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.
Andrew Young says
Based off of Vacca’s “Characteristics of Natural Disasters” chart, we would want to pick a location that provides the most amount of warning and have the least amount of impact. For me, this would be Denver, as the only theoretical threats that can be realistically anticipated in this climate are a blizzard and lightning. Any location listed above is at risk for a lighting strike, as anywhere that receives rain can have lightning, so this negates the risk of lighting strike being a variable. Miami’s location at sea level and high rate of hurricanes in Florida poses a significant seasonal risk. Even with advanced warning, it is typically impossible to physically migrate all functions off-site. Similarly, Tulsa’s pattern of tornado risk places a high level of threat and stress on physical security. Though the occurrence and specific areas impacted are random, one major tornado would be sufficient to possibly destroy an entire data center and cripple and organization. California as well, despite being host to many IT companies, still stands at high risk of earthquake. A severe enough earthquake could level not only a data center but also an entire city, not to mention the possible risk of a tsunami following one. Denver, on the other hand, does not face either of these 3 sever issues. While Denver may be at risk for a flood, building a data center high enough in a building can mitigate this risk. Additionally, though blizzards may be a risk in the mountain climate, blizzards are likely the easiest threat to defend against, as they can often be predicted ahead of time and as long as the building is still able to receive power, through either the power grid or backup generators, temperature regulation can still be applied to the devices
Jeffrey Sullivan says
I like how you pointed out the blizzard can be easiest threat to defend against as they can be predicted ahead of time but what came to mind as I was reading that was avalanche threats. It could happen and access can be blocked, towns can be cut off, just like in flood zones. Now I think about it, Comcast has their data centers in areas of the country that are a low-level risk, more or less in mountain areas. Great Post !
Marc Greenberg says
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.
With global warming, it is hard to say any of these places is the best choice as they all present risks. That said, if having to choose I would probably go with Denver as it probably poses the lessor of the risks if each of the buildings are containing the data center is physically constructed with environmental conditions in mind.
Redlands, CA can experience earthquakes which would raise the cost of incident response/recovery for Data Centers. Miami, Florida has a hurricane seasons with severe threats to buildings and cause power-outages or flooding to a data center. Tulsa is susceptible to tornados. Which could pose almost definite destruction to the data center.
Remaining is Denver, which has the risk of snowstorms that could potentially lead to power outages leading to a loss of availability. The data center can be placed in a location that is very hard to access. Snowstorms are not typically considered a natural disaster.
Kelly Conger says
I agree with the answer that Denver is the best place to locate a data center out of the four cities listed, given the current climate change scenario. While all four cities are at risk of natural disasters, Denver’s risk of snowstorms is the least severe. Earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes can cause significant damage to data centers, both in terms of physical infrastructure and data loss. Snowstorms, on the other hand, are typically less destructive and can be mitigated by placing the data center in a strategic location. Additionally, Denver has a relatively cool climate, which can help to reduce the cost of operating the data center’s HVAC system.
Michael Obiukwu says
Selecting an optimal location for a data center determines an organization’s effectiveness and resilience in terms of physical security. Among Denver, Colorado; Miami, Florida; Redlands, California; and Tulsa, Oklahoma; the choice is influenced by assessing geographical and environmental risks.
To facilitate an informed choice, let’s evaluate these locations, taking into account key geographical and environmental characteristics that influence physical security effectiveness of a data center.
Denver, Colorado, known for its stable weather conditions and low disaster risk, positions itself favorably in this comparison. Miami, Florida, on the contrary, exposes itself to frequent hurricanes and floods, which places it at a decided disadvantage for establishing a secure data center.
Moving west, Redlands, California comes with its unique set of challenges. It lies in an earthquake-prone zone, with potential for considerable infrastructure damage. In contrast, Tulsa, Oklahoma, while largely stable, battles occasional tornadoes.
Consequently, considering all risk factors, Denver, Colorado appears to be the promising choice in this case. Stable weather, low disaster risk, and favorable geographical conditions make Denver a standout for securing a data center, thereby enhancing an organization’s resilience and data integrity. Conversely, the other locations carry heightened risk factors, making them less ideal choices for such an important endeavor.
