Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York Data Centers Battle Floods, Utility Outages

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the bunker-in-tight dept.

Earth 186

miller60 writes "At least three data center buildings in lower Manhattan are struggling with power problems amid widespread flooding and utility outages caused by Hurricane Sandy. Flooded basements at two sites took out diesel fuel pumps, leaving them unable to refuel generators on higher levels. One of these was Datagram, which knocked out Buzzfeed and the Gawker network of sites. At 111 8th Avenue, some tenants lost power when Equinix briefly experienced generator problems." The NY Times has a running list of Sandy-related problems, including 5,700 more flight cancellations, 6 million people without power, rising water levels at a nuclear plant, official disaster declarations from President Obama, and a death toll of 38. On the upside, and despite the high water levels, the Nuclear Energy Institute was quick to point out that all 34 nuclear facilities in Sandy's path made it through without problems.

cancel ×

186 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oblig Kanye West (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821259)

Barack Obama doesn't care about white people.

Re:oblig Kanye West (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821573)

idiot... troll somewhere else

Re:oblig Kanye West (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822885)

u mad bro?

Re:oblig Kanye West (1)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about 2 years ago | (#41821839)

I'm not even white, I'm off-white. We're a new race, we will prevail! - Mitch Hedberg

Look at the bright side (5, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41821269)

If we're really lucky, it'll take out all the high frequency traders systems for a few days and we can have an actual market without parasites.

Nah, who am I kidding. If that actually happened they'd keep Wall Street closed.

Re:Look at the bright side (2)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41821323)

HFT systems are located as close to the exchange's servers as they physically can be, because all the marketeers think it's bad juju to have a ping time above .01ms.

Needless to say, if the HFT systems go down, then the market's exchange servers 2 feet away will probably be down, as well.

I'm afraid this is a battle we just can't win.

Re:Look at the bright side (3, Informative)

jessehager (713802) | about 2 years ago | (#41822307)

Most of the traders try to get as close to the old Western Union Building at 60 Hudson St. as possible. If not inside it, in a building adjacent to it. That's the central network hub for the financial district.

Re:Look at the bright side (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41821371)

Nah, who am I kidding. If that actually happened they'd keep Wall Street closed.

Well, now that you mention it...

Re:Look at the bright side (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 2 years ago | (#41822059)

The stock market has been closed for a few days now.

Where are the mid-American datacenters (4, Interesting)

blueforce (192332) | about 2 years ago | (#41821287)

Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.? Surely the threat from Tornados could be mitigated and the electrical infrastructure built out more cheaply than the losses due to coastal disasters, no?

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821315)

High frequency trading.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (4, Insightful)

54mc (897170) | about 2 years ago | (#41821319)

Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.?

If you're paying the premium to host in Manhattan, you're doing so because latency is a big deal to you.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821349)

If latency mattered, you would be in NJ, not in Manhattan.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821655)

Actually Conneticut because that is where all of the servers for high-volume trading is done, which requires nearly zero latency.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

ahem (174666) | about 2 years ago | (#41821441)

To your point, if you were 1,450 miles away in the middle of Kansas, you'd have a 7.7 millisecond ping time just for speed-of-light latency if you ran redundant fiber from your DC directly to the exchange in Manhattan. Probably add some small amount of time for the network gear on each end of the connection.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (5, Informative)

Shatrat (855151) | about 2 years ago | (#41821795)

5 microseconds per kilometer tends to be a pretty good approximation, depending on the transport gear.
Things like FEC, EFEC, dispersion compensation modules (non-bragg grating type), frequent OEO regens can add up and make it worse.

That would give you a ballpark of 11ms for a 1450 mile circuit.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (2)

lennier (44736) | about 2 years ago | (#41822483)

To your point, if you were 1,450 miles away in the middle of Kansas, you'd have a 7.7 millisecond ping time just for speed-of-light latency if you ran redundant fiber from your DC directly to the exchange in Manhattan.

Welcome to the Internet as the rest of the world sees it - and why we're less than enthused about "cloud" when all the big servers aren't even on our continent. ;)

I'm waiting for the calls... (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41821557)

I'm waiting for people to start asking the questions of "Should we bother rebuilding in New Orle...err...New York, since they're built so close the water, and are a disaster waiting to happen?"

"What were they thinking building a city between two bodies of water near the ocean so close to sea level"?

