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.
I would choose Denver, Colorado for a myriad of reasons. One is the natural disaster risk as Denver is generally safe from hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires. This makes it a stable environment for data center operations. Colorado has low seismic activity, so the risk of major earthquakes is lower than in California and other seismically active areas.
Miami is a worse option due to it being prone to hurricanes and storms. These disasters can lead to flooding or storm surges which can disrupt operations and threaten data security. Miami also has rising sea levels which increases its vulnerability.
Redlands, California is not a great option due to earthquakes. California is prone to earthquakes as it is close to the San Andreas Fault. California also has a lot of wildfires which can disrupt services. Droughts only exacerbate fire risk.
Tulsa, Oklahoma is not a great option due to tornadoes. Tulsa is known for having severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. Tulsa has a high risk of flooding during storms, and it can damage data centers if flood mitigations fail.
Hi Neel
we agreed that Denver Colorado is the best location from a physical security perspective, I was wondering what could be the best location from latency perspective .
I believe the location with the least latency would be where a combination of where traffic is coming from and where the data center is located. Assuming that an organization’s data center is located in Denver, Colorado, their customers that are in regions closer to the data center would experience the least latency and the inverse would be true for clients generating traffic over longer distances.
Nelson, your question about latency is an interesting one. GB makes a solid point about how the distance between customers and the data center affects latency. If a company is using a data center in Denver, their clients located nearby will definitely benefit from lower latency, which is crucial for optimal performance.
Thanks GB and Chris for your contributions, proximity and traffic plays major part in considering locations from latency perspective that is why cloud services like Microsoft azure and amazon AWS has availability zones.
It’s also important to be aware of how much of our infrastructure is becoming dependent on cloud architecture. If the massive Crowdstrike outage shows us anything it’s that becoming dependent on one method is probably not a good idea.
I was genuinely wondering how to actually engage with this since we were all pretty much in agreement so thank you for this. If the company is international then it may make sense to have some infrastructure in California.
Hi Neel,
I agree with your reasoning on why Denver is a strong candidate for a data center due to its relative safety from major natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes. However, I would suggest considering Tulsa as a viable alternative. While Tulsa does have tornado risks, these are typically concentrated in specific seasons, and advanced structural designs can mitigate tornado damage. Tulsa also faces fewer issues with snowstorms, which can sometimes be disruptive in Denver. Additionally, Tulsa’s more moderate climate and lower altitude can make it easier for consistent operations. Great post!
Factors to consider when choosing the location of datacenter are natural disaster risk, geographical location, access to power, proximity to customers. From a physical security perspective, natural disaster is the subject matter. California, Florida, and Oklahoma have high risk of natural disaster like earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes respectively whereas Denver is centrally located and has a low risk of natural disaster. Denver Colorado will be the best place to locate the datacenter.
Hi Nelson,
I agree! I was in between Tulsa and Denver since they both experience snowstorms but after some research I found that Tulsa has a greater risk for severe snowstorms. Also, I mentioned wildfires for California. Snowstorms can cause disruption and possibly physical damage but a fire can destroy everything physically.
The best location for a data center is Denver, Colorado, it stands out as the best option from a physical security perspective. Denver has fewer natural disasters compared to the other cities. Denver has a much lower exposure to these extreme weather events. Denver’s elevation also makes it less prone to flooding, unlike Miami and Tulsa, which are more vulnerable to floods. Miami has a high risk of hurricanes, Redlands is close to earthquake fault lines, and Tulsa experiences frequent tornadoes.
While I also picked Denver, I didn’t think about the elevation, so that is a very good point. Additionally, Tulsa experiences large hail frequently as well.
Out of the cities to choose from, Denver seems to be the best option to build a data center. It is the city with the mildest weather, this will prolong the lives of the physical assets located inside the datacenter. Extreme temperatures have big effects on the longevity of servers and can have serious impact if there is a failure with air conditioning capabilities. Denver is also less prone to storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes and is not close to major bodies of water which is another reason why Denver is the superior option. Lastly, Denver is an already established market for datacenters with designated power zones, which will produce less brownouts and put less strain on Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) units since the commercial property will not be sharing power with residential customers.
