<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_1955238</id>
	<title>Startup's Submerged Servers Could Cut Cooling Costs</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268942100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>1sockchuck writes <i>"Are data center operators ready to abandon hot and cold aisles and submerge their servers? An Austin startup says its <a href="http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/03/17/submerged-servers-green-revolution-cooling/">liquid cooling enclosure</a> can cool high-density server installations for a fraction of the cost of air cooling in traditional data centers. Submersion cooling using mineral oil isn't new, dating back to the use of Fluorinert in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-2">Cray 2</a>. The new startup, <a href="http://grcooling.com/">Green Revolution Cooling</a>, says its first installation will be at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (also home to the <a href="http://www.tacc.utexas.edu/ta/ta\_display.php?ta\_id=100379">Ranger</a> supercomputer). The company launched at SC09 along with a competing liquid cooling play, the <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/11/17/1559206/Cooling-Bags-Could-Cut-Server-Cooling-Costs-By-93">Iceotope cooling bags</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>1sockchuck writes " Are data center operators ready to abandon hot and cold aisles and submerge their servers ?
An Austin startup says its liquid cooling enclosure can cool high-density server installations for a fraction of the cost of air cooling in traditional data centers .
Submersion cooling using mineral oil is n't new , dating back to the use of Fluorinert in the Cray 2 .
The new startup , Green Revolution Cooling , says its first installation will be at the Texas Advanced Computing Center ( also home to the Ranger supercomputer ) .
The company launched at SC09 along with a competing liquid cooling play , the Iceotope cooling bags .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1sockchuck writes "Are data center operators ready to abandon hot and cold aisles and submerge their servers?
An Austin startup says its liquid cooling enclosure can cool high-density server installations for a fraction of the cost of air cooling in traditional data centers.
Submersion cooling using mineral oil isn't new, dating back to the use of Fluorinert in the Cray 2.
The new startup, Green Revolution Cooling, says its first installation will be at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (also home to the Ranger supercomputer).
The company launched at SC09 along with a competing liquid cooling play, the Iceotope cooling bags.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528508</id>
	<title>"Green Revolution"!!!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268905440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Astute move.  They're named "Green Revolution Cooling".   Everyone knows you can't go wrong when you go "green".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Astute move .
They 're named " Green Revolution Cooling " .
Everyone knows you ca n't go wrong when you go " green " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Astute move.
They're named "Green Revolution Cooling".
Everyone knows you can't go wrong when you go "green".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352</id>
	<title>Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268904900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Won't these servers bathed in oil still have the same thermal output?  I don't understand why it would be cheaper to cool oil than it would air or any other medium..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't these servers bathed in oil still have the same thermal output ?
I do n't understand why it would be cheaper to cool oil than it would air or any other medium. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't these servers bathed in oil still have the same thermal output?
I don't understand why it would be cheaper to cool oil than it would air or any other medium..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530180</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268912340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can submerge traditional platter type hard drives too! We have an enclosure to package the drives before they get submerged.</p><p>We've also tried high density. Works great! Actually, this is the golden solution for high density markets. Ever tried to put 12 physical CPU's on one motherboard? Wouldn't happen without liquid. Just so happens it's cheap with our technology.</p><p>Our technology raises a lot of questions. We were at last year's Supercomputing conference (10,000 attendee's) and had tons of questions. I would like to believe we had answers...</p><p>-Christiaan Best (GRC employee)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can submerge traditional platter type hard drives too !
We have an enclosure to package the drives before they get submerged.We 've also tried high density .
Works great !
Actually , this is the golden solution for high density markets .
Ever tried to put 12 physical CPU 's on one motherboard ?
Would n't happen without liquid .
Just so happens it 's cheap with our technology.Our technology raises a lot of questions .
We were at last year 's Supercomputing conference ( 10,000 attendee 's ) and had tons of questions .
I would like to believe we had answers...-Christiaan Best ( GRC employee )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can submerge traditional platter type hard drives too!
We have an enclosure to package the drives before they get submerged.We've also tried high density.
Works great!
Actually, this is the golden solution for high density markets.
Ever tried to put 12 physical CPU's on one motherboard?
Wouldn't happen without liquid.
Just so happens it's cheap with our technology.Our technology raises a lot of questions.
We were at last year's Supercomputing conference (10,000 attendee's) and had tons of questions.
I would like to believe we had answers...-Christiaan Best (GRC employee)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529690</id>
	<title>Re:Fanless low power servers are the future</title>
	<author>Running Pinata</author>
	<datestamp>1268910000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A server with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheevaPlug" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wikipedia.org] draws 7w under full load.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A server with this [ wikipedia.org ] draws 7w under full load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A server with this [wikipedia.org] draws 7w under full load.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529012</id>
	<title>Re:Submerged hard disks?</title>
	<author>ebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1268907300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Such issues could easily be solved by only submersing the compute nodes (which back to an external SAN for storage), encasing hard drives in airtight containers which have (heat) conductive contact with the drive body, or using newer SSDs to remove the need for an air cushion between your non-existent head and your non-existent platter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such issues could easily be solved by only submersing the compute nodes ( which back to an external SAN for storage ) , encasing hard drives in airtight containers which have ( heat ) conductive contact with the drive body , or using newer SSDs to remove the need for an air cushion between your non-existent head and your non-existent platter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such issues could easily be solved by only submersing the compute nodes (which back to an external SAN for storage), encasing hard drives in airtight containers which have (heat) conductive contact with the drive body, or using newer SSDs to remove the need for an air cushion between your non-existent head and your non-existent platter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532130</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1268926500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you cool air you get condensation - that's a lot of wasted energy.   Oil can be much closer to the CPU operating temperature, perhaps within 30 degrees, air has to be cooled to a much lower temperature, frequently below the outdoor temperature, for the same cooling affect.  With oil all you may have to do is run it through a radiator except in particularly warm locations. Chilled water should not be required.  Cooling air will usually require refrigeration which can easily cost ten times as much.  I don't agree with any of your conclusions on the infrastructure costs  Oil cooling makes top access close to mandatory and this limits density severely.

