Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple buys Data Center ($45M-$50M)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In a company as big and far-flung as Apple, you'll probably find just about anything in use someplace.EricNau said:
But IIRC, all of the following run on Mac OS X Server (and often WebObjects) on Apple Xserve hardware:
* iTunes store
* Apple.com
* Apple store online
* .Mac
(.Mac is the one I'm least sure of. It may be running on a 1.42 Ghz Mac Mini.)
That means a whole bunch of servers standing around ready to kick in if something does go wrong to the servers that are running for instance you might have a 20 server setup with 10 of those not actually in use at any given time.(Well that is my understanding anyway)runninmac said:
Well, obviously, not the whole thing is used for storage. whats the storage redundancy on Tier IV? so take the total space potential and divide by that. I cant imagine it being overly huge for videos and stuff, but for records and things, they need lots of redundancy, especially if they are running for all of a year other than 24 minutes....dear god thats a lot!!! if only my Mac were up to that...or any desktop!
killer.
killer.
Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers.agentkow said:
HAHAHAHAH Ballmer s0x0r5!
That was brilliant! Now where is the guy with the video links in his Sig?
That was brilliant! Now where is the guy with the video links in his Sig?
thejadedmonkey said:It says "this side", so that the satalite knows which side of the building (roof or basement) to photograph.
why do you spread misinformation? whats the point?
the chinese writing obviously was meant for the construction crew in an effort to aid them during assembling the building. nothing more.
matticus008 said:Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing this up
Silicon Valley companies may not care where they are incorporated, but they absolutely care where their business-critical systems reside. Sarbanes-Oxley has only increased the scrutiny placed on disaster planning, and companies (at least the more responsible ones) defnitely put a fair amount of weight on the potential for natural (and man-made, for that matter) disasters when searching for a new datacenter location. That's not to say MCI didn't dump it because they didn't need and/or couldn't afford it. I'm just saying that Tier IV space in Silicon Valley isn't without some serious disadvantages, and may have contributed to Apple getting a decent price on it.
For the record, the company I work for has spent the last 5 years moving its systems out of Silicon Valley for this very reason. Some of the main criteria we use when we shop for datacenter space are 1) not in California and 2) minimizing disaster potential. Of course there are others, like labor force, internet backbone, etc.
I beg to differ. The major costs of modernizing such a facility are to the cooling, power, and network infrastructre, and I wouldn't characterize them as "easy". It's all about the density. Increase the CPU density means increasing the power density. That means increasing the UPS capacity and adding more generators. That also means major retrofits to the cooling infrastructure which of course puts more strain on the power infrastructure. And network costs are huge. My point is $450 per sq. ft. sounds great when compared to $1200 for a new facility, but if you can only get 1/3 the CPU density, then it maybe isn't a good of a deal as it sounds.
macaddict06 said:
The perfect Stevenote demo computer. "Look how fast I can launch iTunes! See, no bounces! Wow. Like butter!"
beaster said:
But with the building being empty it does get easier. No need to move things around and all. Also as it was designed for a telcom company i am pretty sure they didn't skimp on the type of cable they used and all.
macaddict06 said:
The Tier IV rating is for the facility, not the systems/storage it houses. It's merely a rating for the capabilites of the datacenter itself - how redundant are the cooling, power, etc. The standards are set by the Uptime Institute, but the idea is to rate the facility's fault tolerance, not the systems themselves. No point in having a five-9's computer cluster if it's sitting in a Tier I facility.
jbernie said:
Ah, I see, I may have misunderstood matticus008's comment about moving systems around. I thought he was referring to moving systems from their existing datacenters to the new one, rather than moving them around within a populated facility to get to the guts of it. Yes, certainly having an empty facility makes life much easier to do the kinds of retrofits necessary for a decent CPU density.
My point remains the same though - a 5-year old facility that was never occupied (and therefore may never really have been finished in terms of network cabling, power whips, etc.) will still cost a small fortune to upgrade to match a modern facility in terms of CPU density. For example, 5 years ago they may have only banked on the average system occupying 2 rack units. Today you can get the same horsepower in a single RU server. So twice as many servers per rack - huge difference in terms of power, cooling, and network density. Even if MCI didn't skimp on the type of network cable, they probably didn't lay enough of it.