"Maybe we should just move the city to further inland, where its safer and we won't have to go through this over and over again...and keep wasting money"

I know I've heard that before..hmmmm.

Seems like the should have known not to build so close to the water, and if they did...not to put things that react badly with salt water underground, eh?

Sorry if it sounds like sour grapes...and I do feel horrible for the people that flooded and lost things, I know first hand how that feels from Katrina.

But I do get a bit uneasy..seeing how differently things are treated during the storms and afterwards....depending on where in the US you are situated.

I mean, this storm, while large in breadth....was a weak Cat. 1 when it made landfall. I could see it being worse, if it had happened and turned into a blizzard over NJ and NYC as was a worst case scenario.

But c'mon...if you have property ON the freakin shoreline, beach front houses, guess what...you're gonna get damaged with a hurricane or other strong storm.

Aside from the areas right near the water..I didn't see all that much damage. Sure, people are going to be without power a couple or more weeks in some areas. Those of us that live in the Gulf south take this as normal a couple times a year...that's what you get for living close to the ocean.

Again....not to make light of anyone's loss, flooding is very difficult to deal with...it sucks.

But this was a weak storm, and did about normal damage as happens to places with a storm like this hitting a coastal area.

I feel bad for those that will next have to deal with FEMA.....then again, maybe their a bit better by now...but I still have less than fond memories for them.

Anyway...people in those areas up there....you'd better get used to these storms hitting more often.

These things go in cycles..and ya'll have been lucky the past decades. I believe back in the 50's a number of storms made landfall up there...but has been so long, that people forget.

Last year, Irene and this year Sandy....hope you're better prepared for next year....if nothing else, you're a dolt if you don't purchase flood insurance. It is DIRT cheap....most everyone would be well served buying it if you ever have even occasional flash floods in your area....

Re:I'm waiting for the calls... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821725)

lol butthurt much?

Re:I'm waiting for the calls... (2)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about 2 years ago | (#41822089)

AFAIK New York is not below sea level.

Re:I'm waiting for the calls... (1)

GNious (953874) | about 2 years ago | (#41822289)

New York subway is, at least partially ... I wonder what that is looking like these days...

Re:I'm waiting for the calls... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41822749)

AFAIK New York is not below sea level.

No, but some areas are not very much higher than sea level, and combine that with being surrounded by water (Hudson River, etc) and exposed readily to coastal storms on the Atlantic...you're just asking for things like this to happen.

It isn't like this area has never been hit by a big storm...its just they've been lucky the past few decades, but these type of things cycle.

Re:I'm waiting for the calls... (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 years ago | (#41822123)

But this was a weak storm, and did about normal damage as happens to places with a storm like this hitting a coastal area.

I don't know where you live - but here on Planet Earth, nobody rational calls a storm with 100mph winds and an 11 foot storm surge, "weak". Not to mention, this storm was considerably more severe than is "normal" for that area.
 

Sorry if it sounds like sour grapes...

No, you don't sound like sour grapes - you sound like an ignorant jackass.
 
Catch a clue.

Re:I'm waiting for the calls... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41822683)

I don't know where you live - but here on Planet Earth, nobody rational calls a storm with 100mph winds and an 11 foot storm surge, "weak". Not to mention, this storm was considerably more severe than is "normal" for that area.

I heard 90MPH gusts...and most of those readings were higher off than ground level....which when you get to the 20th floor of a building..the winds are MUCH higher than on the ground.

Aside from some high gusts..sustained winds from what I saw last night....were only in the 50-60 mph range.

I saw reporters out on the streets whose windbreakers apparently had no wind to break.

As for where I live...I live in the New Orleans area...I've been through more than my share of storms on the level of intensity that NYC got, and I do know what they are like.

Sure it causes damage....but it isn't that bad. The sustained winds weren't that bad, it didn't stay and dump a horrible amount of rain (I've seen a foot of water in a hour, I don't think they get that much did they?).

And...like I mentioned, that area better get used to these storms happening more regularly. They've gotten lulled into complacency due to the cycle being in the low side, but it appears that it is about to start kicking up again. Decades ago, that area did get landfall storms like this with more regularity. NYC has a doomsday scenario, just like NOLA does...it didn't happen last night, but it could.

People need to understand that and prepare for that. And realize...this wasn't THAT bad of a storm.

11 ft is a good storm surge...but not catastrophic, and not unheard of for a weak Cat 1 storm.

At least you didn't beat the recent record of 27.8 ft [wunderground.com] and have a whole city pretty much removed from the map.