I am a little surprised that someone has not gone with a phase change solution for cooling - the cooling effect is an order of magnitude better, and bubbles rise more quickly than oil's convection.  The only trick is designing the heat sinks so they shed bubbles easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you cool air you get condensation - that 's a lot of wasted energy .
Oil can be much closer to the CPU operating temperature , perhaps within 30 degrees , air has to be cooled to a much lower temperature , frequently below the outdoor temperature , for the same cooling affect .
With oil all you may have to do is run it through a radiator except in particularly warm locations .
Chilled water should not be required .
Cooling air will usually require refrigeration which can easily cost ten times as much .
I do n't agree with any of your conclusions on the infrastructure costs Oil cooling makes top access close to mandatory and this limits density severely .
I am a little surprised that someone has not gone with a phase change solution for cooling - the cooling effect is an order of magnitude better , and bubbles rise more quickly than oil 's convection .
The only trick is designing the heat sinks so they shed bubbles easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cool air you get condensation - that's a lot of wasted energy.
Oil can be much closer to the CPU operating temperature, perhaps within 30 degrees, air has to be cooled to a much lower temperature, frequently below the outdoor temperature, for the same cooling affect.
With oil all you may have to do is run it through a radiator except in particularly warm locations.
Chilled water should not be required.
Cooling air will usually require refrigeration which can easily cost ten times as much.
I don't agree with any of your conclusions on the infrastructure costs  Oil cooling makes top access close to mandatory and this limits density severely.
I am a little surprised that someone has not gone with a phase change solution for cooling - the cooling effect is an order of magnitude better, and bubbles rise more quickly than oil's convection.
The only trick is designing the heat sinks so they shed bubbles easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052</id>
	<title>How longer before we re-invent the mainframe?</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1268904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm starting a pool. How much longer before the mainframe is re-invented to power cloud computing. I'm taking 1.5 years. Any other bets?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting a pool .
How much longer before the mainframe is re-invented to power cloud computing .
I 'm taking 1.5 years .
Any other bets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting a pool.
How much longer before the mainframe is re-invented to power cloud computing.
I'm taking 1.5 years.
Any other bets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531986</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1268925000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but you can't deep fry yummy battered things in just any old medium.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but you ca n't deep fry yummy battered things in just any old medium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but you can't deep fry yummy battered things in just any old medium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31536994</id>
	<title>Re:Fanless low power servers are the future</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1269012480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Large PSU's are closer to 92+\% efficient (HP DL380 G6 750W PSU is 91.5\% efficient at 100\% load, probably even better at 75-80\% load).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Large PSU 's are closer to 92 + \ % efficient ( HP DL380 G6 750W PSU is 91.5 \ % efficient at 100 \ % load , probably even better at 75-80 \ % load ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Large PSU's are closer to 92+\% efficient (HP DL380 G6 750W PSU is 91.5\% efficient at 100\% load, probably even better at 75-80\% load).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506</id>
	<title>Re:Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268905440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>scuba gear and lessons for all sys admins!!  All datacenters could just be a giant pool of swirling oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>scuba gear and lessons for all sys admins ! !
All datacenters could just be a giant pool of swirling oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>scuba gear and lessons for all sys admins!!
All datacenters could just be a giant pool of swirling oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31539492</id>
	<title>Going green</title>
	<author>spuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269019080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Going "green" should be about using and specially wasting less energy, not about ways to better dismiss high energy usage...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Going " green " should be about using and specially wasting less energy , not about ways to better dismiss high energy usage.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going "green" should be about using and specially wasting less energy, not about ways to better dismiss high energy usage...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527544</id>
	<title>Until...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268945880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>someone urinates in the cooling liquid, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someone urinates in the cooling liquid , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone urinates in the cooling liquid, that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528794</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268906520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mineral oil has a thermal conductivity 5 times greater than air, and is much easier to pump around. I expect the difference in cp is similar but wikipedia doesn't list a value for oil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mineral oil has a thermal conductivity 5 times greater than air , and is much easier to pump around .
I expect the difference in cp is similar but wikipedia does n't list a value for oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mineral oil has a thermal conductivity 5 times greater than air, and is much easier to pump around.