It is important to note that this analysis predominantly focuses on physical security considerations; other factors such as available infrastructure, accessibility, legal implications, and local IT talent pool should be factored into a comprehensive location choice assessment.
Michael OBIUKWU
MS ITACS/Fall 2023
Ikenna Alajemba says
Yes I agree with you on this one. Denver, with its prime physical security features, triumphs as the optimal option. Shielded from natural calamities better than Miami and Redlands, its cooler ambiance efficiently slashes cooling expenses. While concerns linger about snowstorms, they are considerably more controllable than the havoc wreaked by hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. In a professional appraisal, Denver wins the crown as the quintessential choice.
Ikenna Alajemba says
When it comes to selecting a location for a data center, there are numerous factors to consider, particularly from a physical security standpoint. Let’s delve into the potential pros and cons of each location. I summarized advantages and disadvantages each location has over another and overall best location to host data center considering physical threats against data centers.
Denver, Colorado:
Pros:
– Minimal risk of natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods.
– The cooler climate in Denver could contribute to cost-effective cooling for the data center.
Cons:
– Snowstorms may pose a threat to operations and accessibility.
Miami, Florida:
Pros:
– Convenient access to crucial network connectivity points.
Cons:
– Miami carries a high risk of hurricanes and flooding.
– The hot and humid climate could elevate cooling expenses.
Redlands, California:
Pros:
– For the majority of the year, Redlands enjoys a mild climate.
Cons:
– Redlands is vulnerable to earthquakes and potential wildfires.
Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Pros:
– Reduced risk of earthquakes and hurricanes.
– Generally lower land and utility expenses.
Cons:
– Tornadoes are a concern.
– Extreme weather conditions like ice storms may present challenges.
Optimal Choice: Denver, Colorado
From a physical security perspective, Denver emerges as the most suitable choice. It has less susceptibility to natural disasters compared to Miami and Redlands, while its cooler climate can help curtail cooling costs. Although snowstorms remain a concern, they are generally more manageable than hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes.
Least Favorable Choice: Miami, Florida
Miami would be deemed the least desirable option due to its high vulnerability to hurricanes, flooding, and the potential increase in operational costs caused by the hot and humid climate.
While each location entails its own set of challenges, Denver offers the most advantages and the fewest risks solely from a physical security standpoint.
Jeffrey Sullivan says
Ikenna, you did an outstanding job on this! I, like many others, pick CO as well for the dry cool climate but the other reason I picked it is for its access to mountains. My second location would be OK due to reduced risks to hurricanes, flooding etc. but makes me thing even with tornadas, budget wise this would be a great second choice. In all the other areas, data centers are present, but the budgets must be massive which could be a deal breaker for a company.
Chidiebere Okafor says
I like how you outlined your answer and gave detailed reasons why you chose Dever Colorado. However, Redlands, California, could also be a viable choice due to its tech ecosystem and access to a skilled workforce, provided that measures are in place to address earthquake and wildfire risks. Miami, Florida, may not be the best choice due to its vulnerability to hurricanes and flooding.
Jeffrey Sullivan says
While data centers are across the country in each city and state currently there are several reasons Denver Colorado would be the best place from a physical security perspective to locate a data center. The main things that come to mind when speaking of specific locations are natural disasters and environmental threats. Just like other countries do with seeds, they store them in a mountain. You can have a data center catastrophic proof by positioning it in a mountain which gives you relief from natural disasters but also offers a free natural environmental atmosphere, Ex- Cool, dry, minimal dust etc. With it positioned in this part of the country you are surrounded by a ton of Air Force bases and access to state-of-the-art facilities if need be. Having this centralized location is great as if people from all over the country need to travel this would be a centralized one to do so. With the rise of unrest in the more populated cities, this would also be a great location to avoid human-caused physical threats such as vandalism, misuse, theft etc. as this would be a high security area and not the easiest one to access. The other locations are not as good as this CO location for several reasons, the main reason being natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires etc. This would first drive up your insurance costs to do business here to begin with, the clean and incident response budget would have to more than double it would be in CO vs Miami etc. and like I stated in the ‘pro” portion of why to pick CO is the human-caused aspect of these locations are prone to vandalism, riots etc. for the most part. If you think about the security of a country, think about how the US DOD has their bases strategically placed and you would want to follow that pattern as that would give you the most protection in an event of a natural, technical or human cause disaster.