Again...these things come in cycles...that area had better start preparing for a "new" normal.

Re:I'm waiting for the calls... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41823157)

Hurricanes in NYC are very very rare regardless of time period. A lot of places build to withstand weather like this, there's actual building codes builders have to follow when building on the shore line of an area known to experience this kind of weather, this is why cities in the south east don't come crumbling down at the first gust from a hurricane. New York has a lot of old infrastructure, so it's not one of those. Insurance should cover a lot of the damage, but then they're just going to turn around and ask the government / taxpayers for money. I wonder though, because most of NYC's infrastructure is made of stone & concrete, how bad can the flooding damage actually be?

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821887)

There are a ton of datacenters out in the midwest. A large amount of them however are DR sites.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822097)

Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.?

If you're paying the premium to host in Manhattan, you're doing so because latency is a big deal to you.

Really? The latency of news websites, such as Gawker and Buzzfeed, matters?

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822853)

Really? The latency of news websites, such as Gawker and Buzzfeed, matters?

No, but the latency affecting "First Post!" does.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (2)

maxdread (1769548) | about 2 years ago | (#41821347)

You might be correct but keep in mind that there are other limitations as well. Cost and need for cooling, talent, price of utilities and infrastructure (not just utilities but potentially network related as well).

However there has to be something behind the idea of data centers in the midwest, at the very least Iowa is home to a Google data center.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41821393)

As I understand it, it's the availability of fiber. DC needs a fuck ton of fiber, and a big city is more likely to have it already present then some podunk town.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (5, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41821569)

One bowl of Colon Blow has more fiber.

Whee do you think the fiber goes? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41821747)

As I understand it, it's the availability of fiber. DC needs a fuck ton of fiber, and a big city is more likely to have it already present then some podunk town.

Did you realize that fiber connects things? And as a result there is a "fuck-ton" of fiber not just in a big city but anywhere the major fiber trunks go, which is all across the country?

What did you think all that traffic did when it left the city? Get printed out and put on a Greyhound?

Re:Whee do you think the fiber goes? (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41821799)

Yes, because a single fiber cable in some backwater town with zero redundancy is a great place to build a DC.

Re:Whee do you think the fiber goes? (1)

deathlyslow (514135) | about 2 years ago | (#41822185)

Wow that is a gross over dramatization. No provider in their right mind would string one run of fiber when they were doing it, even if it was a backwater town. Having lived in a "back water town" for a few years, the local providers install way more than is needed to allow for the forced sharing of their network.

Lots of redundancy (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41822187)

Yes, because a single fiber cable in some backwater town with zero redundancy

Why do you think there is zero redundancy?

Even if you had only one carrier in a town that had a fiber run go through (very unlikely), if the cable gets cut on one side of town the fiber provider can just run all the traffic around the nationwide loop the other way until it gets where it needs to go - and believe me a cut will be fixed VERY quickly.

A town where "a single fiber" dead ends is obviously not a good location, but there are many towns across the U.S. with bundles of fiber going through.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822529)

Ah, so that's why Google didn't invest in KC...

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (5, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 2 years ago | (#41821351)

> Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.?

There are, you just dont hear about them as often because they generally dont have anything newsworthy to report about them.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41821591)

> Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.?

There are, you just dont hear about them as often because they generally dont have anything newsworthy to report about them.

This.

We in the midwest stick our data centers underground for a reason; several reasons, actually.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (2)

Shatrat (855151) | about 2 years ago | (#41821419)

The largest datacenter in the world is at 350 E Cermak Road in Chicago.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821521)

How does One Wilshire in LA stack up connectivity-wise? Now this [colocationamerica.com] is some dense cabling.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (2)

Shatrat (855151) | about 2 years ago | (#41821585)

I couldn't say because the network I work on doesn't go that far west, but 350 E Cermak is the center of the Internet, if it has one.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822573)

That photo was taken after the cables were reorganized. For a while the place was so dark because of all the cabling overhead hardly let any light in.

That being said that building is mostly used as an interconnection point between ISPs. There ARE several floors of data center as well that are mostly full that connect downstairs with amazing connection and latency speeds. But the cost of power is high and space is high. So generally cheaper to place servers somewhere else and then just buy space for your router there.

