Servers Ahoy — Startup To Build Floating Data Centers

1sockchuck writes "Startup International Data Security says it is moving ahead with plans to build data centers on cargo ships docked in the San Francisco Bay. IDS first announced its plans in 2008, but they were postponed by the credit crunch. The company says it has now lined up funding and an anchor tenant for a proof-of-concept 'dataship' that will hold 500 racks of servers in its cargo holds. IDS isn't alone in contemplating ship-board server farms, as Google has applied for a patent for a 'water-based data center.'"

Well

[NetNed]

Does this mean that file sharing and sites like Wikileaks could just pull up anchor and go to the next country if being pressured by local law enforcement? Interesting the possibilities that this could have. Can think either bad or good, maybe even both.

Moot because of tethering?

[thasmudyan]

They still need massive data and power lines coming from the grid, and because servers need to be connected to the internet without even the slightest interruption, a floating server rack cannot be mobile. In fact, special steps would have to be undertaken to make sure it stays in one place during storms and other maritime crises. Wouldn't it make more sense to just buy a piece of land near the sea and simply pump the ocean water around for cooling? Throw in a few photovoltaic cells and a wind turbine and you'd get a far cheaper, more reliable land-based data center.

Re:Well

[BitZtream]

Not to mention that in reality it's far easier to just upload a backup copy of the site to a new server than it is to move a cargo ship.

Other than 'land is expensive' which is hard to believe since you can build a datacenter more or less anywhere on cheap land OUTSIDE of major cities... I just don't see any advantge at all, maybe some loopholes that haven't been caught yet but won't take long to close.

The whole thing seems really silly.

Re:Well

[mlts]

Circulating seawater has its bad points. There are a LOT of critters in that water, and in time, barnacles and other stuff will start forming in the pipes, essentially sealing them off once they get big enough and there are enough of them. Of course, one could filter the seawater or use a heat exchanger system, but that is added engineering effort and more items that can break down.

Marine engineering is a fight to itself. It already is tough keeping a datacenter on land operating... add the perils of the sea (water intrusion, corrosive salt spray, humidity, etc.) and it becomes actually a daunting task.

Re:Well

[IICV]

I just don't see any advantge at all, maybe some loopholes that haven't been caught yet but won't take long to close.

You've got a heatsink the size of the entire ocean sitting under your datacenter. I thought that was the main reason why they wanted to do this - run some radiators along the inside of your hull (or even poke them outside) and you've got all the cold you could ever use. Hell, if your systems are robust enough, you could even use filtered ocean water.

Hmmm

[DaMattster]

This might be flamebait my personal opinion is that this idea is abject stupidity. I don't see any benefits as the ship still must be moored for ground power. I could see this being really good economically if you could anchor the ship in a place where you could harness waves for power. Perhaps, the only benefit is mobility - you could move the data center to where it is needed. However, with the urban blight resulting from the latest economic meltdown, why not grab up some of the abandoned buildings, rehabilitate them, and turn them into working datacenters thereby creating jobs for other industries and making America look better.