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.
Out of the 4 cities from this list, Denver Colorado would best place to locate the organizations data center. From a physical security perspective, weather is what concerns me the most. Denver does not have severe natural disasters like the rest of the cities. Denver has snowstorm/blizzards and in other parts of Colorado, they have wildfires. Denver is the safest of the cities. Tulsa Oklahoma has had over 200 tornados in the last 60 years and average 3 per year. Redlands California is prone to earthquakes as the city sits in between two major fault lines, San Jacinto and the San Andreas. Miami Florida is subject to hurricanes, severe thunder and lightning storms, wildfires and flooding. Miami’s hurricane season goes from June to end of November, thunderstorms happen up to 100 days out of the year, lightning storms can hit from 10 mile away which cause a lot of wildfires. Miami is also prone to flooding due to being at sea level. All these weather issues play a large part of physical security which is why I think Denver Colorado is the safest choice.
Hello Corey,
Interesting fact about Redlands being between 2 fault lines, I definitely did not know that, that certainly would make it a poor choice for a data center
A data center is undoubtedly an organization’s crown jewel. This critical asset requires securing the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data in the event of natural disasters. Using our understanding of availability, we can risk assess which of the above locations would be best to locate the center. Both Redlands and Miami are prone to seasonal natural disasters like hurricanes, wildfires, and humidity peaks, removing these options. Data centers come with expensive and complicated HVAC systems, and with the extreme heat in Tulsa, the electrical bill could become relatively high. This leaves Denver the most ideal of these four locations because it is less likely to experience a seasonal natural disaster. The temperature remains on the cooler side, helping us keep our HVAC system from overworking and overall lowering operating costs to ensure our data center can remain intact all year.
Hello Kellly,
Very interesting how you arrived at your conclusion based on the cost implication of a complicated HVAC system, indicative of an expensive electrical bill in Tulsa, Okl. Secondly, how the temperature remains cooler in Denver, which keeps the HVAC system from overworking. I am intrigued by your analytical approach wherein you picked on the temperature rather than the weather as a whole to arrive at your choice of the most suitable location for a data center. Well said.
Hi Kelly,
I agree with what you said because to ensure, in the event of a natural disaster to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data. From a physical security standpoint, Denver, Colorado is the best location to place a data center. Weather factors make both Redlands and Miami unsuitable for data centers. Compared to other natural disasters that occur, the only natural disaster that Denver becomes is a snowstorm, which has a low probability of occurring and generates less damage compared to others.
The best place out of the 4 cities listed would be Denver. Denver is known for its cold weather with blizzards, even though serious, is not considered the worst as far as natural disasters point of view. Miami, a coastal location, has severe rainfalls and one of the highest among the major cities in the U.S. that are often strong with hurricanes. Redlands in California has wildfires and even severe thunderstorms with possibilities of dangerous lightning strikes. Tulsa, OK is considered one of the highest risk areas with its long history of tornadoes. So with that said, due to the severe weather that Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa usually have, Denver would be the least dangerous and best place to locate an organization’s data center.
Christopher I agree with you I would also like to note that Tulsa Oklahoma is the 47th state with the worst internet speed. So even if the conditions were right information would be travelling there really slow in comparison to more dense populated cities that have a more developed networking infrastructure to transport data.
Interesting point you make, Wilmer. As expected, most people pointed out hurricanes/tropical storms in Florida, earthquakes/fires in the Red Woods, and tornadoes in Oklahoma, obviously making Denver the ideal candidate. Not many people looked past the environmental factors, though. Tulsa and Oklahoma in general are much more rural areas than the other ones mentioned on the list, and you can’t do much with a data center that has terrible internet speeds.
Given that data centers produce a lot of heat Denver might be the best option. Denver temperatures stay relatively cool and the city doesn’t get overly hot as say Miami would. Miami is subject to several hurricanes during hurricane season as well which is not ideal for a data center. Tulsa Oaklahoma and Redlands California are also at risk for natural disasters whether that’s tornados or wildfires neither are ideal situations for a data center location. Of the given cities Denver is the best option, but even the mile-high-city is prone to natural disasters like blizzards and snowstorms which if the data center and internal components are not designed to withstand these kinds of temperatures many disruptions could occur. An interesting approach Microsoft has taken is storing data centers underwater in a submarine-type format to keep them cool.