I expect the difference in cp is similar but wikipedia doesn't list a value for oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528980</id>
	<title>Re:Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Kompressor</author>
	<datestamp>1268907180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the external cooling for the oil failed, you might end up with some mighty crispy techs...</p><p>Just in case, have them roll in breading before going in; then you could at least salvage the meat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p><p>Mmm... Country Fried Tech...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the external cooling for the oil failed , you might end up with some mighty crispy techs...Just in case , have them roll in breading before going in ; then you could at least salvage the meat : -DMmm... Country Fried Tech.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the external cooling for the oil failed, you might end up with some mighty crispy techs...Just in case, have them roll in breading before going in; then you could at least salvage the meat :-DMmm... Country Fried Tech...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527762</id>
	<title>Ease of Service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the ease of service video.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q0sTFX1DFM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the ease of service video.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = -q0sTFX1DFM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the ease of service video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q0sTFX1DFM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31533348</id>
	<title>Drop in some potatoes as well.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-ring-<br>Hi, I'd like a high-performance computer submerged in oil.<br>Would you like fries with that?<br>Think of all the displaced IT grunts that suddenly gained job experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-ring-Hi , I 'd like a high-performance computer submerged in oil.Would you like fries with that ? Think of all the displaced IT grunts that suddenly gained job experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-ring-Hi, I'd like a high-performance computer submerged in oil.Would you like fries with that?Think of all the displaced IT grunts that suddenly gained job experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529124</id>
	<title>Re:Canada Anyone?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1268907720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ping times go way up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ping times go way up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ping times go way up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531294</id>
	<title>Re:Mainframe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268919300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old water cooled mainframes (IBM, Amdahl, and their ilk) weren't immersion cooled. Some of them ran the water into heat sinks that covered the chips, some used, for lack of a better term, 'water columns' - the side panels of the chassis were hollow and had (cold) water flowing thru them. They used conduction from the board to the side panels - the style varied depending upo the vendor. Remember, these systems predate the single chip CPUs; it took multiple boards to make a single processor so there was quite a bit of real estate that had to be cooled.</p><p>The Cray-1 and X-MP systems did this using freon instead of water. The customer provided chilled water that went to a heat exchanger; the other side was freon. The columns in a Cray were hollow aluminum, and modules were a sandwich - a copper plate between two boards. the plate slid between the columns and was mechanically clamped; heat conducted from the boards to the plate to the side columns, into the freon, and out to the heat exchanger. The Y-MP, C90, and T3-D/E systems used the same hollow columns, but the module sandwich used a hollow aluminum boards instead of a solid one. Hoses (that had to be disconnected when you pulled a module) connected the module sandwich to the side columns, freon flowed thru the entire assembly and carried the heat out.</p><p>Cray did come out with a line of smaller air-cooled systems (EL, J-90, et. al.), by then they had the processor down to a single chip.</p><p>The Cray-2 and T90 systems were immersion cooled. The same method was used for the Cray-3 (not a Cray Research design; Seymour left to form Cray Computers to do this system). Immersion cooling meant that you had a tank big enough to hold all of the liquid in the system (the waterfall, for those that remember the pictures).  For maintenance, you pumped the florinert completely out of the system into the tank, popped the panels, and did your module swaps. When florinert overheats it decomposes to cyanide gas so all of these systems had ventilation systems that vented to a safe location; if you suspected a module failure might have caused an overheat you used a cyanide detection kit and ran the ventilator...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old water cooled mainframes ( IBM , Amdahl , and their ilk ) were n't immersion cooled .
Some of them ran the water into heat sinks that covered the chips , some used , for lack of a better term , 'water columns ' - the side panels of the chassis were hollow and had ( cold ) water flowing thru them .
They used conduction from the board to the side panels - the style varied depending upo the vendor .
Remember , these systems predate the single chip CPUs ; it took multiple boards to make a single processor so there was quite a bit of real estate that had to be cooled.The Cray-1 and X-MP systems did this using freon instead of water .
The customer provided chilled water that went to a heat exchanger ; the other side was freon .
The columns in a Cray were hollow aluminum , and modules were a sandwich - a copper plate between two boards .
the plate slid between the columns and was mechanically clamped ; heat conducted from the boards to the plate to the side columns , into the freon , and out to the heat exchanger .
The Y-MP , C90 , and T3-D/E systems used the same hollow columns , but the module sandwich used a hollow aluminum boards instead of a solid one .
Hoses ( that had to be disconnected when you pulled a module ) connected the module sandwich to the side columns , freon flowed thru the entire assembly and carried the heat out.Cray did come out with a line of smaller air-cooled systems ( EL , J-90 , et .
al. ) , by then they had the processor down to a single chip.The Cray-2 and T90 systems were immersion cooled .
The same method was used for the Cray-3 ( not a Cray Research design ; Seymour left to form Cray Computers to do this system ) .
Immersion cooling meant that you had a tank big enough to hold all of the liquid in the system ( the waterfall , for those that remember the pictures ) .
For maintenance , you pumped the florinert completely out of the system into the tank , popped the panels , and did your module swaps .
When florinert overheats it decomposes to cyanide gas so all of these systems had ventilation systems that vented to a safe location ; if you suspected a module failure might have caused an overheat you used a cyanide detection kit and ran the ventilator.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old water cooled mainframes (IBM, Amdahl, and their ilk) weren't immersion cooled.
Some of them ran the water into heat sinks that covered the chips, some used, for lack of a better term, 'water columns' - the side panels of the chassis were hollow and had (cold) water flowing thru them.
They used conduction from the board to the side panels - the style varied depending upo the vendor.
