Awesome physical security is cool for customer tours (SwitchNAP Las Vegas, anyone?) but the real measure of redundancy is to what extreme you have 1+1 or N+1 everything for your support gear (cooling, generators, UPS, giant -48VDC battery plant, rectifiers, etc), and the layer 1 diversity of your fiber routes in and out of the facilities. And the diversity of the upstream carriers from your east/west/north/south fiber routes, the topology of how your dark fiber link out of the facility reaches the nearest major IX points.
Diversity of power feeds: Do they have redundant parallel A and B side high voltage electrical feeds coming from the local grid utility, fed from two separate geographically distinct substations? Really important datacenters in the US and Canada do.
On a facility side, something like this which is arched vaults underground will be a cooling system nightmare, driving up costs considerably vs. an aboveground structure where you can easily locate heat exhangers/cooling towers and free air cooling systems on concrete pads next to a box shaped building. There's ways to achieve up to 10kW/cabinet cooling density in that old buried bunker but it will be a lot costlier to do than in, for example, a retrofitted warehouse-like structure that was formerly a newspaper printing plant.
The main argument I would agree with is that it would maybe be cheaper (and definitely more secure) to keep data redundantly in two data centers sufficiently spread out to not be affected by a singular disaster than in a single hyper-secure data center.
http://www.thebunker.net/about-us/
Earliest Internet Archive mirror from 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20000302134946/http://www.thebun...
It was a silly gimmick then, and it's a silly gimmick now.
It sounds like this thing is a purpose-built bunker built to withstand a nuclear explosion, so much more robust than the title would imply, at least to me.
> Each C14 rack weights more than one ton on less than one square meter.
I think the 1st of these was "translated" from metric; the latter sounds much more reasonable.
Roughly 58 Boulevards des Maréchaux, 75015 Paris, France
