has been regression. Because we can do things, we do, whether it's wise to do it or not. Thus, changes are more frequent and planning less well thought out.
Volume/profits/amount of work (number of jobs per worker/square feet per hour worked) has not gone up because of computers. Rather more tasks have been undertaken. I would like to think that this results in better end results, but it does not always work out that way.
As I reflect on it, the increasing ease of printing and plotting may have more to do with the increasing use paper, but this comes hand in hand with the computing environment.
Paper use would not have increased much if we had not begun to use computers. Computers are what have made it possible to have laser printers at my beck and call; have allowed us to work electronically while being able to quickly plot out hard copies, instead of working on a single hard copy that uses erasers instead of new prints; have allowed us to make changes more often, necessitating more records and more check sets; etc.
You are correct and concise. Unfortunately I have no mod points.
There are a lot of comments here that are making the false assumption that if it weren't for computers, we would be doing the same things, but with paper. Then, they're concluding that computers save paper.
Here's a counterexample, anecdotal though it is:
I work as an mechanical engineer (HVAC, Fire Protection, and Plumbing), our typical clients are architects. They send us backgrounds of the basic building for us to draw our systems on.
They used to send us physical paper or mylar backgrounds made with various more or less expensive copying processes. Any changes made to them were a lot of work, everyone knew this, and if changes were extensive enough or late enough, we would get paid for making them, and probably delay the job. Therefoee the architects and the bnuilding developers would plan ahead and make sure that most planning was complete before getting us started. We would occasionally make blueprints (bluelines, actually) of our work to review, mark-up, and share with other trades.
Now, "everything" is done by electronic drawing files gotten by e-mail, ftp, or occasionally CDs. The architects drawings are external references linked into our drawings, so it is very easy to simply replace the backgrounds to pick up changes. As a consequence, changes come frequently and furiously, and aren't allowed to delay the job. We are constantly printing out changes received, and check sets of our own plans to keep up (21" screens are still small compared to 48"x36" drawings), and we need hard copy check sets of the architect's drawings because a lot of information can be hidden or confused by turning on or off different combinations of the hundreds of different layers involved.
Similarly, we have increased paper use for regular letter-sized documents since computers came along, especially since printing got faster and better.
We have easily quadrupled the use of paper since we changed over to computers.
How many forests are we cutting down now to print out some information temporarily, only to throw it away and print it out again when we need it again.
To guess that evident continuing improvements in computer efficiencies will cause your data center to use much more power 5 years from now will only bring on rounds of "Value Engineering" to bring the construction costs down. A good, experienced engineer will argue against those cost "savings", but will often lose.
"zipper" is perhaps the best example of a lost trademark.
Xerox vigorously defends the "Xerox"® trademark, to little avail. Ironically, the growing ubiquity of copiers and printers seems (anecdotally) to be reducing the use of 'xerox' as a verb and an increasing the use of 'copy'. ('photocopy' is too long to catch on, I guess)
It's still not trademark infringement unless the ad by itself is infringing.
However, advertisers don't like to do that usually, because, in the spirit of "any publicity is good publicity", they try to avoid mentioning their competition by name.
I never hear "Hoover" used as a generic term for vacuum cleaner (I'm in in northern Illinois, USA).
Portable Chillers, including pumps, on a tractor-trailer are fairly easy to obtain (but expensive). I've seen plenty of these running in downtown Chicago during the big basement flood (when a contractor punched a hole in a tunnel running under the Chicago river, and flooded out hundreds of high-rise basements, shorting out lots of electrical services and submerging many cooling plants)
75 F wet bulb is fairly common in Chicago, (designing for 78 F wet bulb is not unusual here for sizing evaporative cooling equipment) You would typically end up with temperatures over 85 F using direct evaporative cooling at 75 F wet bulb. Most data center equipment doesn't like temperatures over 75 F to 78 F, though it's possible that the containerized equipment is made to be more rugged.