Remember, these systems predate the single chip CPUs; it took multiple boards to make a single processor so there was quite a bit of real estate that had to be cooled.The Cray-1 and X-MP systems did this using freon instead of water.
The customer provided chilled water that went to a heat exchanger; the other side was freon.
The columns in a Cray were hollow aluminum, and modules were a sandwich - a copper plate between two boards.
the plate slid between the columns and was mechanically clamped; heat conducted from the boards to the plate to the side columns, into the freon, and out to the heat exchanger.
The Y-MP, C90, and T3-D/E systems used the same hollow columns, but the module sandwich used a hollow aluminum boards instead of a solid one.
Hoses (that had to be disconnected when you pulled a module) connected the module sandwich to the side columns, freon flowed thru the entire assembly and carried the heat out.Cray did come out with a line of smaller air-cooled systems (EL, J-90, et.
al.), by then they had the processor down to a single chip.The Cray-2 and T90 systems were immersion cooled.
The same method was used for the Cray-3 (not a Cray Research design; Seymour left to form Cray Computers to do this system).
Immersion cooling meant that you had a tank big enough to hold all of the liquid in the system (the waterfall, for those that remember the pictures).
For maintenance, you pumped the florinert completely out of the system into the tank, popped the panels, and did your module swaps.
When florinert overheats it decomposes to cyanide gas so all of these systems had ventilation systems that vented to a safe location; if you suspected a module failure might have caused an overheat you used a cyanide detection kit and ran the ventilator...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612</id>
	<title>Fanless low power servers are the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268905800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A server with <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121399&amp;cm\_re=intel\_atom-\_-13-121-399-\_-Product" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [newegg.com] Intel Atom equipped mobo draws something like 25-35W under full load. And the performance of these D510 dual core processors is <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu\_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+D510+\%40+1.66GHz" title="cpubenchmark.net" rel="nofollow">comparable</a> [cpubenchmark.net] to better Pentium 4 processors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A server with this [ newegg.com ] Intel Atom equipped mobo draws something like 25-35W under full load .
And the performance of these D510 dual core processors is comparable [ cpubenchmark.net ] to better Pentium 4 processors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A server with this [newegg.com] Intel Atom equipped mobo draws something like 25-35W under full load.
And the performance of these D510 dual core processors is comparable [cpubenchmark.net] to better Pentium 4 processors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528760</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268906400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If somebody who really knows this stuff can *politely* rebut, then great.</p></div><p>Politely?  You must be new here, you niggerdick lovin' cocksucker. XD</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If somebody who really knows this stuff can * politely * rebut , then great.Politely ?
You must be new here , you niggerdick lovin ' cocksucker .
XD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If somebody who really knows this stuff can *politely* rebut, then great.Politely?
You must be new here, you niggerdick lovin' cocksucker.
XD
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31533766</id>
	<title>GRC and Iceotope discuss each others' products</title>
	<author>judgecorp</author>
	<datestamp>1268989800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GRC's Mark Tlapak tells me that Iceotope's system is "beautiful but costly", while Iceotope's Peter Hopton dismisses GRC as "fishtank manufacturers". <br>Basically, it looks like a simple solution (a bath) versus a more complex one (individual sealed blades). The discussion is here  at <a href="http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/new-server-cooling-system-puts-blades-in-a-bucket-5943" title="eweekeurope.co.uk">eWEEK Europe UK</a> [eweekeurope.co.uk]. <br> <br>

Peter Judge
UK Editor, eWEEK Europe</htmltext>
<tokenext>GRC 's Mark Tlapak tells me that Iceotope 's system is " beautiful but costly " , while Iceotope 's Peter Hopton dismisses GRC as " fishtank manufacturers " .
Basically , it looks like a simple solution ( a bath ) versus a more complex one ( individual sealed blades ) .
The discussion is here at eWEEK Europe UK [ eweekeurope.co.uk ] .
Peter Judge UK Editor , eWEEK Europe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GRC's Mark Tlapak tells me that Iceotope's system is "beautiful but costly", while Iceotope's Peter Hopton dismisses GRC as "fishtank manufacturers".
Basically, it looks like a simple solution (a bath) versus a more complex one (individual sealed blades).
The discussion is here  at eWEEK Europe UK [eweekeurope.co.uk].
Peter Judge
UK Editor, eWEEK Europe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528864</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yuck.</title>
	<author>ubercam</author>
	<datestamp>1268906760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My initial thoughts were "Why on earth would you use the engine from an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford\_LTD\_Crown\_Victoria" title="wikipedia.org">LTD</a> [wikipedia.org]?"</p><p>My ambiguous Wikipedia search revealed that you were in fact referring to a Stirling engine (aka. a low temperature difference engine).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My initial thoughts were " Why on earth would you use the engine from an LTD [ wikipedia.org ] ?
" My ambiguous Wikipedia search revealed that you were in fact referring to a Stirling engine ( aka .
a low temperature difference engine ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My initial thoughts were "Why on earth would you use the engine from an LTD [wikipedia.org]?