Hi GB,
I agree. I was torn between Tulsa, OK and Denver, CO, but given Tulsa’s frequent tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, and other common natural disasters, Denver has emerged as the best option among the four. In terms of cost for physical security, I believe Denver will offer a lower overall cost to maintain compliance. Additionally, Denver’s more stable climate reduces the likelihood of frequent disruptions, making it easier to implement long-term security strategies. This will likely result in fewer expenses related to disaster recovery and system repairs.
Of the options provided, Denver, Colorado, is the best place to locate a data center. All of the other locations have moderate to high environmental risks. Miami, Florida, is prone to hurricanes and flooding. Redlands, California, is prone to earthquakes and fires. Tulsa, Oklahoma, is prone to tornadoes. Denver, Colorado, possesses none of these risks. It is located in the geographical center of the continental United States, and the temperature is moderately cooler throughout the year.
Considering physical security risks, Tulsa, Oklahoma, is the most suitable place to set up a data center. It faces fewer natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, and wildfires, making it a safer choice compared to other locations. While Denver is fairly safe, its high altitude and snowstorms can complicate things. Miami has constant hurricane threats, and Redlands is prone to wildfires. Tulsa therefore strikes a good balance in offering a stable, secure environment for data center operations.
Initially, I also believed Oklahoma would be the safest option when considering natural disasters based on the chart in our reading this week. However, after further analyzing the risk levels in each area and considering the detailed data, I now agree with the others in the class who believe that Denver is the safest. The lower frequency of severe weather events and natural disasters in Denver appear to make it a more secure location.
I was in between both at first glance. I was a bit unsure about Tulsa but after doing some research Denver is slightly the better option. Tulsa has recently experienced severe snowstorms that makes their natural disaster risk rating higher than Denver.
Hi James,
In my opinion, Denver still remains best place for a data center, particularly because Tulsa is prone to severe weather conditions like tornadoes and thunderstorms, which can cause significant physical damage to buildings and potentially lead to long-term downtime and costly restoration processes. The unpredictability of tornadoes, whether in terms of timing, location, strength or frequency makes it difficult to mitigate these risks effectively. Snowstorms may be disruptive, but they are more predictable in terms of severity and timing compared to other natural disasters. With the ability to anticipate snowstorms, organizations can take proactive measures to protect their infrastructure and minimize disruptions
I was also between Tulsa and Denver, however I believe Denver is better able to prepare for snowstorms such as winterizing equipment to ensure that it is still able to run to reduce disruption, Tornadoes in Tulsa however can be highly unpredictable, even if the data center were not in the direct path, the tornado could hit powerlines in the area or other 3rd party vendors supporting that data center.
The best location for the data center would be Denver, Colorado. While Denver faces risks like flash floods from nearby rivers, wildfires in surrounding areas during summer, hailstorms in spring and summer, and winter blizzards, it is generally less disaster-prone than other cities. Miami, FL, is highly vulnerable to hurricanes from June to November, leading to storm surges and flooding. It also faces risks from sinkholes and extreme heat. Redlands, CA, is prone to earthquakes, wildfires, drought, flash floods, and landslides, with extreme heat and windstorms in the summer. Tulsa, OK, frequently experiences tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, flooding, hailstorms, winter storms, drought, and occasional minor earthquakes.
The best location the organization can pick from a physical security perspective would be Denver, Colorado as it would have the lowest risk of natural disasters. Miami is highly susceptible to hurricanes and the humidity year-round could damage the physical components within the data center. Redlands, California is an area prone to earthquakes and wildfires which would be damaging. Tulsa, Oklahoma is also prone to frequent tornadoes and unpredictable severe weather such as storms that have potential to cause serious damage to a data center.
Eric, I agree with you that Denver is the best option for a data center when looking at physical risks like natural disasters. However I used to live next to one of AT&T’s data centers in Miami, why do you think a massive company like AT&T would choose to put a data center in Miami? Assuming they are well aware of the risks that you had mentioned.
The only rationale I can really think of is that AT&T company would have multiple data centers, perhaps for latency reasons. I’m almost certain that the data being stored in Miami is also being mirrored to another location like New York for example, just in the event that something catastrophic in Miami would occur, data would not be lost.
Based on FEMA’s risk index, Denver, Colorado would be the best location for a data center from a physical security perspective. Denver has a relatively moderate natural disaster risk compared to Tulsa, Miami, and Redlands, which all have high or very high risk profiles. While Denver does experience occasional hail, cold waves, and lightning, these risks are generally less severe and more manageable compared to the frequent hurricanes, flooding, and earthquakes faced by Miami and Redlands, and the tornadoes, floods, and wildfires prevalent in Tulsa. The reduced frequency and severity of natural disasters in Denver make it a more secure option for protecting a data center from physical damage and operational disruptions.
