Feds Discover 1,000 More Government Data Centers

1sockchuck writes "The US government has 2,094 data centers, nearly 1,000 more than previous estimates, according to an updated inventory by federal agencies. The finding underscores the scope of the challenge facing the Obama administration as it seeks to streamline the government's IT infrastructure in a massive data center consolidation."

Re:I lost a datacenter

[Dancindan84]

Not sure if you're serious, but my comment was just a reference to http://bash.org/?5273 [bash.org]

Re:I lost a datacenter

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been involved in data center-ing, but call whomever owns the last jump to it (and presumably has records of the cables running to it) and ask?

He's not serious. It is a quote from bash.org:

  hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.

Re:Big company

[nedlohs]

Your "couple of servers" probably doesn't meet the criteria for counting in this case:

"""
The process defined a data center as any room larger than 500 square feet dedicated to data processing that meets the one of the four tier classifications defined by The Uptime Institute.
"""

Now you could put a couple of servers in a 500 square feet room, but that seems pretty unlikely.

Re:I lost a datacenter

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you checked behind the dry wall? [theregister.co.uk]

1000 more datacenters?

[Lookin4Trouble]

Yes, OMB changed what they consider a "datacenter" - previous Datacall regarded anywhere that had 5 servers, a switch, and a router as a datacenter. Now they've lowered the bar to (3 Servers) -or- (1 server + 1 switch) -or- (1 switch + 1 router) -or- (1 server + 1 router). Frankly, I'm surprised the number only roughly doubled, I would've thought there were a LOT more sites with a server, switch, router setup...

Re:Silly President, streamlining's for wings

[michael_cain]

Well, in most agencies there are a number of appointive posts at the top, not just the very head. Eg, various assistant secretaries and under secretaries are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the President. Then there is the hybrid case of appointive positions that have fixed terms (eg, the members of the FCC).

It's also worth pointing out that the federal civil service, which many regard as a serious problem because it makes it hard to fire people without cause, was imposed as the solution to a worse problem: wholesale firings of the professional staff whenever the Administration changed hands, and replacement with people who might have zero experience but had the right "political" qualifications.

How far down to push appointive positions is a hard question. Should the head of FEMA, within the Dept of Homeland Security, be an appointee or a civil service professional? FEMA used to be considered a joke, poorly run and incapable of executing. Bill Clinton appointed a head who had extensive experience in emergency management at the state level, and who is generally regarded as having turned the agency around. George Bush appointed someone with no prior experience in the field, and the agency quickly returned to joke status.

Re:Silly President, streamlining's for wings

[orgelspieler]

Line item veto? The president doesn't have that authority. Clinton had it for a little while, but Rudy Giuliani took it all the way to the Supreme Court to have it declared unconstitutional.