So mostly not websites hosted there but things that need low ping times. VoIP providers, some MMO's, etc.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about 2 years ago | (#41821469)

Because nobody wants to live there.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (3, Informative)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41821499)

That's what Chicago is for. Far west enough to avoid most eastern seaboard troubles, far east enough to avoid the earthquakes, but central enough to provide good connectivity and ping times to both coasts.

There are a few datacenters in Omaha, Nebraska, but they're either lights-out carrier-grade (Level3) or Fortune 500 warm-site backup grade. (CoSentry). They're also ungodly expensive because they're the only players in a 250 mile radius.

Kansas City, MO has a good selection of datacenters for non-mission-critical systems, but most of the "data fortress" type places are built and run by the business that needs them.

This is all completely ignoring the issue of latency, though - when you're doing financial transactions there's no better seat in the house than the heart of Wall Street. Every millisecond counts, I've been told.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 2 years ago | (#41821533)

Maybe. Except the idiots would probably put their data centers in basements, in the downtown areas of cities like Kansas City and Omaha, where the nearby river could inevitably flood them.

I would want my data center in Denver.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821667)

Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.?

Surely the threat from Tornados could be mitigated and the electrical infrastructure built out more cheaply than the losses due to coastal disasters, no?

Infobunker [infobunker.com] is in Iowa. Not the biggest data center I've hosted stuff in before, but probably the most awesome.

Hint: it's in a Cold War era military bunker. The kind that would allow the Feds to keep operating if the Soviets nuked us. Cool info on their "Facility" page.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (2)

Anamelech (821849) | about 2 years ago | (#41822513)

Canada's got one too, in Nova Scotia. BastionHost is based in an old nuke bunker John Diefenbaker's [wikipedia.org] administration made. Link [bastionhost.com] (Site 100% Flash.)

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821921)

I work for a daatcenter in Kansas. I can tell you first hand that there are a lot of datacenters around here (Kansas City metro). If you aren't doing high speed trading, then you have no reason to not have a datacenter out here. Power is cheaper, space is cheaper, cost of living is cheaper, you don't have to worry about hurricanes or snow, most DCs are tornado proof, and connectivity here is WAY better than people know (and growing faster than any other area in the country). If latency is your primary concern though, then close to the source is your only option.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#41822013)

Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.? Surely the threat from Tornados could be mitigated and the electrical infrastructure built out more cheaply than the losses due to coastal disasters, no?

Probably because, first, more transmission lines are required to establish a backbone to there instead of just putting them where the bulk of the users already are, second, high tech work generally pays well, and thus high tech workers want to live somewhere exciting or with a lot to do, and third, large-scale coastal disasters have happened much less frequently than some of the midwest natural disasters.

Some startups are getting smarter and including lower-cost cities to make it more affordable for the business, and some bigger companies do eventually place operations in less expensive places.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822583)

high tech work generally pays well

Generally speaking, data center work doesn't pay well unless you're a network or storage guy. NOC techs make shit, server techs make slightly more than NOC techs, and that's about all you need in a data center because all that's required on-site is someone who can open a package, read some instructions, and turn a screwdriver. Cabling a server doesn't require a CCNA. So I'd venture to guess nobody in a data center makes more than $20/hour unless they're specialized in something.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - this is just the impression I've gotten over the last few years of job hunting.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822189)

Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.? Surely the threat from Tornados could be mitigated and the electrical infrastructure built out more cheaply than the losses due to coastal disasters, no?

NSA is building a data center in Utah: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ [wired.com] Power is cheap, no floods, hurricanes or tornadoes, and evaporative cooling works fantastic.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41822451)

But you have to have someone live in Utah.

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#41823277)

Hahaha! good luck.. New York forgets there is a rest of the state, let alone anything past Philly..

Re:Where are the mid-American datacenters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823387)

Why aren't there more datacenters in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, etc.?

Surely the threat from Tornados could be mitigated and the electrical infrastructure built out more cheaply than the losses due to coastal disasters, no?

Yeh, but what about motherfuckers with sawed-off .410s killing everything in their path?

No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821297)

As another poster yesterday mentioned it was sunny and pleasant in Virginia just hours before landfall.

The airport simply closed as a precaution.. No nuclear power meltdowns or any catastrophy as the media reports.

So some waves hit the shoreline. Big deal. New York will funciton perfectly tomorrow like nothing ever happened.