"My ambiguous Wikipedia search revealed that you were in fact referring to a Stirling engine (aka.
a low temperature difference engine).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270</id>
	<title>Submerged hard disks?</title>
	<author>JPerler</author>
	<datestamp>1268904720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard disks aren't sealed, there's always (at least, on the dozens of disks I've taken apart) a little felt-pad or sticker covered vent on them. I figured it was for equalisation or something crazy, but I'm not positive.</p><p>Given hard disks aren't sealed, wouldn't they fill with fluid and assuming they'd still function with a liquid screwing up the head mechanism (given modern disk's head's float above the platter surface on a cushion of air) wouldn't the increased viscosity slow down seek events?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard disks are n't sealed , there 's always ( at least , on the dozens of disks I 've taken apart ) a little felt-pad or sticker covered vent on them .
I figured it was for equalisation or something crazy , but I 'm not positive.Given hard disks are n't sealed , would n't they fill with fluid and assuming they 'd still function with a liquid screwing up the head mechanism ( given modern disk 's head 's float above the platter surface on a cushion of air ) would n't the increased viscosity slow down seek events ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard disks aren't sealed, there's always (at least, on the dozens of disks I've taken apart) a little felt-pad or sticker covered vent on them.
I figured it was for equalisation or something crazy, but I'm not positive.Given hard disks aren't sealed, wouldn't they fill with fluid and assuming they'd still function with a liquid screwing up the head mechanism (given modern disk's head's float above the platter surface on a cushion of air) wouldn't the increased viscosity slow down seek events?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529446</id>
	<title>How about using the building incoming water supply</title>
	<author>mark\_osmd</author>
	<datestamp>1268908920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I was wondering if it would cut cooling costs to use the building's main incoming water service as a cool heat sink.
The part of this that goes to the hot water heater could be used to soak up heat from servers, then passed to the hot
water heater which would then have an easier job.  Only using the incoming supply to the water heater would avoid
problems with warm tap water but in some cases that wouldn't matter (do most people care if the cold taps in the
bathroom produce warm water?).  If you could use the whole cold supply it would be a bigger heat sink.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering if it would cut cooling costs to use the building 's main incoming water service as a cool heat sink .
The part of this that goes to the hot water heater could be used to soak up heat from servers , then passed to the hot water heater which would then have an easier job .
Only using the incoming supply to the water heater would avoid problems with warm tap water but in some cases that would n't matter ( do most people care if the cold taps in the bathroom produce warm water ? ) .
If you could use the whole cold supply it would be a bigger heat sink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I was wondering if it would cut cooling costs to use the building's main incoming water service as a cool heat sink.
The part of this that goes to the hot water heater could be used to soak up heat from servers, then passed to the hot
water heater which would then have an easier job.
Only using the incoming supply to the water heater would avoid
problems with warm tap water but in some cases that wouldn't matter (do most people care if the cold taps in the
bathroom produce warm water?).
If you could use the whole cold supply it would be a bigger heat sink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528878</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>AlejoHausner</author>
	<datestamp>1268906820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://grcooling.com/?page\_id=70" title="grcooling.com" rel="nofollow">company's website</a> [grcooling.com] claims that it's easier to cool oil than to cool air.  Their argument is that conventional air cooling requires 45 degree F air to keep components at 105 degree F, whereas the higher heat capacity of the oil lets it come out of the racks at 105F.  The oil is hotter than ambient air (at least where I live), so it should be easier to remove its heat (through a heat exchanger) than to chill warm exhaust air back to 45F (through a refrigeration unit).  Of course most components can run hotter than 105F, and that only strengthens their argument.</p><p>Alejo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company 's website [ grcooling.com ] claims that it 's easier to cool oil than to cool air .
Their argument is that conventional air cooling requires 45 degree F air to keep components at 105 degree F , whereas the higher heat capacity of the oil lets it come out of the racks at 105F .
The oil is hotter than ambient air ( at least where I live ) , so it should be easier to remove its heat ( through a heat exchanger ) than to chill warm exhaust air back to 45F ( through a refrigeration unit ) .
Of course most components can run hotter than 105F , and that only strengthens their argument.Alejo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company's website [grcooling.com] claims that it's easier to cool oil than to cool air.
Their argument is that conventional air cooling requires 45 degree F air to keep components at 105 degree F, whereas the higher heat capacity of the oil lets it come out of the racks at 105F.
The oil is hotter than ambient air (at least where I live), so it should be easier to remove its heat (through a heat exchanger) than to chill warm exhaust air back to 45F (through a refrigeration unit).
Of course most components can run hotter than 105F, and that only strengthens their argument.Alejo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529196</id>
	<title>Mainframe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember mainframes using distilled water for cooling decades ago. Not being a member of the correct priesthood, I was not allowed in the mainframe room, so I don't know how it was set up then. I <i>have</i> seen how oil-filled systems work, and I would hate to work on one. Nasty mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember mainframes using distilled water for cooling decades ago .
Not being a member of the correct priesthood , I was not allowed in the mainframe room , so I do n't know how it was set up then .
I have seen how oil-filled systems work , and I would hate to work on one .
Nasty mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember mainframes using distilled water for cooling decades ago.
Not being a member of the correct priesthood, I was not allowed in the mainframe room, so I don't know how it was set up then.
I have seen how oil-filled systems work, and I would hate to work on one.
