For an organization choosing among Denver Colorado, Miami Florida, Redlands California and Tulsa Oklahoma, from a physical security perspective – where would be the best place to locate their data center? Why is this place better and the other places worse?
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Elizabeth Gutierrez says
When considering the best place to locate a data center between Denver Colorado, Miami Florida, Redlands California, and Tulsa Oklahoma, I immediately discarded Florida and California. In my decision making I thought about the choice of site to minimize the likelihood of disaster given that natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. are the source of a wide range of environmental threats to data centers, other information processing facilities, and their personnel. I would think it is common knowledge at this point that Florida is one of the states most vulnerable to the worsening effects of climate change. The sea level is rising and given that Florida is right on the coast, scientists predict that the lower third of the state will actually be underwater by the end of the century, Miami could be lost as soon as three decades. With regards to California, it has suffered tremendously from deadly wildfires and earthquakes; they are also in danger of a drought. When it came to Colorado and Oklahoma it was a tougher decision because I had to analyze the cities specifically in question. I would argue that both are decent options, but ultimately the best place to locate a data center would be in Denver Colorado due to its position. Although Colorado is also used to getting wildfires, Denver’s elevation protects it from many of the effects and consequences of climate change. For example, it is naturally insulated from rising sea levels, and as a whole, is less jeopardized by earthquakes, floods and hurricane storm surges in comparison to numerous U.S. cities. While Tulsa is landlocked and at a safe distance away from the coast protecting it from sea level rising and the government’s construction of detention ponds prevents flooding damage from devastating storms, the city is still considered a high risk for tornadoes which is not ideal for a business.
Shubham Patil says
Elizabeth,
How did you go about comparing the locations? I referenced the table in the textbook which gives a vulnerability scale of the six natural disasters. I chose Tulsa, OK as it is the most immune if you reference it to the table.
I feel there are very few places that are safe from all natural disasters. Calculating the best place to locate a data center comes down to what risks you are comfortable with.
Shubham Patil says
Natural disasters are the source of a wide range of environmental threats to data centers, other information processing facilities, and their personnel. It is possible to assess the risk of various types of natural disasters and take suitable precautions so that catastrophic loss from natural disaster is prevented.
To compare the given locations, I referenced the table 69.1 in the textbook which shows the vulnerability scale of the six categories of natural disasters. It includes typical warning time for each event, whether personnel evacuation is indicated or possible, and the typical duration of each event.
I think Tulsa, Oklahoma is the most immune out of all locations from the natural disasters, as it sits low on the vulnerability scale, as tornado is the only possible risk as per the historic results. If we compare it to the table – The duration for “Tornado” is brief although it can be intense. The warning column says, “Advance warning of potential, but not site specific.” Tornadoes give ample warning, but the only problem is they are not very specific of where it would hit.
Denver sits in an earthquake prone zone even though the likelihood is less. The Colorado Geological survey shows that earthquake fault lines are closer to Colorado Springs. The fault lines area capable of producing earthquakes of 7.0 magnitude. Other than earthquakes, Colorado also gets a fair bit of snow due to its altitude.
Miami obviously is a bad idea due to hurricanes because the city sits right on the coast. The risks are high because the official hurricane seasons lasts from June through November. If occurred, it can last days and can cause some serious damage including people loss. Redlands, California is also not a good idea because of earthquakes.
Yangyuan Lin says
Hi, Shubham
We have different choices. I chose Denver. Although tornadoes occur in Denver, it is not common. Compared with wildfires, tornadoes are more harmful. Although alarms can allow people to evacuate, it still cannot prevent tornadoes from damaging buildings. Wildfires are more easy to reduce the risk. Clearing the plants around the building and setting up water ditches can reduce the hazards of natural fires.
Oluwaseun Soyomokun says
The Northern and Southern areas of California, parts of Denver Colorado had experienced a 7.1 magnitude earthquake which makes these places vulnerable to natural disasters and wrecking huge catastrophe is worst to consider for data centre. I would recommend organizations with strong global businesses perception cite their data centres in Miami Florida or Tulsa due to the unique business advantages and profit gains. They have convenient metropolitan areas for major peering and connection peering hub for networks all over the South-eastern United States and for South American companies.
Elizabeth Gutierrez says
Hi Oluwaseun,
It is interesting to see how we all have a different perspective on which location might be the best fit. Personally, I argued that Denver Colorado would be the best place to locate a data center because due to the locations high altitude, its risk for devastating hazards like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes is relatively low according to ATTOM Data Solutions. I found that the largest magnitude for an earthquake recorded in Colorado was 5.3, not 7.1. While I acknowledge that it is important to consider business advantages and profit gains, from a physical security perspective, I would argue that Miami Florida is a poor choice given that it is one of the states most subject to the worsening effects of climate change; the sea level along Florida’s coast has risen about one inch every decade, and heavy rainstorms are becoming more severe, and the rising temperatures are likely to increase storm damages, and increase the frequency of unpleasantly hot days (which is not ideal for computers).
Yangyuan Lin says
Common natural disasters in Colorado include wildfires and floods. On average, 1,000 or more wildfires occur each year. Also, because of heavy rains and thunderstorms in Colorado, flooding is also a frequent natural disaster.
Compared to Colorado, the average number of wildfires in Florida is as high as 1000-2000 per year. More importantly, Florida is located in a high-incidence area of hurricanes and severe thunderstorms. The frequency of 40% makes some cities every year. Up to 100 days of thunderstorms, an average of one thunderstorm every four days.
Redlands is an earthquake-prone area. California has more than 15,700 recorded faults and Redlands has more than 400 faults.
I think Denver Colorado is more suitable as the location of the data center. Although Colorado and Florida are both high rates of wildfires, floods, and severe thunderstorms, Colorado is relatively less threatened by natural disasters each year. For wildfires, clearing plants around the data center, digging drains, and using fireproof materials can reduce the risk. Establishing data centers in high-lying areas can reduce the threat of flooding. However, the higher frequency of hurricanes and thunderstorms in Florida will cause widespread power outages, which will have a more serious impact on the data center. There is almost no good way to prevent and reduce the damage caused by the California earthquake.
Yangyuan Lin says
Tornadoes often occur in Tulsa Oklahoma. More importantly, expansive soils will cause structural deformation of buildings due to the influence of soil moisture changes. As the soil composition is difficult to detect, it is difficult to measure the risk of a building with a deep foundation.
Yangyuan Lin says
Reference:
http://www.usa.com