This is as strong as a case forever to stop paying attention to the media.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | about 2 years ago | (#41821355)

HMS Bounty. Never forget.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (2)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41821453)

They were idiots for going out to sea. Even if it was marginally safer for the boat to be at sea than in port for the storm, it was safer for the crew to be in port, or in hotel rooms 100 miles inland. Those people died due to a combination of greedy ownership that valued the ship more than the crew's safety and their own stupidity in not refusing. All this for a reproduction used in movie shoots. A senseless waste.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (4, Insightful)

sglewis100 (916818) | about 2 years ago | (#41821437)

This is as strong as a case forever to stop paying attention to the media.

Sounds like you already stopped paying attention. Had you even checked the one link in the article, or even read the summary, you'd know it was a catastophy, and New York will not function "perfectly tomorrow like nothing ever happened."

Schools closed. Subways closed 4-5 days. 38 people dead. Market closed. Fire in Queens destroys dozens of homes. Power outages for millions. 7% of the US population in fact without power. Tunnels flooded (subway and car). NYU Tisch hospital evacuated due to flood related generator failures, including premature babies on ventilators. Just a small summary, of just one city.

I'm a former NYer. Have spoken to many friends and family. None expect normal life tomorrow. Some have considerable property damage. None lost a life, thankfully. I live in South Florida, incidentally, and rather well understand how damaging hurricanes can be. Wilma damaged my car, and cancelled my wedding day as the roof caved in on the place we were getting married in that Friday.

This is a rare strong case to NOT stop paying attention to the media.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821527)

Pretty sure the 38 deaths is for the entire region hit, not just NYC. But that said, 38 deaths over two days might be a decline in NYC's death rate over the same time period.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (3, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41821693)

No 'might' about it.

Death rate of NYC is around 1,000/week. or 140 per day.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#41821745)

38 dead from the storm, not total.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41821529)

That's o.k. the guy is a first rate ass-hole. What do you expect from someone who posts anonymously.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#41821717)

Hmm....boy, this doesn't speak well for the super dense urban living does it?

Everyone depending on mass transportation...a little flooding and the city comes to a stand still?

Hell, we get hit with Cat 1 level storms all the time in the Gulf south area...it is a major PITA, and I do feel for people that got flooded, it is horrible...but it *IS* part of living near the coast of an ocean.

I hope everyone had flood insurance, it is dirt cheap.

But really aside from the expected shoreline damage..this wasn't that bad of a storm. It appeared the media had to try to go out of their way to try to make areas where they were reporting look worse than it was. I mean, reporters not on the coast...barely had wind blowing, a little rain in the background....it wasn't THAT bad of a storm.

But it does show the drawback of everyone proclaiming the good points of living urban...at least in less urban places, the storm doesn't put everything at a stand still...everyone in more 'normal' cities and areas, can still get in their own car or truck and move and go as needed to repair things, resupply and yes...get back to work and normal life.

Seems the urban style, and 99% dependence on mass, underground transportation is proving to be a nagging single point of failure, no?

This was not that bad of a storm. If it hit NYC and other cities there worse than it should...maybe it should be a wake up call for them...to be better prepared. These storms come in cycles and this is likely going to be more of a routine occurrence in the next decade or so.

it isn't like anyone will call for us to "move NYC to a safer area" like we've heard when talk of rebuilding flooded and hurricane damaged cities happened in the not so distant past...even on Slashdot.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 2 years ago | (#41822015)

"Be better prepared" - than what? The storm surge that flooded lower Manhattan beat the previous record by 2 feet, and that record was set almost 200 years ago. The fact that there were only 38 people killed in the entire region shows just how well prepared they were. Nobody was drowned in the subways, because they stopped the subways before they got flooded. Nobody was stuck in elevators, because they turned off the elevators before the power was shut down.

What is it with all these people saying 'it was not that bad a storm'. It was that bad a storm for the area. It was record flooding. From what I understand, Category 5 hurricanes are 'not that bad a storm' compared to the storms on Jupiter - pretty meaningless comparison, isn't it?

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822547)

Nobody was drowned in the subways, because they stopped the subways before they got flooded. Nobody was stuck in elevators, because they turned off the elevators before the power was shut down.

You sound pretty sure. Nobody swept the subways, they just shut off the trains. Homeless that live down there most certainly died, likely after wondering why the trains weren't running, and since no one will miss them, their numbers will never be counted.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (2)

nehumanuscrede (624750) | about 2 years ago | (#41823363)

If the media didn't portray this as the " END OF TEH WORLD ! " then I may pay more attention to it.

