← Feed
@cazabon@mindly.social
Post #3740058
2026-07-11 04:12 UTC
@crankylinuxuser@infosec.exchange
There's no such thing as a 5-6,000 sqft datacenter [1], and I'm not sure they can practically / cost-effectively scale down that far.
Datacenters have large fixed costs: land, usually new utility connections, redundant power feeds, generators and batteries, redundant fiber connections, lots and lots of legal and administrative work like negotiating all the above before they reach byte 1, etc. Some of those scale directly with the size of the resulting datacenter, but others don't scale at all, or only partially scale, so they're proportionally more expensive for a smaller facility.
A small datacenter is probably 100,000 sqft these days. I can't see them getting much smaller than that.
As others have noted, datacenters also have nothing to do with providing internet service to the community they're in. That's a separate business.
[1] Unless you count things like "this company has one floor for its server room" and call that a datacenter.
Replies (1)
-
@cazabon@mindly.social
This data center is not a hyperscaler. 100k sqft is the beginning of hyperscaler data centers. I'm not doing this, and I think they are a bad idea.
The 6000sqft plan is classified as an edge/small colo facility. This is a completely real, viable market segment. And as a former NOC and DC systems engineer, I've worked in those small DC's.
My biggest difference is completely offsetting solar/battery as part of an upstart Virtual Power Plant. That can make my power costs cheaper than hyperscalers. And since I'm focusing on green, I'm also looking at geothermal cooling for the DC.
And yes, the first 1 is the hardest. Lots of fixed costs. However, when I get multiple sites, that's where I break even, and turn into a power producer, ISP, and edge data center.
Open ##3740054