Tulsa, Oklahoma experiences a variety of natural disasters, including tornadoes, floods, wildfires, droughts. Relatively high risk risk at 96.6 per FEMA risk index.
Miami, Florida is vulnerable to natural disasters, including hurricanes, flooding, and severe thunderstorms. Very high risk risk at 99.8 per FEMA risk index.
Redlands, California is prone to natural disasters, including flooding, thunderstorms, and earthquakes. Very high risk at 99.9 per FEMA risk index.
Denver, Colorado is at risk of natural disasters, including hail, tornadoes, cold waves, and lightning. Relatively moderate risk at 93.6 per FEMA risk index.
https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map
Hi Andrea!
I like how you used the FEMA risk index! Great response – we have similar responses and there is not much to add. But I would say that Denver could be susceptible to wildfires during dry seasons. This could cause them to face more risk but still not greater than the other locations.
Everyone here has already mentioned it, but genuinely I do believe that Denver would be the best just due to the natural disaster risk alone. Floods, hurricanes, ect. Everyone’s already responded well and frankly I don’t have more to add to it then I agree without attempting to play devil’s advocate. Something that I might try to do in responses.
When considering physical security for a data center, it’s crucial to evaluate the risk of natural disasters, proximity to high-risk areas, and the availability of essential services.
After evaluating all the locations, Denver emerges as the best option. The city is relatively safe from hurricanes and tsunamis, though it does experience some wildfires, tornadoes, and hail. However, these occurrences are less frequent compared to other city options. Additionally, Denver’s weather is milder compared to Miami’s heat.
On the other hand, Redlands, CA, has an earthquake index significantly higher than the national average, and Tulsa has a tornado risk significantly higher than the national average. Therefore, Denver seems like the best choice.
Redlands faces a high earthquake risk, and Tulsa has a significantly higher tornado risk than the national average. Given these factors, how should a company weigh the trade-offs between natural disaster risks and other factors like operational costs when selecting a data center location?
From a physical security standpoint, Denver, Colorado stands out as the ideal choice for establishing a data center due to its lower vulnerability to natural disasters, though it does experience bad snowstorms. The other locations present higher risks as they are prone to hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and tornadoes.
Good morning Aisha,
Denver, Colorado, is an ideal location. I also see Denver’s cold weather as an advantage, especially for meeting heating and freezing threshold requirements and for cost-effective temperature maintenance for data centers. Denver’s geographical location is also a plus. Being more centrally located in the continental United States, it would likely appeal to potential vendors.
Denver, Colorado, has the lowest physical security concerns of the possibilities owing to its generally stable climate, low frequency of natural catastrophes, and beneficial geographic attributes such as high elevation. In contrast, Miami’s storm and flood danger, paired with its large traffic volume, raises the potential of unknown passengers posing additional security vulnerabilities to the data center. Redlands is at danger from earthquakes and wildfires, while Tulsa is vulnerable to tornadoes and floods, making both places unsuitable for data center housing.
The best place to have servers geographically would be Denver, CO. Miami and Redlands would be the worst due to high risk of natural disasters. Florida is known for floods and hurricanes and this could cause tremendous disruptions to servers. Redlands is a city at risk for wildfires and possible earthquakes. I narrowed it down to Tulsa and Denver and chose Denver based on what I read on Augurisk.com. Denver’s natural disaster rating is slightly lower than Tulsa. Tulsa is likely to have severe snowstorms in the winter which could disrupt the servers as well.
The best place for a data center in terms of physical security would be Denver Colorado. Denver has a dry climate, which helps reduce risks related to humidity and corrosion. Furthermore, Denver does not experience severe weather like hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires. Although Denver deals with a lot of snow, this is a much less risk compared to the other natural disasters. Denver also has a strong infrastructure, they have a well-connected fiber optic network, and reliable power. In comparison, Miami is at high risk of hurricanes and flooding, which are massive risks for a data center. Redlands experiences a high number of earthquakes and is also extremely dry and often times has wildfires. Finally, Tulsa is located in tornado alley, exposing a data center to tornadoes and thunderstorms.