Alex Ruiz says
Jeffrey, your analysis of the ideal data center location in Denver, Colorado, is compelling. The strategic placement within a mountain not only provides natural disaster resilience but also ensures a more controlled environment essential for data integrity. The proximity to Air Force bases also adds an extra layer of security, and the central location facilitates ease of access for people across the country. Considering the importance of strategic placement, I’m curious about your thoughts on the potential challenges that might arise from centralizing data centers in specific locations. Are there any concerns about over-reliance on a single location, and how do you propose mitigating such risks while maintaining the advantages you’ve outlined?
Chidiebere Okafor says
The choice of the best location for a data center from a physical security perspective depends on multiple factors, including the level of risk tolerance, budget, and specific security requirements of the organization. Denver, Colorado stands out as the best location for a data center from a physical security perspective due to its minimal natural disaster risks. Miami Florida, Redlands California, and Tulsa, Oklahoma all face significant and year-round natural disaster risks such as hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, and tornadoes, making them less suitable for data center placement. In contrast, Denver’s primary concern is snowstorms, which are less likely to occur and cause less damage compared to the natural disasters in the other locations. Denver, Colorado, emerges as a safe choice against the threat of natural disasters for a new data center.
Erskine Payton says
Having read about the different physical security threats, like environmental or natural disasters cuts my list in half. I had to look at the map to get a sense of where these cities are on the map. While I do like the warm weather of Florida and it offers some nice places to put a data center, there is the concern of hurricanes and back storms. The same could be said for Redlands, California regarding earthquakes. Denver and Tulsa would be ideal places to put up a data center. You can build for much cheaper and not have to contend with a season of hurricanes or on standby for the next earthquake. Yes, Tulsa has tornadoes and Denver could flood but the risk is less likely and the cost to rebuild is cheaper.
Andrew Young says
I would go further to say that Denver itself probably is the strongest choice. From what I’ve been able to see from online research, Tulsa is also at risk for flooding as it exists in a floodplain area. This would leave Denver and Tulsa with the risk of possible floods, and blizzards, but the severe tornado risk would only seem to apply to Tulsa in this case. These cases are, however, always organizational specific, so it is interesting to think about how different organizations would classify an ideal location for their hardware. I would be curious to see how these risks are considered in practice and what resources organizations consult to get a better understanding of geographical and climate risks
Ashley A. Jones says
I like that you took the time to mention the research that needed to be done to fully answer this question because, though I chose Denver as well, Denver does have floods and major temperature shifts. Also, it makes sense to consider the amount of data centers and laws/fees around placing data centers in specific locations.
Kelly Conger says
Denver, Colorado is the best place to locate a data center out of the four cities listed, due to its low risk of natural disasters and relatively cool temperatures. Miami, Florida, Redlands, California, and Tulsa, Oklahoma are all prone to hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, and tornadoes, respectively. Denver’s cooler temperatures also help to reduce the cost of operating the data center’s HVAC system. However, even Denver is prone to natural disasters like blizzards and snowstorms, so it is important to ensure that the data center is designed to withstand these conditions.
Marc Greenberg says
Although Denver like any other location in the world could have a natural disaster; a blizzard or snowstorm is not considered a natural disaster. That is the reason Denver among the choices is the best.
Akiyah says
I also chose Denver for some of the same reasons mentioned. I also believe that the cooler climate could help reduce energy and cooling costs, which are crucial for maintaining the ideal climate within a data center. Additionally, Denver’s high altitude and low humidity could be advantageous in case of a power outage when a backup power source is not in place. The lower moisture content in the air reduces the risk of moisture-related issues.