Hi Dhaval,
Very interesting indeed, regarding Microsoft storing data centers underwater! I have read similar articles that suggest not only storing data centers in the ocean but in space as well. https://www.fastcompany.com/3016901/is-the-future-of-data-centers-in-space Considering the NSA itself stores petabytes of data and with everyone moving to the cloud, terrestial storage locations will quickly be maxed out. Very thoughtful post!
Kelly
Very cool last post about Microsoft storing data centers underwater, and is not something I’ve heard of before. You have to think about the risks associated with doing something like that as well, though. Might make Tulsa more viable as a data center location, but I can’t imagine that would work out too well in Miami. Interesting concept to keep an eye on going forward Dhaval!
I agree with you on your statement that the Data center produces a lot of heat and thus called for Denver to be best option. And that might also come with high level of risk. In this regard, a thorough analysis of risks needs to be done properly before data center would moved out to that location.
Every location will come with some environmental risk; however, Tulsa, Oklahoma presents the best option for the data center. Each option is subject to extreme weather conditions with different frequency, duration, advanced warning, evacuation recommendations, and impact to surrounding infrastructure. The selection criteria considered these factors and prioritized a location with a short extreme weather cycle that was reasonably predictable. It also considered mitigation strategies and how the weather would affect the surrounding areas.
Tulsa provides a compelling offering due to the fact that it’s extreme weather, tornados, have a relatively short, predictable season peaking in May. Advanced warning can be provided for oncoming storms, although this is not site specific. The data center can be built partially underground as a mitigation strategy with redundant backup sites in different parts of the city.
The other sites were not selected due to their low predictability (earthquakes in Redlands), longer duration (snowstorms & wildfires in Denver), and mitigation options (hurricanes in Miami). Tulsa is not without risk with tornados but it provides the best option for predictability and risk mitigation.
Hey Matthew,
I do not think Tulsa Oklahoma is a good prospect to erect a data center. I like the insight you have provided about the tornados that occur there, however according to what I’ve researched online they are also prone to earthquakes. They recently had an earthquake about 2 weeks ago, and it had a magnitude of 3.8. This has a potential to interfere with the availability of the servers if an earthquake were to occur.
I didn’t know that Denver also have wildfires, however I still perceive it as the best option out of the choices we were given in the question.
Hi Matthew,
Although I chose Denver as the best site for the data center, I think you make a very sound logical argument for placing it in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The anticipation of the physical risk factors from the elements definitely allows extra time and preparation for better mitigation. Including part of the data center underground is also a very viable solution.
I think it makes the most sense to place the data center in Denver, CO. The weather is the biggest factor when considering the placement of the data center amongst these four locations. Redlands, CA wouldn’t be an ideal location as California is subject to earthquakes which could damage the data center as well as any connections to it. A data center in Miami, FL also wouldn’t be ideal since the area is subject to Hurricanes as well as flooding, which could have negative impact on the building as well as any incoming/outgoing connections. Finally, Tulsa, OK, wouldn’t be an ideal location for a data center due to Tornadoes which could completely destroy the building and the data stored within it.
From a physical security perspective, Denver would be the best choice for the location of a data center. All the other cities appear vulnerable to some sort of natural disaster – Miami and hurricanes, Tulsa with tornadoes, and Redlands with earthquakes and wildfires. Denver appears to be not be as vulnerable to natural disasters as the other choices listed. Denver also has the added benefit of colder temperatures, and data centers are less likely to be at risk for heat and humidity issues.
Hello Andrew,
That’s a great post. I completely agree that the Denver Colorado would be a best place for an data center as the other places would have higher possibility of some sort of natural disaster. Those natural disaster could affect the data center to not being accessible which could be a higher risk for business that would have all of its resources stored within that data center.
