The Data Center Professionals Network
The Global Database of Data Center Industry Expertise
Uptime Institute to change Tiering
The Uptime Institute plans to open up its data center availability tier standards, with two programs catered toward end users and design engineers.
The Uptime tiers have become the de facto standard for availability in the data center industry. The system includes four tiers that escalate in availability as the number increases, with Tier 4 being completely fault tolerant. Uptime has tried to rein in the standards, as many data centers have claimed a certain tier availability without official certification from Uptime. On the other side, some have questioned the relevancy of the tier standards, saying that putting them to practical use can be as difficult as solving the Da Vinci Code.
(Exert taken from SearchDataCenter.com)
The real problems with the Uptime Institute's tier classifications are in my opinion, three fold.
Firstly, the standards are written by Americans for the US and half of them are not applicable to the rest of the world. They are written in imperial measures which do not apply to the vast majority of the rest of the world and are based on 110 volt power, which is not available in the rest of the world. The standards clearly state that in order to comply with any tier, you must comply with ALL requirements of that tier - i.e. if you want to be Tier 2, you must comply with all of the requirements of Tier 2. The problem here is that outside of the US, it is impossible to comply with all of the requirements for any tier.
Secondly, the standards are very, very widely misused. Claims are made of being 'Tier 3' or 'Tier 4', but what these data centres really mean is that they have some vague relation to the levels of resilience and redundancy that are required by a particular 'tier'. Very few people have actually read the standards and when challenged will only say that they are 'inline with industry peers'. Being a US based organisation, it is very difficult for any data centre outside of the US to obtain a tier classifcation as the Uptime Institute will not licence others to certify data centres and either do not have the resources to do it themselves, or do not have the appetite. The Uptime Institute say that they have only certified 'about a dozen' data centres, which tells us something about those who claim to be 'tier' anything!
Thirdly, whilst the Uptime Institute may be a 'not for profit' organisation, the fact is that it is a company. This same company has a subsidiary called 'Uptime Technologies', which is very much a 'for profit' organisation, selling products into the data centre industry. This calls into question the independence of the Uptime Institute as they surely must be tempted to introduce requirements that their subsidiary company just happens to have products to fulfill.
The advocation of standards is a good thing. However, these should be defined by an International Standards body that is trully independent and does not have a commercial subsidiary. These standards should be such that they account for differences between geographical locations and what can be achieved and should have at their heart the ultimate goal - that is, to have a standard that defines a level of availability that includes the infrastructure, the building and all the other areas that are currently covered (in a simpler fashion), but also includes the architecture of the technology. It will be interesting to see how this one develops!
The Uptime tiers have become the de facto standard for availability in the data center industry. The system includes four tiers that escalate in availability as the number increases, with Tier 4 being completely fault tolerant. Uptime has tried to rein in the standards, as many data centers have claimed a certain tier availability without official certification from Uptime. On the other side, some have questioned the relevancy of the tier standards, saying that putting them to practical use can be as difficult as solving the Da Vinci Code.
(Exert taken from SearchDataCenter.com)
The real problems with the Uptime Institute's tier classifications are in my opinion, three fold.
Firstly, the standards are written by Americans for the US and half of them are not applicable to the rest of the world. They are written in imperial measures which do not apply to the vast majority of the rest of the world and are based on 110 volt power, which is not available in the rest of the world. The standards clearly state that in order to comply with any tier, you must comply with ALL requirements of that tier - i.e. if you want to be Tier 2, you must comply with all of the requirements of Tier 2. The problem here is that outside of the US, it is impossible to comply with all of the requirements for any tier.
Secondly, the standards are very, very widely misused. Claims are made of being 'Tier 3' or 'Tier 4', but what these data centres really mean is that they have some vague relation to the levels of resilience and redundancy that are required by a particular 'tier'. Very few people have actually read the standards and when challenged will only say that they are 'inline with industry peers'. Being a US based organisation, it is very difficult for any data centre outside of the US to obtain a tier classifcation as the Uptime Institute will not licence others to certify data centres and either do not have the resources to do it themselves, or do not have the appetite. The Uptime Institute say that they have only certified 'about a dozen' data centres, which tells us something about those who claim to be 'tier' anything!
Thirdly, whilst the Uptime Institute may be a 'not for profit' organisation, the fact is that it is a company. This same company has a subsidiary called 'Uptime Technologies', which is very much a 'for profit' organisation, selling products into the data centre industry. This calls into question the independence of the Uptime Institute as they surely must be tempted to introduce requirements that their subsidiary company just happens to have products to fulfill.
The advocation of standards is a good thing. However, these should be defined by an International Standards body that is trully independent and does not have a commercial subsidiary. These standards should be such that they account for differences between geographical locations and what can be achieved and should have at their heart the ultimate goal - that is, to have a standard that defines a level of availability that includes the infrastructure, the building and all the other areas that are currently covered (in a simpler fashion), but also includes the architecture of the technology. It will be interesting to see how this one develops!
Replies to This Post
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Hawkes on
-
Interesting comments. As a Manager for a data centre owner (Edinburgh and Glasgow), I try to avoid using the Tiering terms and concentrate on providing hard information about the reslience of the data centre, its protected infrastruture, connectivity and uptime availability statistics. I find our clients initially are interested in Tiering Terms and how we match up - but ultimatley, they need to look under the bonnet.
When it becomes more relevant to UK data centres, I think we shall wear our relevant badge with pride.
-
Permalink Reply by bill henneberry on
-
I agree with Alex........I believe most data centre have different requirements and it usually comes down to budget and what market/purpose they are serving. Most centres are a hybrid of the Tiers and the ones that they build out as higher tier start out that way but sometime are morphed into something different as technology changes or a new requirement comes up that they see in the design phase. They tiers approach are just guidelines not the gospel in my mind.
The key to any Data Center is keeping the requirements in check/scalability - Know how and what it has been designed for......have good maintenance program and do treat them as PROJECTS - they need to be treated as
your technology home
Bill Henneberry
bill@24mtt.com
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Navarra on
-
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Although we do not design many data centers outside of the US to really dig deep into whether it works in the rest of the world, we have been saying for years that The Uptime Institute was not really an impartial organization. The "tiers", however, are still important. Even if organizations are not literally a Tier III or Tier IV, it is good that they all know the "intent" of the tiers and where they need to be.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack McArdle on
-
As the Tiering structures attempt, in a roundabout way, to define a high level plan for 'Concurrent Maintainability' they are handy to keep as guidelines, however in todays financial and environmnetal efficienvcy climate a strict adherence to their rules are not, in my opinion, very good practice, cost effective or efficient. A Data Centre can achieve concurrent maintainability without selling your soul and environmental responsibilities down the river.
-
-
The Uptime Institute Tier levels provide a good idea of what to achive, and why one would like to achieve them. They are based on a US approach, but in itself not bad. In many ways it's better than the TIA942 Tier 3 classification, which is almost laughable... if it wouldn't cost that much to achieve, that is.
The worst part of the Uptime Tier III (or the other definitions, for what it matters) is that they are not entirely conclusive and can be interpreted in different ways.
On top of that, the public material leaves room for interpretation, and the example drawings have been elevated by other parties to a level of absolute truth, even though they are 'examples of possible ways to implement' and nothing more.
I prefer to look at the the Uptime Tier levels as a reference, but hardly as a standard or a definition.
Welcome to
The Data Center Professionals Network
© 2024 Created by DCPNet Admin.
Powered by