Erskine Payton says
For me it was a tie between Tulsa and Denver but after reading a few post, I had to look a bit closer and yeah, Denver is the most ideal place to have your data center. For all the reasons I would put Denver over Tulsa although both are better suited vice Redlands and Miami. You have to gear up for the snow but the facility housing the date center is equipped for such variables.
Akintunde Akinmusire says
When choosing a location to use as a Data Center, one needs to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the locations. Even though all four locations listed have their advantages and disadvantages, an organization should choose Denver. A Data Center should be secured, cooled at all times, and close to users. Denver’s weather offers a cold temperature which will help keep the cost of the cooling system down. Also, Denver has a higher elevation which reduces the risk of flooding.
Unnati Singla says
Hi Akintunde, I agree with your analysis. I also came to the conclusion that out of the provided options, Denver was the best choice. It may have harsh winters but that can also aid in keeping the data centers cool. It’s consistent weather along with the low risk of environmental destruction from earthquakes, tornadoes etc. made it the best choice.
Alyanna Inocentes says
There will always be risk factors when choosing a location for a data center. However, it will all depend on how the risks are mitigated. Below is a comparison of each location and how each location has their advantages and disadvantages.
Redlands, California
• The proximity of skilled IT professionals is extremely close since California has a booming tech industry. This means that the data center will be managed by highly skilled professionals.
• They have a developed infrastructure as their buildings are constructed to resist earthquakes.
• Heat waves, thunderstorms, and long dry periods often occur. This means that humidity may be present and, due to the heat, utility cost may be high.
• California is an expensive place to live. Therefore, renting or owning space for a data center may be costly. Electricity rates in California are also the highest in the country.
Tulsa, Oklahoma
• Low risk of coastal flooding, earthquakes, heat waves, and dryness.
• Low risk of wildfires and has a mild climate.
• A state that often has Tornados but can mostly be mitigated by proper construction and safety measures.
• Tulsa has low electricity rates and has tax exemptions for computer equipment purchases.
• Tulsa is further away from international submarine cables, therefore may have poor connectivity internationally. Its actually been reported that Tulsa has one of the worst internet connectivity in the United States.
Miami, Florida
• Superior interconnection as its close to international submarine cables.
• Accessibility of skilled tech professionals.
• High risk for hurricanes and other tropical storms.
• Higher maintenance due to humidity and heat.
Denver, Colorado
• Utility costs will be lower since Colorado has a cooler climate.
• Has stable power grids, which can provide various costs of electricity.
• Has severe winter weather which may impact the accessibility of the data center if an issue were to occur.
• Susceptible to wildfires as it can be dry and windy.
• Distance from international markets. Since it’s not located near the coast, there may be some latency in connectivity.
When it comes to selecting the right location for a data center, there’s a lot of things to consider. One critical aspect of the decision-making process is conducting a comprehensive risk assessment and taking environmental factors, such as weather patterns and natural disasters, into account. That said, it’s important to recognize that this decision isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution as different organizations have different needs and priorities. However, after carefully evaluating all the available options, I chose Denver, Colorado, as the most suitable option. Denver offers some notable benefits, including cooler temperatures, relatively lower utility costs, and lower environmental risks. It’s true that Denver experiences severe winter conditions, but the city is well-prepared to handle snowstorms as its been part of their everyday living.
Ashley A. Jones says
From a physical security perspective, I am considering the goals of availability and cost for possible loss of the data center due to environmental factors. For this reason, I would choose Denver as the best place to locate the organization’s data center. This area is better since there is a low chance of environmental threats compared to Miami, Tulsa, and Redlands. Denver also has a detailed hazard mitigation plan published by the State granted it looks to need updating for this year. I would say a sizeable setback would be that Denver gets very hot and how suppliers in that area deal with the high temperatures. Not only are Tulsa, Miami, and Redlands more regularly impacted by environmental threats, only FL has the most recent hazard mitigation plan on their ArcGIS website. Also, the number of data centers is to be considered in order to keep latency low for customers based on their location(s). Since earthquakes can be unexpected with great damages, I would say that Redlands, Cali would be the worst place to locate the organization’s data center since earthquakes are usual.
