I have to say that when I read about Microsoft's 4th generation data center design concept, I was impressed. Laying out the basic framework with just a few simple sketches, in one simple 3 minute video, one company moved the entire data center architecture conversation forward by 2-3 years.
Like a concept car, maybe less than 1% of the entire market will ever want to build a mobile home park for use as their data center. But it won't be because they can't afford it - which is certainly the reason most concept cars aren't built within a decade of their design. It looks to me as though the infrastructure costs on a roofless, chiller-less parking lot with power and a ten foot fence will cost a fraction of the current "real" building we know as a data center. So let's agree it is cheap, ugly, and quick to build. A city full of blocks of them will be the downfall of civilization and civil society since they are eye-sores.
But if several slum-ringed cash-strapped cities with over 10 million people decide they want to have cheap ugly data centers housed near their universities, hospitals, civic centers, and business parks, they now have the model laid out for them. Perhaps within a decade, 10% of the data centers built will have followed this new model.
Assume the 4gen MS concept surpasses the technical requirements, now what can we do about its anesthetic appeal? Can we landscape them with plant nurseries on top of them? Can we grow hothouse fruits and vegetables above them using some of the heat? Can we mix the hot air vents with plants that improve air quality to create a net zero balance in carbon emissions? How about an all open-air night food court that is heated from below?
If I were Frank Gehry, I'd bemoan the fact that the future market for commercial offices building has been supplanted by coffee shops and trailer parks. What are our cities? Cathedrals, museums, stadiums, retail, and visitor (hotel) spaces with some civic governance offices that require you to appear in person.
While I have seen several positively excited comments in the blogsphere, about the concept, and Microsoft's release of their concept, I have not seen any specific financial savings. I think the design was driven by need for speed more than cost abatement, but is there anyone left who is not aware of utility cost in their data centers, and why that would drive radical design and operational changes?
There seems to be one company: Sunoco. The Wall Street Journal on Monday December 8, 2008, ran a half page interview with Peter Whatnell, who "talks about how IT departments can help their companies succeed in tough times." Peter talks about the right stuff - from a year ago: in
other words, how IT can help a company's competitive advantage. But to cut
costs, he talks about slowing his refresh rate on pcs and laptops, and moving
to SAAS, as well as attention to change management and risk.
Perhaps Whatnell can fund
a lot of new projects and save his staff budget if he'll have a look at his utility bill and retain an engineering consultant to make the 30 - 50% improvement that we all believe can
be achieved after measuring wasted energy. Somehow the word hasn't gotten to everyone yet. Have a green day!
Comments