Nasty mess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528854</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>eh2o</author>
	<datestamp>1268906700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Air actually has a very high thermal resistance so one needs to use forced circulation to actually transport moderate amounts of heat.  Running all those fans uses more energy.  In fact in any closed room, running a fan may cause objects immediately in front of the fan to be cooled, but overall the room is heating up from the power use.</p><p>Oil has a very low thermal resistance naturally so one can use ordinary convection instead (up to some point).</p><p>A less messy solution would be for servers to be made with integrated metal heat-pipes that conduct the waste energy to the case.  Then a special type of rack would carry the heat away through the mounting rails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Air actually has a very high thermal resistance so one needs to use forced circulation to actually transport moderate amounts of heat .
Running all those fans uses more energy .
In fact in any closed room , running a fan may cause objects immediately in front of the fan to be cooled , but overall the room is heating up from the power use.Oil has a very low thermal resistance naturally so one can use ordinary convection instead ( up to some point ) .A less messy solution would be for servers to be made with integrated metal heat-pipes that conduct the waste energy to the case .
Then a special type of rack would carry the heat away through the mounting rails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Air actually has a very high thermal resistance so one needs to use forced circulation to actually transport moderate amounts of heat.
Running all those fans uses more energy.
In fact in any closed room, running a fan may cause objects immediately in front of the fan to be cooled, but overall the room is heating up from the power use.Oil has a very low thermal resistance naturally so one can use ordinary convection instead (up to some point).A less messy solution would be for servers to be made with integrated metal heat-pipes that conduct the waste energy to the case.
Then a special type of rack would carry the heat away through the mounting rails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527626</id>
	<title>Or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268902860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until you have to try and RMA that CPU<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you have to try and RMA that CPU : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you have to try and RMA that CPU :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528802</id>
	<title>Re:How longer before we re-invent the mainframe?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1268906520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think about it, a "server farm" really isn't that different from a "mainframe"; it's a whole bunch of CPUs working in parallel, all packed into one room.  The only real difference is that most server farms are implemented with separate OSes on each system, instead of a single OS for the whole thing, which is good for redundancy and partitioning but not so great for efficiency.  It'd be a lot more simple and efficient if we just had one big OS for the whole system, with different users using different user accounts, exactly what multi-user operating systems were designed for.  Unfortunately, no one's seemed to figure out yet how to make a truly reliable and fault-immune multi-user OS, so we're using separate systems, virtualization, etc. to contain the damage when faults (either hardware or software) happen and crash the entire OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it , a " server farm " really is n't that different from a " mainframe " ; it 's a whole bunch of CPUs working in parallel , all packed into one room .
The only real difference is that most server farms are implemented with separate OSes on each system , instead of a single OS for the whole thing , which is good for redundancy and partitioning but not so great for efficiency .
It 'd be a lot more simple and efficient if we just had one big OS for the whole system , with different users using different user accounts , exactly what multi-user operating systems were designed for .
Unfortunately , no one 's seemed to figure out yet how to make a truly reliable and fault-immune multi-user OS , so we 're using separate systems , virtualization , etc .
to contain the damage when faults ( either hardware or software ) happen and crash the entire OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it, a "server farm" really isn't that different from a "mainframe"; it's a whole bunch of CPUs working in parallel, all packed into one room.
The only real difference is that most server farms are implemented with separate OSes on each system, instead of a single OS for the whole thing, which is good for redundancy and partitioning but not so great for efficiency.
It'd be a lot more simple and efficient if we just had one big OS for the whole system, with different users using different user accounts, exactly what multi-user operating systems were designed for.
Unfortunately, no one's seemed to figure out yet how to make a truly reliable and fault-immune multi-user OS, so we're using separate systems, virtualization, etc.
to contain the damage when faults (either hardware or software) happen and crash the entire OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528756</id>
	<title>Re:Submerged hard disks?</title>
	<author>mnmoore</author>
	<datestamp>1268906400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the embedded video, they indicate that hard disks need to be wrapped in some material the vendor apparently provides, presumably for just this reason.  Not sure how well the wrapping transfers heat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the embedded video , they indicate that hard disks need to be wrapped in some material the vendor apparently provides , presumably for just this reason .
Not sure how well the wrapping transfers heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the embedded video, they indicate that hard disks need to be wrapped in some material the vendor apparently provides, presumably for just this reason.
Not sure how well the wrapping transfers heat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528562</id>
	<title>Re:Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268905620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Liquid cooled servers are awesome!  Especially when you use kerosene as the liquid!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Liquid cooled servers are awesome !
Especially when you use kerosene as the liquid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liquid cooled servers are awesome!
Especially when you use kerosene as the liquid!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531862</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a great idea.  They should use that concept to heat homes.  They could put a single boiler in the basement and circulate the hot/warm mineral oil or water to several cast iron radiators placed at stategic locations throughout the home.  I wonder why no one has thought of that?  I mean it is so much cheaper and easier to do it this way it should be so obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a great idea .
They should use that concept to heat homes .
They could put a single boiler in the basement and circulate the hot/warm mineral oil or water to several cast iron radiators placed at stategic locations throughout the home .
I wonder why no one has thought of that ?
I mean it is so much cheaper and easier to do it this way it should be so obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a great idea.
They should use that concept to heat homes.
They could put a single boiler in the basement and circulate the hot/warm mineral oil or water to several cast iron radiators placed at stategic locations throughout the home.
I wonder why no one has thought of that?
