I had read about massive data center projects going on in Quincy, Washington before by Microsoft and Yahoo. These projects seemed pretty big and selection was based on cheap land, a good work force and in still close proximity to Microsoft headquarters. A few posts back I also wrote about a $400 million data center going up in Birmigham, Alabama. Well, now the stakes are raised again...and who better than Microsoft. It seems they are considering San Antonio for a $600 million data center build. The article at mysa.com states "People close to San Antonio's talks with Microsoft said its site-selection staff likes the area's inexpensive electrical power, work force and lack of exposure to natural disasters."
I also ran across a new blog I had not seen before this weekend called Planning for Business IT Continuity. While I found it to be an interesting blog with some good articles, I started to wonder why it seemed so biased. Upon further investigation I discovered it was written and hosted by Sterling Network Services, LLC. I certainly don't blame them for using the blog as a marketing tool, and as I said, they were good articles.
The thing that really puzzles me between this blog and the last article on Microsoft Data Center site selection, is what really drives location selection? I know the obvious ones like cheap power and superior connectivity options, but with data centers placed all over the country what are the other factors? Does the Data Center really need to be in close proximity to the business placing infrastructure there? Is it merely price? Is it access to a good work force and major transportation hubs?
I'll be digging into this and post my thoughts back to this blog. Just in case anyone is actually reading this, feel free to post a comment!