Protection of Information Assets

Temple University

Protection of Information Assets

MIS 5206.701 ■ Fall 2022 ■ William Bailey

Unit #6 – Question 2

by 21 Comments

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

  1. When choosing a data center, there are many questions you need to address. What kind of backup sites are needed, does it need to be a cold, warm, or hot site. How far away do you want the data center, obviously, far enough that it wouldn’t be impacted from a disaster that happened where your organization resides but close enough to facilitate hand-offs of daily, weekly, and monthly backup tapes. However, one question comes to mind immediately which is, is the area prone to natural disasters. The data center is the heart of an organization’s IT infrastructure. You do not want the data center to be put in harms way simply due to it’s geographical location. If I had to choose between the options provided, I would choose Denver, Colorado. Miami is at sea level and being oriented at the south coast are prone to hurricanes and flooding. Even if they can stop the ocean from dumping water over the floodwalls, the fact they’re sitting on porous limestone just means the rising water levels will come from beneath them. “The city’s surrounding waters rose 6 inches within the past 25 years—some of the fastest rates globally—and “sunny day flooding” (which is exactly what it sounds like) is up 400 percent since 2006.” Redlands, California has 3 fault lines that border it, the San Andrea’s fault to the north, the San Jacinto’s Fault to the south, and Mill Creek Fault to the east. The area is thus heavily prone to earth quakes and would not be ideal by any means. As for Tulsa Oklahoma, I think this is the worst one because of the sheer amount of tornado’s. “In 2019, it was recorded that 149 tornados hit Oklahoma..” Additionally, since 1950, Tulsa has had on average 3 tornado’s per year. Denver Colorado, isn’t perfect either, it has its fair share of natural disasters. However, the most common is hail and wildfires. While both are not to be discredited. I’ll take a wildfires/hail over a tornado’s that can’t be predicted or stopped. Flooding that comes up out of the ground, and living on essentially three fault lines. Last point I’ll make is of the 4 states listed, Colorado has had the least amount of federally declared disasters since 1953 coming in at 80 and ranking #6 in all time lowest federally declared natural disasters since 1953. Florida, has had 130, Oklahoma coming in at 173. Then there’s California the most at 284.

    References:
    https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/miami-climate-change-survival.html – Miami, FL
    https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2008/11/13/redlands-between-faults/ – Redlands, CA
    https://discovertulsa.net/does-tulsa-oklahoma-have-tornados-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=Since%201950%2C%20Tulsa%2C%20Oklahoma%20has,high%2Drisk%20area%20for%20tornados. – Tulsa, OK
    https://www.uncovercolorado.com/common-natural-disasters-in-colorado/ – Denver, CO
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/states-with-the-least-natural-disasters – Natural Disaster Rankings

  2. The best place to locate a data center from the 4 options would be Denver, CO due to the least amount of risk from a natural disaster. Miami, FL is close to water and at high risk for hurricanes and flooding. Redlands, CA is in a high-risk area for forest fires. Tulsa, OK is in a high risk area for tornadoes. Denver, CO is not close to a body of water, not in a known high risk tornado area, and in a lower risk area for forest fires; therefore, making Denver, CO the best option of the choices to have a data center.

  3. Regardless of the state, it is always crucial that a company places its data center in a place that is not prone to power outages that might be caused by natural events. Colorado would probably be the wisest place to put a data center because of Miami storms, California earthquakes, and Oklahoma tornadoes.

    • Hi Matthew,
      In addition to Miami’s severe storms, it’s also prone to hurricanes as well. Although that’s not to say Colorado has no problems since it’s prone to blizzards and snowstorms, it’s a less severe threat compared to the other threats you listed.

  4. When considering these 4 areas as potential data centers, a threat assessment should be performed. When I think of the inherent risk of placing a data center in some of these areas due to natural disasters and then the downstream impacts, I believe Denver. Colorado is the best place of the 4 for a data center. While Colorado could be prone to blizzards and ice, there is usually advance notice that this type of event is going to occur and even if the electricity is cut, it most likely will not get cold enough in the data center to impact the machines. I believe Miami is the worst place for a data center. Miami is prone to hurricanes and while there is usually significant warning to evacuate humans, data centers cannot be moved. The flooding usually associated with a hurricane could damage the systems (water damage), which could also lead to mold infestation. In addition, if electricity is lost, since Miami is typically hot, the data centers might have trouble keeping the systems within the appropriate temperature. California is subject to earthquakes which have no warning and could catastrophically damage the data center, knock the power out, etc. and wildfires which could lead to smoke and fire damage to the systems. lastly, Tulsa, Oklahoma is in tornado alley and tornadoes are very intense storms with little warning and could sustain much damage.