I mean it is so much cheaper and easier to do it this way it should be so obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</id>
	<title>As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..computers, allow me to label this a "fad"</p><p>The idea is funky, but to get good cooling you want convection (every joule of pump energy from a circulating pump gets transferred into the oil at yet more heat) which means deep tanks which means, to the server environment, goodbye high density.</p><p>The ONLY thing that has changed since I was doing this is the affordability of SSDs, which mean that now it is practical to immerse the whole computer, and the mass storage too, which makes things a lot simpler and cheaper, and means you really can be JUST oil cooled, not oil cooled mainly, except for air cooled HDs etc.</p><p>TOP TIP from an old hand.</p><p>If you are going to oil cool by immersion, buy the latest top quality hardware, because once immersed it stays there, you'll only pull it once to see why it sucks.</p><p>BIGGEST mistake experimenters make is using old hardware, cos you always end up playing with it, making mess, ahh fsckit..</p><p>Nota Bene if you are building one of these in anger, make allowances for the significant increase in the weight that the oil makes.</p><p>HTH etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..computers , allow me to label this a " fad " The idea is funky , but to get good cooling you want convection ( every joule of pump energy from a circulating pump gets transferred into the oil at yet more heat ) which means deep tanks which means , to the server environment , goodbye high density.The ONLY thing that has changed since I was doing this is the affordability of SSDs , which mean that now it is practical to immerse the whole computer , and the mass storage too , which makes things a lot simpler and cheaper , and means you really can be JUST oil cooled , not oil cooled mainly , except for air cooled HDs etc.TOP TIP from an old hand.If you are going to oil cool by immersion , buy the latest top quality hardware , because once immersed it stays there , you 'll only pull it once to see why it sucks.BIGGEST mistake experimenters make is using old hardware , cos you always end up playing with it , making mess , ahh fsckit..Nota Bene if you are building one of these in anger , make allowances for the significant increase in the weight that the oil makes.HTH etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..computers, allow me to label this a "fad"The idea is funky, but to get good cooling you want convection (every joule of pump energy from a circulating pump gets transferred into the oil at yet more heat) which means deep tanks which means, to the server environment, goodbye high density.The ONLY thing that has changed since I was doing this is the affordability of SSDs, which mean that now it is practical to immerse the whole computer, and the mass storage too, which makes things a lot simpler and cheaper, and means you really can be JUST oil cooled, not oil cooled mainly, except for air cooled HDs etc.TOP TIP from an old hand.If you are going to oil cool by immersion, buy the latest top quality hardware, because once immersed it stays there, you'll only pull it once to see why it sucks.BIGGEST mistake experimenters make is using old hardware, cos you always end up playing with it, making mess, ahh fsckit..Nota Bene if you are building one of these in anger, make allowances for the significant increase in the weight that the oil makes.HTH etc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528068</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1268904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not use a water heat exchanger outside the case to cool the oil (while keeping water away from system components, and getting full contact with the entire system)?  The water could then go into a loop to cool it.  Other coolants could also be used, although water is great from a heat capacity standpoint.</p><p>Since the water doesn't touch anything important, it can be dumped into a cooling tower/etc.</p><p>To cool one system I doubt it is worth all the trouble, but for a datacenter I bet you could make it very efficient.  It is a lot easier to run pipes of water than sufficient ductwork for A/C.</p><p>Component replacements could be a pain, unless the rack made it really easy to drain a given case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use a water heat exchanger outside the case to cool the oil ( while keeping water away from system components , and getting full contact with the entire system ) ?
The water could then go into a loop to cool it .
Other coolants could also be used , although water is great from a heat capacity standpoint.Since the water does n't touch anything important , it can be dumped into a cooling tower/etc.To cool one system I doubt it is worth all the trouble , but for a datacenter I bet you could make it very efficient .
It is a lot easier to run pipes of water than sufficient ductwork for A/C.Component replacements could be a pain , unless the rack made it really easy to drain a given case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use a water heat exchanger outside the case to cool the oil (while keeping water away from system components, and getting full contact with the entire system)?
The water could then go into a loop to cool it.
Other coolants could also be used, although water is great from a heat capacity standpoint.Since the water doesn't touch anything important, it can be dumped into a cooling tower/etc.To cool one system I doubt it is worth all the trouble, but for a datacenter I bet you could make it very efficient.
It is a lot easier to run pipes of water than sufficient ductwork for A/C.Component replacements could be a pain, unless the rack made it really easy to drain a given case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012</id>
	<title>Submerged data center</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1268904000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was I the only one who read the headline and immediately thought of some kind of under water data center. That would have been cool!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was I the only one who read the headline and immediately thought of some kind of under water data center .
That would have been cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was I the only one who read the headline and immediately thought of some kind of under water data center.
That would have been cool!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529620</id>
	<title>Might as well be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days if your company is underwater your servers might as well be too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days if your company is underwater your servers might as well be too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days if your company is underwater your servers might as well be too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31534660</id>
	<title>Video and Interview</title>
	<author>deadline</author>
	<datestamp>1269002940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtlCSPMHV10" title="youtube.com">interviewed</a> [youtube.com] these guys at SC09 for Linux Magazine. There are some close up shots of the servers in the oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I interviewed [ youtube.com ] these guys at SC09 for Linux Magazine .