Well stated but natural disaster could happen to any city regardless of robust security measures in place so Denver could still be hit with natural disaster. In this regard, the company needs to do cost-benefit analysis on any location mentioned in the article before deciding to move out the Data center.
As per analysis Denver Colorado is best place for implement datacenter due to several advantages, Denver location is center of the major national and regional fiber plants. Network fiber connectivity depth is stronger in Denver that is easy to connect any regional and nation network connectivity to reach any country all over the world with high speed fiber network.
Denver economy rank of 4th for the fastest growth metro city in last five years out of the top 20 metros in the United State, many major companies start new infrastructure in Denver cause of city ecosystem, educated population, world-class research facilities etc.
Other place are not also bad but compare with Denver they have issues in location some situated near mountain, sea, where so many physical security issues are generated like high humidity, unstable temperature, flood or tsunami possibilities due to sea, they are face natural disaster and environmental issues .
Miami earth surface temperature are expected lead heavy rain also face terrorist activities issue, Redland flood and storms risk are increasing because of the environment pattern changes, Oklahoma has a under humid margin with colder area average annual temperature near about 16 deg, Celsius. Heavy rainstorm conditions face on many places of Oklahoma.
As per study of all other places Denver find one of the best location out of all for the setup new data center, this is safe location against natural disaster threats like earthquakes, hurricanes, storm, flood etc, also safe environmental threats and terrorist attack possibilities.
Hello Mohammed,
I appreciate the facts stated in your write-up on the economy of Denver, which qualifies it in the last five years as the 4th fastest growing metro city in the U.S. However, I am very suprised to read here that Miami is a location that is likely to suffer terrorist attacks. I have researched and do not see any source to this effect; I think that while Miami is prominent for its environmental constraints, the likelihood of a terrorist attack is not one of them.
Denver poses the least risk for a Data Center. All of the discussed locations pose somewhat financial risk; technically there is no location that will never be impacted by environmental risks. Redlands, CA is due east of LA and experiences several earthquakes which would raise the cost of incident response/recovery budgets for Data Centers. Miami, Florida is an obvious one as hurricane seasons typically can pose severe threats to buildings and cause power-outages or flooding to a data center. To me, it would be a toss up between Denver or Tulsa. Tulsa typically is uneventful besides the one major exception of tornados. Although I would like to compare the rate of occurrence of tornados hitting homes – in one swoop your entire data center could be destroyed by a tornado. Which could pose almost definite destruction of the organization if the data center is vital enough – unless a hot site was set up. To me it seems like a gamble.
That leaves Denver; which has the only risk of snowstorms that could potentially lead to power outages leading to a loss of availability. To have the full scope on the best possible place we would have to compare the rate of occurrence with events to generate how much money we’re losing on average – as well as other infrastructure costs such as climate control within data centers.
Hi Michael,
I agree that no city is free of any risk when establishing a data center and that Denver is most likely the best choice. I also took into account the number of earthquakes that occur in the Denver and Tulsa area and ultimately due to fracking the Oklahoma area has seen more earthquakes that cause greater damage than those in Colorado.
Hi Dhaval,
I agree that no city is certainly free of risk with regard to establishing data center and that is why it becomes absolutely necessary to embark on thorough analysis of assessment of risk before moving out any data center to any location. And the company needs to do cost-benefit analysis on any location mentioned in the article.
Hello Michael,
I agree with you that each location possesses a risk that impacts it periodically, if not regularly. I like that you mentioned that Denver also suffers from snow storms, albeit not strong enough to be categorized as a natural disaster as seen in other locations like Miami (Tornadoes), California (Bush fires), and Oklahoma (tornadoes).
All those cities have physical security environmental risks but out of the 4 cities, I would chose Colorado, Denver to be less risky relating to the location of their data center. Miami is known as a city with a lot of hurricanes which can cause electric power outages leading to the disruption of the infrastructure. ( Vulnerability of integrity and availability). Redland California with earthquakes and Tulsa with tornadoes are at a higher risk to locate their data center. Denver does not really experience those environmental risks as opposed to the other cities listed in our case.
