[Imustaskforhelp]

Has this ever happened ever in history of Cloud providers before this because of war?

They mention that the datacenter had fires and sparks and they are mentioning hours of downtime but given the situation, How does that prevent the situation from happening again. It's best for people to use safer regions than the middle east in the moment as missiles might target the same datacenter seeing that some damage was caused.

Moving forward, will there be a demand (all be small) for nuclear bunker esque datacenters which can withstands missiles? I know absolutely nothing about constructing underground but can explosives not be used to create underground datacenters comparatively cheaply? One can also use revamped Nuclear bunkers (although the scale of AWS datacenters might be huge tho who knows)

Had some ideas which show that this idea might be interesting, https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-026-00406-2

I am curious but what are the safety attempts made by Internet Exchange Providers or (had to search it up) but Submarine Cable landing stations, to me it feels like blowing these up leads to internet downtime across whole country / between providers.

[toast0]

Historically in the US, some portion of Bell installations were designed to be resistant to attack. But it comes at large expense for construction and maintenance. Underground facilities also bring increased risk of flooding.

Competition and deregulation and lack of attacks leads towards less robust installations to reduce costs. Geographically redundant installations help as long as all installations aren't targetted; and are valuable for operational concerns other than just attacks.

[userbinator]

Cold War era definitely resulted in a lot of comms infrastructure being hardened against attack.

[riffic]

not even a decade ago for an example (NSVLTNMT):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing

[tbrownaw]

> but given the situation, How does that prevent the situation from happening again

You don't. Instead, you make sure your failover or DR setup is regularly tested and works.

[SoftTalker]

Data centers are usually built to withstand local natural risks e.g. weather. All bets, SLAs, and insurance are usually off when it comes to acts of war.

[crote]

There's also just an upper limit to the kind of risk you can reasonably defend against.

An out-of-control wildfire levels the entire city? The Big One hits the Bay Area? The entire city is flooded for a few months because the levees break during a Cat5 hurricane? Yeah, your DC will be completely ruined. And even if it isn't, you're probably not getting any outside power, generator fuel, or repair technicians for a while.

No matter how much money you pump into hardening your own super-bunker DC, there will always be disasters you aren't prepared for. At a certain point it just makes more financial sense to abandon the idea of invulnerability and build a redundant site a few states over. Accept that you will occasionally lose one, and only protect against incidents where mitigation is cheaper than occasionally rebuilding.

[earthboundkid]

In terms of deliberate attacks on a DC, an adversary that can bomb a blast resistant bunker can easily bomb the data lines going in and out, to say nothing of external power supplies. I guess you can at least repair the lines after the attack, but it's pretty easy to knock it offline if that's your goal. I just don't see the value in making a DC blast resistant compared to the huge costs.

[crote]

> will there be a demand (all be small) for nuclear bunker esque datacenters

Those already exist. See for example Bahnhof's "Pionen - White Mountain" data center in Stockholm, or Cyberfort's "The Bunker" a bit west of London.