It's not the Herculean task you make it out to be in an empty building. This is their job, and this facility is about as easy as it gets for datacenter refitting. It's like saying building a new bridge is easy. It's never easy, but on a relative scale, it's as good as it gets.beaster said:
You're right on the general scale, but this is all speculative. We don't know what kind of facility this is and we don't know what it's for, or what work needs to be done to prepare it. Apple does, and they're not exactly wasteful in their capital assets. The point I'm trying to make is that this isn't someone else's lemon, and it's not a 1972 mainframe building that needs to be gutted completely. It's only 5 years old, and while it might need some upgrades, this is a pretty choice find as far as new datacenters go.
All locations are in danger of some kind of natural disaster--pick your poision, I guess. Compared to Bangladesh (or whatever they're calling it these days), this is a fantastic location. They would have been foolish not to buy it given its proximity to the majority of Apple operations and their obvious need for a lot of new server space. Of course, all of this can probably be chalked up to some home region pride on my part
, so I'm not particularly unbiased.The real use of the new complex and why Every post is wrong
I am just guessing but the amount of room might be an interrogation center for X86 Hackers. I am assuming the normal .mac drip torture, also including the IPod with aftermarket belkin electrode to nipple clamp accessory would be in full use. I even heard speculation that they have a room where they will confine these hackers to pure dark rooms, windows 3.1 on a modified Tandy, and the repetive windows startup chime for upto 30 days.
I also heard from an inside source that dominatrix Mickey will be there to control any out of hand inmates with his mighty mouse touch sensative tail.
Inmates will also be expected to write the following 1,000 times:
"My karma check for today: There once was a user that whined his existing OS was so blind, he'd do better to pirate an OS that ran great but found his hardware declined. I did steal Mac OS! Really, I am way uncool.
I am just guessing but the amount of room might be an interrogation center for X86 Hackers. I am assuming the normal .mac drip torture, also including the IPod with aftermarket belkin electrode to nipple clamp accessory would be in full use. I even heard speculation that they have a room where they will confine these hackers to pure dark rooms, windows 3.1 on a modified Tandy, and the repetive windows startup chime for upto 30 days.
I also heard from an inside source that dominatrix Mickey will be there to control any out of hand inmates with his mighty mouse touch sensative tail.
Inmates will also be expected to write the following 1,000 times:
"My karma check for today: There once was a user that whined his existing OS was so blind, he'd do better to pirate an OS that ran great but found his hardware declined. I did steal Mac OS! Really, I am way uncool.
matticus008 said:
your bias aside
thats a good point - seems to go hand in hand with all the office space they are leasing/buying.There is some serious expansion going on.
Obviously the infrastructure they had 3 years ago isnt going to cope with the increase in staff/awareness/popularity/online service usage they they have had recently.
Z
matticus008 said:
But that's just it - it's not a new bridge. They're fixing up an exisiting one. It's certainly easier since it's empty (no cars on it, to further the analogy). But I'm speaking from experience here - we bought a Tier IV facility of a similar size a few years back (which was only a few years old at the time), got a great deal, but still had to sink a crapload of cash into modernizing it. My whole point with my OP is that it may not be as good a deal as it was made it out to being.
I'd agree that it's unlikely a lemon, and this is all speculative (but hey, they don't call it MacRumors for nothing
). As for being a choice find - that too is speculative. Having shopped for a Tier IV facility of a similar size recently, there are many options out there, including building your own, and the economics aren't that far off. All locations are in danger of some kind of natural disaster--pick your poision, I guess. Compared to Bangladesh (or whatever they're calling it these days), this is a fantastic location. They would have been foolish not to buy it given its proximity to the majority of Apple operations and their obvious need for a lot of new server space. Of course, all of this can probably be chalked up to some home region pride on my part
Yes, but some natural disasters are far more devastating (and likely) than others. The desert Southwest, for example, is pretty minimal in terms of natural disasters that could impact such a facility. Rocky Mountain west isn't too far behind (blizzards are no fun, but they don't carry much risk for a Tier III or IV facility other than preventing people from getting to work). Both regions are much safer than the Bay Area. I'm just saying that other Silicon Valley companies would consider themselves foolish if they continued to put all their eggs in that particular basket. Now maybe Apple owns a bunch of space far from California dangers, and they have a great DR plan in place. If so, great. I sure hope so.
I agree completely. The major difference (and I think likely the decisive one) is that a preexisting building can be readied in a fraction of the time of a new building, even if the cost savings aren't massive. With a company like Apple that likes to control the spin and squeeze maximum hype out of the last minute, buying this datacenter will get them into whatever they're planning several weeks or even months earlier, which might be a bigger deal than saving even just $10-15 million over a brand-new facility.beaster said:I'd agree that it's unlikely a lemon, and this is all speculative (but hey, they don't call it MacRumors for nothing