Denver would be the most convenient location for a data center. This is due to it having the best weather conditions in comparison to its counterparts. Its disadvantage would be blizzard/snowstorms but this can be forecasted in weather as compared to Miami it has hurricanes, Tulsa with tornadoes, and California with earthquakes. Denver also proves to be 2nd place in fastest internet for good service behind California, and Oklahoma being last and #47th worst state for internet speed. With. all this in mind Denver seems to be the more well rounded candidate.
I like this point because a data center in the middle of nowhere (Tulsa) would most likely need heavier investments into infrastructure. Ultimately the point of the data center is to… well store data – so I would imagine if internet speeds are slower that would likely congest the network and detriment the reliability of the data center.
Out of the choices for placing the data center the Denver Colorado location would be the best from a physical security standpoint. Colorado is a very cold and mountainous region. The data center can be placed in a location that is very hard to access by utilizing the geography. If for example the center is placed in a location up in a mountain that has only one pass to get to it then it would make managing the physical security much easier. There would only be one main way to access the building and you would be able to focus your attention there. The other locations may have their benefits as well, however, these locations do open to the risk of various other extreme weather conditions or natural disasters. Miami would be subject to hurricanes and flooding and near a coast, California would be subject to earthquakes and is also near a coast, and Oklahoma is subject to the possibility of tornadoes affecting the data center. Considering all of this Colorado seems like the best option with regard to physical security.
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?
Out of the 4 locations listed above, I believe that Denver, Colorado would be the best place for an organization to locate their data center from a physical security perspective. This is due to Denver having the least environmental risks of the four locations. Denver’s highest environmental risks consist of snowstorms, whereas Miami faces hurricanes, Tulsa faces tornadoes, and Redlands faces earthquakes. When it comes to risk mitigation, Denver gives you the best chance of your data center not being effected by an environmental disaster.
Michael,
I agree the data center should be located in Denver, Colorado. Any of these cities are in danger with Mother Nature but from the statistics, it shows Denver is one of the better . Just about a month ago- we had Hurricane Ida hit here in Pennsylvania. Who would have thought it would have destroyed Temple’s Ambler Campus?
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?
From a physical security perspective, it is easy to rule out all elements that Vacca mentions other than natural disasters, as the other potential threats- accidental damage, vandalism, and man-made catastrophes, are probably equally likely anywhere. Upon choosing the location that best suits the physical security of the data center, it is relatively easy to immediately rule out Miami, Florida, as well as Redlands, California as potential options for the following reasons. Miami has an exceptionally high risk of hurricanes, residing at the number one position for the most vulnerable state to a hurricane. (https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/top-5-us-cities-most-vulnerable-to-hurricanes/359885). Wildfires are also common around Miami with its constant dry heat. Redlands, California is also highly susceptible to wildfires and earthquakes, making it an easy choice to exclude. Tulsa, Oklahoma has a variety of natural disasters common including mudslides, landslides, floods, and most importantly tornadoes. The biggest natural disaster risk factors in Denver, Colorado are avalanches, which would probably be avoidable if planned for in advance, infrequent tornadoes, some wildfires, and hail, which would be unlikely to seriously affect a well structured building compared to tornadoes. As a result, I think that the best choice for the data center would be in Denver, Colorado.
Hello Antonio,
I agree with you in that Denver, Colorado would be the best place out of the 4 places to locate the data center. Denver has the least environmental risks out of the 4 locations. I like how you acknowledged that even though they do get avalanches as well as snow storms in Denver, these natural disasters can be planned for beforehand where as hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes are much harder to plan for. In a process of the lesser evils, Denver gives you the best chance of avoiding your data center being negatively effected by a natural disaster.
Let me start by saying that, Data centers are centralized locations housing computing and networking equipment. Datacenter physical requirements are perimeter monitoring, motion detection, and intrusion alarms, while technical requirements are smart cards for access control, CCTV, intrusion detection systems, etc.
