In a Few Years, Your Data Could Be Living Underwater

As cloud storage and work solutions become increasingly available and affordable, many people forget that their data still exists in a physical form somewhere even if it’s not inside their own computer. Today, companies have data centers, expensive, monolithic buildings built in remote locations, all over the world.  Microsoft has been testing alternatives to traditional land-based data centers in the hopes of finding more environmentally friendly and cost-effective data management solutions. In their most recent test, Microsoft successfully operated an underwater data center off the coast of Orkney, Scotland for two years. 

 

For the general public, I think this article does a great job of bringing light to the increasing challenges and dilemmas of data management. As for the tech industry, I think projects of this nature are a necessary undertaking and I’m glad to see a trusted company like Microsoft leading it. Until companies develop drastically smaller or more-efficient hardware to store data on, there will be an increasing need for new data centers which in turn means more energy use. For computers, cooling is king, and the need for clean, controlled sources of air or liquid cooling is the main factor that makes land-based data centers so costly and energy-dependent. Given these factors, I think Microsoft’s decision to test an underwater data center is perfect given that the environment naturally provides highly efficient cooling. Additionally, this test proved the potential for centers with a smaller footprint and massive cost savings. 

 

Despite these obvious wins for Microsoft and the tech world, this article left me with several unanswered questions. The article hinted that Microsoft is “cautious” about saying when their technology could be commercially available. My first thought regarding the marketability of this product was how much it could be scaled up. The article deemed the center small at 855 servers. Thus, I’m curious whether or not this product could be scaled to fit thousands or even tens of thousands of servers. Additionally, and especially if the product were to be scaled up, I am curious about how many regions could actually provide suitable conditions for these underwater centers. One of the key reasons Microsoft chose Orkney for this project was for its “temperate – perhaps even chilly” climate. Thus, I wonder whether a center placed in the Gulf of Mexico for example would be equally successful. Given that environmental benefit was a driving factor for this project, I also wonder how much benefit, if any, this concept would provide if it were operated without a green power source like the one available in Orkney. I presume there would still be reduced energy usage from the more efficient cooling of the underwater center. However, this model could face the same criticism Tesla has for its batteries whereby Microsoft could have more efficient data centers but, if they are powered by fossil fuels, they would be decidedly not green.

 

 

Cellan-Jones, Rory. “Microsoft's Underwater Data Centre Resurfaces after Two Years.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Sept. 2020, www.bbc.com/news/technology-54146718.