Like, would a skyscraper-style datacenter be practical? Or is just a matter of big, flat buildings being cheaper?

  • Shadow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Weight. If you load a 42u rack up with 30lb servers you’re at 1280lbs spread out over about 4sqft, which is over the floor loading limit for most buildings. It’s much cheaper to support the weight in a wider building compared to a taller one.

    That being said I’ve been in many data centers in the middle of a giant office towers, but they have lower weight limits generally.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      This is armchair nonsense.

      Slab reinforcement in skyscrapers can literally hold fucking skyscrapers.

      If you want to call this a limit, the limit is the expense. Not the weight. That’s absurd. We’re so far past that.

      • Shadow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I’ve deployed substantial quantities of gear in 9 datacenters across 4 countries in my career. I’ve gotten a panicked call from Bell Canada when they realized our deployment density in an older facility, then had to work with them to provide weights of all of our cabinets. Sure though, all armchair nonsense. What’s your background?

        30 seconds searching will back me up. https://www.digitalrealty.com/resources/articles/what-floor-loading-capacity-do-dlr-data-centers-have

        • foggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 minutes ago

          I’m just going to repeat myself. Ildeploying a day center isn’t building one. If you’d architected a data center I’d give a fuck about what you’re saying

          Again:

          Slab reinforcement in skyscrapers can literally hold fucking skyscrapers.

          If you want to call this a limit, the limit is the expense. Not the weight. That’s absurd. We’re so far past that.

          This isn’t rocket science. No one cares about your profession, that’s an obnoxious childish thing to flex about over the internet and doesn’t give you the credibility you think it does.

          Sincerely: literate.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 hours ago

        But the reason for the expense is largely the weight.

        Yes we can at great expense support massive weights. But even in skyscrapers, you aren’t expecting to just cram every floor with equipment that weighs over a ton and supported by less than a square meter of floor.

        It’s not just armchair engineering, i work in the industry and commonly you have racks preferring the ground floor and weight restrictions going up and even marked paths that the racks need to stay on when on upper floors due to limitations of the reinforcements.

        Skyscrapers are largely impractical structures done for the sake of showing off, with any value based on keeping people close to each other. No one builds a skyscraper by itself miles from anything else. This is where they build the datacenters because they don’t need proximity.