  5. 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?

    Of the options provided, Denver would be the most advantageous from a physical security perspective. Denver is in an area that is not prone to natural disasters, unlike the other options. California has wildfires and power outages, Miami has hurricanes and flooding, and Tulsa is in a high tornado and lightning strike area. The only major concern in a place like Denver would be snow related concerns: inaccessibility, roof collapse due to weight, or issues with pipes freezing.
    A potentially even better location would be the deserts of Norther Arizona, New Mexico, or Utah. There have been several large data centers built in the deserts because of the lack of weather related hazards (and the ease of installing solar power)

    • I think you made a great point with potential better locations being in the desert areas. In Las Vegas, Switch, has a very large data center (maybe even multiple, but 1 that I have visited). The biggest concern with a desert location is the summer heat, other than that there aren’t many threats of natural disasters, making it a great choice for data center locations.

      • Kudos Dave for providing alternative options outside of the ones we were asked to choose between. The first thing that comes to mind with deserts are the temperature levels drastically fluctuating from night to day. You must have a really good HVAC systems to help regulate those temperatures. In addition to how easy it is to access to datacenter to facilitate regular backup tapes. However, I do like the idea of fewer environmental disasters coupled with leveraging solar power.

  6. Picking among the four different states, Denver Colorado would be the most ideal place for several reasons. Unlike other places, Colorado has a limited amount of natural disasters crisis. Data center is very critical to every organization, and it must be up 24/7. So, it is ideal to choose a place like Colorado where natural disasters risks are limited.

    • Hi Shepherd,
      I agree that data centers are critical to any organization and should be maintained 24/7 and with your choice of Colorado. The other options on the list are prone to more severe natural disasters compared to Colorado which is prone to blizzards and snowstorms.

  7. From the four different cities on the list, Denver Colorado would be the best option. In terms of physical security, the weather is the most concerning threat. Tulsa Oklahoma has a high risk of tornados, Redlands California is prone to earthquakes since it lies on two fault lines, and Miami Florida is prone to hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, and flooding. Although Colorado is prone to snowstorms and blizzards, it is less of a concern in terms of environmental factors compared to tornados, earthquakes, and hurricanes.

    • I like that you pointed out that Colorado seems to be the best choice given the options. it isn’t perfect and is susceptible to snowstorms and blizzards. A huge part of choosing where to locate a data center is mitigating risk, but a part of that is also accepting some risk for convenience or other reasons. A company in Florida may be willing to accept the potential risk of hurricanes to keep their data located closer to their headquarters compared to placing their data center on the other side of the county in a safer location. data center

    • Hello Kenneth,
      You raised an important point there by picking up Colorado as an ideal place to build a data center. Data centers by all means must be secured, protected from environmental factors and choosing a place like Colorado will be a good choice.

  8. From an economic and disaster point of view i would suggest Denver Colorado because it has a very reliable weather condition that is not prone to natural disaster. Reliability is one of the major factors in setting up data centers because disasters can actually wipe out a data center hence valuable information would be lost if there is no data redundancy or duplication elsewhere. Othe r locations have extremely high humidity and power outage.

  9. I think the best places to put the data center is Denver Colorado compared to other places because they have lesser chances of natural disasters. In Redlands California there are high chances of earthquakes and fires. Miami Florida has high chances of hurricanes, rain, floods and tornadoes. Tulsa Oklahoma also has heatwaves, wildfires and flood.

  10. Denver, Colorado comparatively is less prone to natural disasters than the other locations, therefore being the most secure and safe place to host a data center. California is prone to earthquakes, albeit these do not happen extremely often, but the risk is there, as well as very large forest fires. Anywhere on the Gulf coast would be bad due to the frequent and violent hurricanes during the hurricane season, so Miami would be off the list. Lastly, Tulsa is in the middle of tornado alley and has frequent tornados, wind storms, and lightning storms, all of which pose a threat to the physical security of the proposed data center.

    • I agree Max. Unfortunately it is not always a matter of finding a spot that has no down time but rather a spot that has the least amount of down time. Nature is always changing and because of that it can lead to unpredictable down time even when you pick the best location. Almost exactly like when we were talking about risk analysis and mitigation with how we deal with its inevitable leaks.

  11. The organization should consider establishing their data center data because they are assured of the security. Most Redlands areas are safe from crimes, which might be an advantage to the growth of the center, unlike the other cities. For instance, Tulsa is listed as one of the 50 riskiest metropolitan regions in the nation (Stebbins, 2022). Therefore, the organization should consider the safety and stability of the city to establish its data.

Leave a Reply