Research reveals that, at the minimum, data centers should be equipped with at least seven layers of physical security, including physical barriers, intruder detection, surveillance cameras, 24/7 security guards, vehicle traps, full authentication, and auditable access policy control.
Secondly, Data owners should consider the following to prevent physical attacks, e.g., proximity to high-risk and hazardous areas, power and water supply, transport systems, network carrier availability, and the likelihood of natural disasters, i.e., earthquakes, hurricanes, floods.
With regards to natural disasters, the best option of the 4 locations for a data center would be Denver, Colorado, for the under-listed reasons:
1. Denver, Colorado, is known for its cold weather and blizzards, albeit severe but not categorised as a natural disaster.
2. Miami is prominent for severe rainfalls(floods) coupled with solid hurricanes.
3. The Redlands in California have wildfires and severe thunderstorms synonymous with severe lightning strikes.
4. Finally, Tulsa, Oklahoma, is known for frequent tornadoes.
Reference:
https://www.isa.org/intech-home/2020/march-april/departments/physical-security-of-a-data-center
In my opinion from the list of cities cited in the question, the best location an organization should consider implementing a data center would definitely be Denver Colorado. I say Denver because there are less environmental threats than in the other cities. Florida is notorious for having adverse weather during hurricane season. Oaklahoma and California are both are known to have earthquakes. Moreover, in October of 2020 there was “a brush fire near Redlands has charred 125 acres and prompted homes in the area to be evacuated.” (ABC eyewitness news)
https://abc7.com/redlands-live-oak-fire-brush/7039785/
In my opinion, the best place for an organization to locate their data center out of the options of Denver, Miami, Redlands, and Tusla, would Denver, CO.
I say Denver because I think that the other three locations have a higher volatility and severity of weather, temperature, and natural disasters that occur in their respective regions. Although it can get pretty cold in the increased elevation of Denver, it is better than the severe heat, thunderstorms, and flooding in Miami, the wildfires and earthquakes in California, and the heat and tornadoes in Oklahoma.
When thinking about where the best location would be for an organization’s data center, it is critical to take into account natural disasters and physical security risks of IT equipment. IT resources cannot be used if they are not available, especially if the important step of backing them up is not taken before disaster hits.
Michael,
I agree that Denver, Colorado would be the best location out of Miami, Tulsa, and Redlands. With Miami known for hurricanes and tons of rain, to Redlands known for earthquakes; thinking of a Mother Nature and budget wise perspective, it would be ideal to have the data center in Colorado.
The natural disaster that could occur at Denver Colorado is winter storms. The natural disaster that Miami Florida would be facing is hurricane. This would also result in flooding which is not a good condition for the data center. Redlands California is close to the ocean as a result they would be also affected by the hurricane. The another disaster that has a higher possibility over there is a wild fire. Which could result in a power outage that could leave a data center without a power for long period of time. Tulsa Oklahoma is a place that has a higher possibility of High Wind and Tornado. This could also lead to a power outage and would also need to have a good physical security that could protect the server and other equipment in the data center during the tornado or high wind. The best place I would recommend to have a data center is Denver Colorado. As it would be less affected by any natural disaster. The weather wise it is cold there as well so it would not require to use much of the HVAC.
Hi Vraj, I agree with you. HVAC costs can also get very high; having a datacenter where it is already cold will ensure computers/servers are kept safe, and not burn a hole in the company wallet.
By far, the most secure physical data center location is Denver. Denver has an overall temperate, colder climate with an average annual climate of 22*F-89*F. Colder temperatures are better for datacenters, considering the cost of AC maintenance versus a spot like New Mexico. The only concern would be snow, since Denver averages at 57 inches of snow per year. As long as the data center has an appropriate uninterrupted power supply (UPS), this should not pose a huge risk—as compared to the other suggested locations.
Miami is a horrendous location for a datacenter due to the proclivity this spot has to hurricanes, which correspond to flooding as well as wind damage. The University of Miami does not have the ‘Hurricanes’ as their mascot for no reason; this location has a hurricane rate of 1.96 years—meaning a hurricane is likely to hit about every other year. This statistic does not include tropical storms either, which have similar destructive properties to hurricanes.
