Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking IT

James Bond Villain Data Center 103

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-expect-you-to-die dept.
jeet writes "Data centers are boring and NOCs are doubly so. But this one sure beats all of them. Found this video of a data center suited for james bond villain on Data Center Knowledge website. The facility is established in a hydrogen bomb safe bunker and has generators used in German submarines. The CEO takes you around and shows some other cool features."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

James Bond Villain Data Center

Comments Filter:
  • by nicolas.kassis (875270) on Thursday April 16, 2009 @08:43AM (#27596129)
    More and more stories of data centers in random recycled locations like churches and stuff. Isn't cheaper to just build a building than to refurbish some of these locations?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16, 2009 @09:50AM (#27596881)

    "It's usually not cheaper to demolish and build new."

    According to whom? I'm not sure why the mods currently have this post as +3 informative, but this is false.

    By and large, and usually on a case by case basis, this claim is false. It's difficult to make a sweeping claim either way, since there are many issues where people are forced to renovate when they want to build new which can skew the understanding and interpretation of the numbers both ways, but the general concensus is that building new from an empty lot, or building new after tearing down an existing structure, is cheaper. Mainly, because it's faster, and labor costs are a huge part of construction.

    It is far cheaper and better to take down and build new, esp. in residential buildings. You start the building from scratch with current materials and with full knowledge of the structure. You don't have to pay labor costs, which are vary but typically are 50% of the actual expense of work, for careful deconstruction that renovation often necessitates.

    Most people who renovate do so for one of three reasons. First, they cannot afford a full renovation, so they do it in stages, which is why there more money put into renovation than new construction the United States (which is also particularly striking given people do it themselves, so labor costs are saved which don't seem to be in these numbers, making the disparity between new and remodel even greater). The second is that the code literally forces people to. A lot of city reconstruction occurs before the city insists on keeping a sense of a neighborhood or look or for historical reasons. (I'm not bashing these reasons, just that they are often wholly separate from a safe and efficient structure--they can be interpreted to keep the riff raff aka "blight" from buying up cheap properties, keeping things condemned until some stable can take the property, for valid historical reasons, for limited growth, accelerating growth, etc.)

    The confusion often arises where people spend exorbitant amounts renovating in, say, the city. City locations, esp. high end areas, are limited properties; there are often few and far between when they become available, and there are no empty lots. People who desire to live in a particular area must buy an existing house and then strip it down in order to reconstruct the actual home they desire. They then run into zoning codes, which have mixed reasons for being there, often counter to the actual reason they were put in place. (Historical zoning and codes are good for places where people have a desire to live, such as Foggy Bottom and Georgetown in DC, but the same often impedes in a smaller west coast town which views itself as historical and tourist destination but ignores the fact that are a has been destination that no one visit or lives there because of the high crime).

    "You have the cost of demo, construction, zoning issues, etc. If you can find a location that has many of the characteristics you need, you're usually better off. If you find a location that isn't suitable for much else, you can usually get it cheap."

    Most of these arguments are *for* building new. For building new, there is no demo or renovation cost. Also, you have to be careful when you say zoning issues--some zoning issues force people into renovation even if new construction is better (which artificially inflates the renovation costs and number of renovations). Zoning is the new insidious "do it our way or not at all" that has gone beyond the safety of a building and keeping residential and commercial areas separate, to becoming the handcuffs of well-meaning but misguided city planners.

    Even if a structure already exists, the usual impediments to building new are the insistence of local codes to maintain a building's exterior, which necessitates renovation. These are artificial and really put in place by people who want to impede economic reconstruction of a neighborhood, but this is a complicated area with varying opinions.

    If you have doubt

  • by sukotto (122876) on Thursday April 16, 2009 @10:16AM (#27597243)

    It's usually not cheaper to demolish and build new.

    This is also true for software development in my experience. I've learned this through bitter experience.

  • Bahnhof rules (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16, 2009 @01:42PM (#27599989)

    "Broadband operator Bahnhof has begun destroying the IP address details of its customers in an open and fully legal bid to undermine Sweden's new anti-file sharing laws."

    http://www.thelocal.se/18882/20090416/ [thelocal.se]

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...