When you're balancing the selection criteria list for a new data center there is a non-stop cluster of ‘must haves’ from company departments. The CFO wants the ROI target at an ‘X’ operational cost reduction. Sales wants a new office across town. HR wants HIPAA compliance with remote workers in two states. IT wants high density cabinets with massive cooling requirements.
Combine this with every other item on the data center selection list and getting your arms around those requirements for choosing the right center feels like a big challenge, right?
Geography, scalability and accessibility vary from tier to tier. However, either they have what’s on your list or they don’t. The location of your data enter can play an unexpected role if not examined closely.
Think of it this way. Imagine there’s an earthquake, flood or a hundred-year ice storm that takes down the data center. Take it farther along the disaster continuum. Are there nuclear facilities or chemical plants nearby? If there’s a meltdown, can your team get to the center? Look at your Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs) for time and money impacts. Is there more than one data center? What’s the risk of both going down? Are they too close?
And, speaking of the IT team, how easy/costly will it be to send them out to the center for regular maintenance, running disaster scenarios or other necessary visits?
Consistent temperatures and reliable air quality are other variables to consider as well. Really, anything with big environmental inconsistency shouldn’t be considered. Predictable is what you want. This is the time when boring is a good thing.
Want to learn more?