The bottom line is, while tragic, the damage is pretty much what is expected from a Category One Storm. Could have been a lot worse. There are four more categories of stronger storms to contend with . . .

Lots of rain, storm surge, high winds for a while, fire, flooding, no power for several days to months ( YES months. Some places here after IKE had no power for MONTHS ), the usual. At least it didn't spawn a dozen tornadoes over the city for you. Nothing like dealing with a hurricane AND the friggin tornadoes they usually spawn on top of it all. ( Hurricane Alicia - 1983 I think it was )

Lots of lessons are going to be learned. ( Like not putting emergency generators and / or their fuel tanks in the basements. Realizing your home insurance doesn't include Flood insurance. Etc. )

The only folks that are shocked at the damage are those that have never been through this. They may have seen it on TV in past years when Florida, Texas or Louisiana got hammered by similar storms and didn't think that much of it. Now, at least, this regions generation has a healthy respect for what a hurricane is capable of. If another one comes along, they'll be much better prepared to deal with it.

Re:No big deal. It was a cat1 storm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821555)

You must not have seen the pictures of the new LaGuardia seaport [itv.com] .

Hard to feel sorry for NYC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821353)

The city's collective-arrogance towards the rest of the world makes it really tough to pity the celebrities, financial crooks, government-thugs, hipsters and other undesirables.

The best thing we can hope for is maybe Anderson Cooper will wash away.

Re:Hard to feel sorry for NYC (1)

sethmeisterg (603174) | about 2 years ago | (#41821461)

Yes, because only crooks and scumbags live in New York City. You, sir, are a putz.

Re:Hard to feel sorry for NYC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821671)

But imagine the pride they will feel when the flood water recedes their city will be clean for a day.

No remote backup for Gawker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821367)

Not a sysadmin myself, but isn't it poor planning to not have your sites mirrored in a remote location for disaster recovery in situations like this?

Re:No remote backup for Gawker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821571)

This is Gawker we're talking about. They're good at one thing-- being a bunch of whiny bitches.

Oblig. XKCD (-1)

IamLarryboy (176442) | about 2 years ago | (#41821373)

Oblig XKCD:

http://www.xkcd.com/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Oblig. XKCD (3, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41821549)

I don't think you're doing that right.

Re:Oblig. XKCD (0)

IamLarryboy (176442) | about 2 years ago | (#41821677)

I don't think you got the joke.

****

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) Server at xkcd.com Port 80

****

Re:Oblig. XKCD (2)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41821971)

Huh. Works for me.

Re:Oblig. XKCD (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#41822203)

Weird, it works just fine for me.

Re:Oblig. XKCD (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#41822395)

Reminds me of one of xkcd's funniest comics:

http://xkcd.com/404/

WHERE ARE THE MELTDOWNS!!?!?!?! (3, Funny)

CajunArson (465943) | about 2 years ago | (#41821391)

I was promised a NUKULAR OPOCALIPSE yesterday, and here we are with satellite images that don't even show the entire East Coast as a glowing radioactive wasteland.

I think that this complete lack of NUKULAR meltdown is 100% absolute irrefutable proof of two key concepts:
1. Capitalism is an abject failure and we need U.N. control of everything and everyone right now.
2. NUKULAR power is obviously far too dangerous and should be banned right now before somebody doesn't get killed again JUST LIKE FUKUSHIMA.

Re:WHERE ARE THE MELTDOWNS!!?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821577)

I was promised a NUKULAR OPOCALIPSE yesterday, and here we are with satellite images that don't even show the entire East Coast as a glowing radioactive wasteland.

I think that this complete lack of NUKULAR meltdown is 100% absolute irrefutable proof of two key concepts:
1. Capitalism is an abject failure and we need U.N. control of everything and everyone right now.
2. NUKULAR power is obviously far too dangerous and should be banned right now before somebody doesn't get killed again JUST LIKE FUKUSHIMA.

As long as we're developing a manifesto, I'd like to add:

3. For the safety of the children only corporate persons can own information, natural persons must lease it.

Thank God one of the candidates wants to off FEMA (-1, Troll)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#41821397)

Then everybody can swim for themselves.

Re:Thank God one of the candidates wants to off FE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821627)

And to think they thought they had any hope.
Nature just shit in his cereal. HARD.

After this huge mess, disbanding it would be horrible.
There'll likely be worse storms around the corner, this winter certainly ain't looking up to be a nice one.
It is more a thought of the fact that it is becoming more unpredictable that is worrying. The climate is chaotic as hell right now.