Alyanna Inocentes says
Hey Ashley,
I was deciding between California and Florida as the worst place for a data center’s location. I leaned towards Florida as the less favorable option due to its susceptibility to hurricanes and flooding. Witnessing the destruction caused by hurricane Dora recently made me imagine the potential damage to a data center. While earthquakes are common in California, they are usually low in magnitude and can be mitigated with advanced architecture. Additionally, California also doesn’t experience big earthquakes that often compared to the occurrence of hurricanes in Florida.
Ashley A. Jones says
Good point. They all seemed to have some environmental disadvantages. It was almost hard to keep up with the natural disasters and climate shifts. Earthquakes seemed more arduous to track down when comparing all of these cities. My thought is that earthquakes provide the bigger risk of complete loss of data; hurricanes and tornados were my 2nd line of evaluation.
Akiyah says
Geographically, Denver, Colorado stands out as the optimal choice among the four locations for a data center. Denver’s high elevation significantly reduces the risk of flooding, setting it apart from the other contenders. Furthermore, Denver enjoys the advantage of not being susceptible to natural disasters like hurricanes, which affect Miami, Florida, earthquakes, which are a concern in Redlands, California, and tornadoes, a potential threat in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Each of these weather-related events poses environmental threats that could potentially cause more significant damage and concern compared to the cold weather conditions experienced in Denver. However, a well-prepared company can effectively mitigate the impact of cold weather by implementing strategies such as insulating the building, ensuring a reliable and uninterrupted power supply, and deploying generators to address any power interruptions resulting from weather events or other causes.
Unnati Singla says
An organization’s effectiveness and physical security resilience are at risk when selecting the best location for a data center. The choice between Denver, Colorado; Miami, Florida; Redlands, California; and Tulsa, Oklahoma is made by considering the dangers associated with the environment and geography. Denver, Colorado, places favorably in this comparison due to its consistent weather patterns and minimal chance of calamities. Miami, Florida, on the other hand, is vulnerable to regular storms and flooding, which puts it at a major disadvantage when building a secure data center. Redlands, California, in the west, has its own set of issues. Its location is prone to earthquakes, raising the possibility of serious infrastructure damage. In contrast, Tulsa, Oklahoma has a lot of tornados.
Denver, Colorado appears to be the promising option in this case when all risks are taken into consideration. It stands out for securing a data center due to its consistent weather, low danger of disasters, and advantages for geographic circumstances. The other locations, on the other hand have higher risk elements, which makes them less viable choices for such a project.
Alex Ruiz says
Denver, Colorado
Pros: Safer from natural disasters, stable cool climate which requires less to maintain temperatures.
Cons: Blizzards
Miami, Florida
Pros: Nice location I guess
Cons: High risk for hurricanes and floods
Redlands, California
Pros: Nice location and proximity
Cons: Earthquake and Wildfire prone, California is expensive
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Pros: Stable Climate, and lower cost
Cons: Tornado Prone, and not a major hub.
The answer depends on what type of company it is and its size to determine the most optimal location but in most cases I’d argue that Denver is the obvious choice, although its less coastal (for good and for worse) than some of the other choices its better protected in almost all ways, it’s got the best climate for storing and maintaining large amount of computer systems in an area that is not prone to natural disasters like the rest of the locations, as well as being situated in a major city, which is a technological hub. It also has a very well developed infrastructure that even in the case of blizzards hampering physical access the network access should remain stable.
Akintunde Akinmusire says
Hi Alex,
I agree with you that various factors should be considered when choosing a data center. Servers in data centers need cool temperatures for them to function efficiently. Denver offers a cool temperature which will help the equipment in the data center compared to other locations. Also, Denver has a lower risk of natural disasters compared to other cities.