Tulsa is another terrible spot due to the location’s spot in terms of tornados. According to Tulsa’s tourism website, “Since 1950, Tulsa, Oklahoma has had over 200 tornados and has an average of 3 tornados a year. While the average of fatalities per year is only 1, Tulsa is known as a high-risk area for tornados. The largest tornado ever recorded in Tulsa, Oklahoma was an F5 in the year 1960. There were 5 deaths and 81 injuries as a result.” T
The loss of life and potential financial loss with a datacenter in this location renders it completely incompatible.
Lastly, Redlands, CA, is another poor location due to its proximity to the San Andreas fault—a geological hotspot for seismic activity. The prevalence of earthquakes can cause detrimental damage to any datacenters in this area.
https://weatherspark.com/y/3709/Average-Weather-in-Denver-Colorado-United-States-Year-Round
https://red.msudenver.edu/2018/the-truth-about-winter-in-denver.html
https://www.livescience.com/57671-hurricane-season.html
https://discovertulsa.net/does-tulsa-oklahoma-have-tornados-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Since%201950%2C%20Tulsa%2C%20Oklahoma%20has,F5%20in%20the%20year%201960.
https://geology.com/articles/san-andreas-fault.shtml
Hi Lauren thanks for including these additional links. I know the question doesn’t specifically touch on where the organization and the majority of its users are geographically located but I think this too is important. This doesn’t necessarily have environmental impacts but it would impact performance. For organizations located in areas that experience frequent natural disasters, such as tornados, organizations could consider deploying a load balanced two data center model. The main data center could be located in the high risk area, which in this example could be Tulsa. For redundant routing, the organization could also deploy a data center in another geographical location that experiences minimal threats of natural disasters, such as Denver. While routing the data to the Denver data center may be a bit slower, it would help an organization ensure their systems are in high availability in the event of a disaster.
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?
A companys data center is crucial to its business, and choosing where to house the data center should be one of the top priorities. All 4 of these locations have their risks no question, but I believe Denver Colorado would be the best choice for the data center. Yes Denver has cold winters but you would take that over the Earthquakes in Redlands, Hurricanes in Miami and Tornados in Tulsa. The potential for damage in the last 3 options could be extremely taxing on the business.
Jason I agree that each location has pros & cons. The cold winters in Denver can work in your favor – if the data center can take advantage of the external cool weather to reduce HVAC costs! The 2 coastal areas are sub-optimal and the impact of a tornado in Oklahoma is just too great to risk,
Hi Jason, no doubt about all 4 locations having risk. It’s unfortunate that there’s risk big and/or small everywhere we go no matter what the city is. Through process of elimination, Denver seems a reasonable choice.
They should consider the following geographic risks associated with each site: California – Earthquakes and recently forest/brush fires. Oklahoma – Tornadoes, Miami – Hurricanes and tropical storms. The Colorado location does not suffer from the issues listed for every other site, but it does not have proximity to major population centers. It is relatively far from the densely populated North East or California Coastal areas. The deciding factor would likely be whether the applications could be highly performant if located in Denver (relatively far from large population centers).
Protection of information asset to keep organization up and running is increasingly regarded as one of the best decisions in the organization. The best place out of the 4 cities mentioned in the article would be Denver. Denver, it is noted for its cold weather ,but its impacts is not seen to be bad on the coattails of natural disaster. Miami, is situated at a coastal location, has heavy rainfalls in the most of the year and it is primarily considered as being of the frequent rainfall cities in the U.S. with strong indication of hurricanes threat. Redlands in California has more frequent wildfires and even serious likelihood of thunderstorms with of powerful thunder and lightning strikes that could derail the effective operations within the organization. Tulsa, basically appeared to be one of the highest risk areas with its long frequent story of tornadoes and its destruction of properties
In this regard, considering the the severe weather that Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa usually had exhibited in the article, Denver would be seen as the most lucrative and best place to locate an organization’s data center.