Who knows what kinds of hell it might be in 5 and then 10 years from now.
Think I might go build a mountain city in Scotland. Yes. Everybody secretly wants to live in a cave anyway. Caves are just awesome.
You don't like caves? Well, you are WRONG.

Re:Thank God one of the candidates wants to off FE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821675)

typo - meant to type EPA

Glub glub glub (1)

Pathogen David (2036758) | about 2 years ago | (#41821423)

I thought it was standard procedure to teach servers to swim these days.

Disaster Plan Fail (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 2 years ago | (#41821433)

[...] work hard to assess the situation and our recovery plans.

How about not putting mission critical equipment susceptible to water damage in the one place all water will go.

Re:Disaster Plan Fail (0)

Tackhead (54550) | about 2 years ago | (#41822349)

How about not putting mission critical equipment susceptible to water damage in the one place all water will go.

Well, if you'd prefer to relocate the big, heavy generator, weighing hundreds of tons, and its associated fuel tanks, to the top of a skyscraper, or even two-thirds of the way up, be my guest.

I mean, it's not like the introduction of thousands of gallons of flammable liquid, capable of producing a fire intense enough to overwhelm any practical fire suppression system, in a location where fire trucks can't possibly reach, has ever caused significant structural damage to buildings in NYC before...

Re:Disaster Plan Fail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823011)

I don't think he was talking about the generator, or the fuel, rather the mission critical systems that rely on said generator and fuel.

If we learned anything from Fukushima, it was that you can never underestimate mankind's propensity to give mother nature the finger and then act suprised when she breaks it off and shoves it up our collective asses.

Re:Disaster Plan Fail (2)

mrdogi (82975) | about 2 years ago | (#41823245)

Information Technology is not important enough in the eyes of so many higher-ups. Until an unrelated complete campus power outage, our primary data center was situated immediately under the Men's restroom, complete with leaky pipes.

I'll just let that image soak in for a while...

Face palm (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 2 years ago | (#41821487)

It's like the old joke about trailer parks attracting tornadoes. There seems to be some sort of physical law that says that if a data center is going to be set up, it will be in a basement, and in a low-lying area.

re flight cancellations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821563)

how much of that is real, and how much is financial, as the airlines decided to cancel flights that wern't full of passengers, or decided to cancel flights to NY on the grounds that the planes would fly out half empty, which is a purely economic decision

We should know better after Deep Impact (1)

sethmeisterg (603174) | about 2 years ago | (#41821587)

If that movie taught us one thing, it was to make sure critical infrastructure was in the physical middle of the country, away from the massive tidal waves that would be generated by impacting asteroids.

Callcentric VoIP service also down (2)

Bill Dimm (463823) | about 2 years ago | (#41821649)

Callcentric apparently had a single datacenter in NYC with no backup power generator [twitter.com] . Lots of discussion here [dslreports.com] .

Fukushima and Sandy show (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41821813)

that flooding ruins backup generators, pumps, fuel storage. I hope that disaster mitigation plans are reviewed.

I also hate people who judge negatively from hindsight, but disaster planning is about considering the most probable of the improbable. Flooding looms most threatening and probable of the improbable.

Perhaps putting all the backup infrastructure on a higher floor makes it harder to maintain, access, and/ or protect from mischief/ terrorism. However plain old flooding seems to be an issue time and time again in disaster scenarios and really needs highest priority in disaster plans.

I think the most important part about all of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41821959)

Is that president Obama declared the situation a disaster area.

Thank you captain obvious.

Re:I think the most important part about all of th (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#41823023)

The war of the previous ones that attacked New York gave Bush another mandate. Now Obama to get reelected must declare war on weather, explain that they have weapons of mass destruction, and nuke clouds, that will teach them who they are dealing with.

Is that all? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822067)

Eh, religion probbably killed more than 38 yesterday

if Pat Roberson can do it, so can I: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823051)

Sandy's wrath of ghod on the banksters.

Notice it didn't hit when OWS was in town.
First Tampa, now this. Oh the inhumanity!

'Wall Street' data center (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822093)

Remember the data center in the movie "Wall Street"? That was the real life data center of Telerate Systems -- on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center.

They never did get flooded.

Generator underneath Grand Central... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41822781)

What happened to the generator underneath Grand Central that the Alphas could not even stop?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>