When an organization is designated with the task of building a data center, there are a ton of factors it must consider since this is such a critical piece of the company. When looking at a list of locations – Denver, Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa – from a physical security perspective, the clear choice here would be Denver Colorado, and the reason for that is due to the risk of environmental hazard. Firstly, with the Redlands you are putting your data center at a great risk for not only the high level of forest fires, but also to earthquakes as well. Miami could be acceptable for a good part of the year, but it also very unpredictably hot sometimes brings the risk of brutal hurricanes during the late summer/early fall months. Tulsa is located in a plain state, which puts any data center there at a greater risk for sporadic tornadoes. Denver is not completely risk free, as there is a risk of blizzards or extreme cold, but looking at these four options strictly in the sense of physical security towards natural disasters, Denver would be the most ideal for an organization to build a data center.
Out of the four cities, Denver, Colorado is the best place to locate their data center. Any disaster can occur in all 4 of those cities. Just about a month ago- we had Hurricane Ida hit here in Pennsylvania. Who would have thought it would have destroyed Temple’s Ambler Campus? Most of the time people would not take tornado warnings seriously because I lived in the mountains. However, Hurricane Ida proved us wrong.
Miami, Florida is known for tons of rain and hurricanes.
Redlands, California is known for earthquakes and wildfires.
Tulsa, Oklahoma is known for tornados, mudslides, and landslides.
Denver, Colorado contains record high heat but is the best option as it is compared to the three other cities.
Victoria,
I really like how you mention that natural disasters and bad weather in general have been happening recently in even the most unexpected places. Weather definitely seems to be becoming more volatile and hard to predict, and because of this, even more thought is required than in the past when it comes to a company establishing their data center. I agreed in my response that Denver, CO would be the best due to the statistics of natural disaster and harsh weather in the other locations. In the end, it all comes down to statistical data and risk, and even though Denver seems like the safest spot out of the four, it is not risk free.
-Mike
From a physical security perspective, Denver, Colorado is the best location to place a data center, a location where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and the risks are minimal. First, Miami, Florida is prone to hurricanes, lightning storms, wildfires and flooding year-round. Redlands, California is prone to earthquakes year-round, making data centers vulnerable to data destruction and requiring significant effort and economy to protect and repair. Tulsa, Oklahoma is subject to year-round tornadoes. Weather factors make each of these cities unsuitable for data centers. The only natural disaster in Denver is a snowstorm compared to other events that occur, which is less likely to occur and generate less damage compared to the others. Having found one of the best locations for a new data center, Denver, Colorado is a safe location against the threat of natural disasters.
Regardless of the location, most companies who have the wherewithal build data centers that withstand the strongest of hurricanes. Change management to sync up production and recovery environments is still not a focus for many of our customers. How can it be? They’ve got enough to do, because they’ve got to observe the ever-louder IT mantra of today: “Do more with less.”
Denver, Colorado, is the best location for a data center. Because of Miami’s proximity to the ocean, there is a tsunami damage factor, and Redlands, CA, is in an earthquake zone.
A data center can be built anywhere if you have power and connectivity, but location has high impact on the quality of service and disaster recovery. We should think about disaster recovery in case in natural disaster. Colorado and California has high risk of fires that would increase the risk when Florida might experience floods and tsunami and Tulsa has tornados occurred in recent years. Therefore, Denver looks like the safest spot of all four locations.
The modern data center is no longer a singular location. Rather, new demands require the data center to be a geographically distributed network of resources. As new services, cloud components and users find their way into the data center model – there will be more reliance around the services that the data center provides. The prevalence of natural disasters in U.S. regions is another factor by which companies can measure data center operations. Enterprises that outsource data center operations can mitigate certain risks by choosing locations in areas deemed low risk by historical and analytical data. Considering this, Denver would best suit a data center location. Colorado offers data centers secure and reliable colocation, network, compliance, security, disaster recovery and cloud services for complete hybrid IT support.