There are some close up shots of the servers in the oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I interviewed [youtube.com] these guys at SC09 for Linux Magazine.
There are some close up shots of the servers in the oil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528548</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1268905620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you build a server 'in anger'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you build a server 'in anger ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you build a server 'in anger'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31536720</id>
	<title>Re:Fanless low power servers are the future</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1269011880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, no. The future is here and it is virtualization. I can have a VM for a fraction of that power and it can actually perform when it has work to do. For instance I'm running 53 VM's in 800W on 5 hosts for 15W per VM and those hosts aren't even in the least bit taxed, they should be able to support 3x as many VM's with minimal additional power bringing the eventual number closer to 5W per VM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no .
The future is here and it is virtualization .
I can have a VM for a fraction of that power and it can actually perform when it has work to do .
For instance I 'm running 53 VM 's in 800W on 5 hosts for 15W per VM and those hosts are n't even in the least bit taxed , they should be able to support 3x as many VM 's with minimal additional power bringing the eventual number closer to 5W per VM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no.
The future is here and it is virtualization.
I can have a VM for a fraction of that power and it can actually perform when it has work to do.
For instance I'm running 53 VM's in 800W on 5 hosts for 15W per VM and those hosts aren't even in the least bit taxed, they should be able to support 3x as many VM's with minimal additional power bringing the eventual number closer to 5W per VM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528972</id>
	<title>Re:How longer before we re-invent the mainframe?</title>
	<author>ebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1268907120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you're starting a pool, throw in a cloud of servers and you'll be the pioneer.</p><p>Come to think of it, I'll refrain from betting on this one, when you so poised to control the outcome, odds are I'll lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you 're starting a pool , throw in a cloud of servers and you 'll be the pioneer.Come to think of it , I 'll refrain from betting on this one , when you so poised to control the outcome , odds are I 'll lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you're starting a pool, throw in a cloud of servers and you'll be the pioneer.Come to think of it, I'll refrain from betting on this one, when you so poised to control the outcome, odds are I'll lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530924</id>
	<title>Re:Fanless low power servers are the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268916840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now imagine a server rack version. Multiple chips, with multiple cores each, plus a crapload of RAM (a few watts per package). In the rack pictured in the article, that'd be maybe 160 cores per rack. You'll still need to cool it. Even just saying it's 35W * 40 = 1400 watts. That's as much as an electric range or a big microwave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now imagine a server rack version .
Multiple chips , with multiple cores each , plus a crapload of RAM ( a few watts per package ) .
In the rack pictured in the article , that 'd be maybe 160 cores per rack .
You 'll still need to cool it .
Even just saying it 's 35W * 40 = 1400 watts .
That 's as much as an electric range or a big microwave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now imagine a server rack version.
Multiple chips, with multiple cores each, plus a crapload of RAM (a few watts per package).
In the rack pictured in the article, that'd be maybe 160 cores per rack.
You'll still need to cool it.
Even just saying it's 35W * 40 = 1400 watts.
That's as much as an electric range or a big microwave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529390</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yuck.</title>
	<author>Dilligent</author>
	<datestamp>1268908680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So. That leads us to the questions: Is your overall system efficiency going to be better in some way by running hotter?</p></div><p>As someone who has taken a class in electronics I can assure you that the efficiency of electronic equipment drops with increases in temperature as leaking currents are increasing. This may even lead to a thermal run-away situation.
<br>
Running hot is also pretty bad as far as reliability goes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So .
That leads us to the questions : Is your overall system efficiency going to be better in some way by running hotter ? As someone who has taken a class in electronics I can assure you that the efficiency of electronic equipment drops with increases in temperature as leaking currents are increasing .
This may even lead to a thermal run-away situation .
Running hot is also pretty bad as far as reliability goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.
That leads us to the questions: Is your overall system efficiency going to be better in some way by running hotter?As someone who has taken a class in electronics I can assure you that the efficiency of electronic equipment drops with increases in temperature as leaking currents are increasing.
This may even lead to a thermal run-away situation.
Running hot is also pretty bad as far as reliability goes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529896</id>
	<title>Re:Canada Anyone?</title>
	<author>MoralHazard</author>
	<datestamp>1268910900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the technology business is staffed with armies of amateurs who don't understand how to properly implement "lights-out management" at their datacenters. They somehow feel safer, warmer, and fuzzier because they can physically drive to their servers at 3am to press a reboot switch, or pop a CD-ROM into a tray.</p><p>Those of us who know better invest in per-port IP-KVM switching with virtual USB media support, plus remote power control. We can hard power cycle a crashed server from the beach, using MidpSSH on a BlackBerry.</p><p>If you're really slick, you can even wire a server's mainboard "clear CMOS" jumper to a remote-control relay card (or a USB bit whacker on another host), and you can clear the BIOS settings remotely, if necessary. That's overkill for most organizations, but it's awfully nice to know that you could just leave a stack of spare parts for the the local hands-on monkeys, and never visit the datacenter again.</p><p>Personally, I hate datacenters. The over-dried air plays hell with the sinuses, and you have to suck down a liter of water per hour to keep my lips from getting chapped. And then, then the damn minimum-wage security guards act like they're doing you a huge favor when you have to get buzzed through the ManTrap every 30 minutes to piss and chug another Evian. And the noise leaves my ears ringing for hours after a visit. Fuck datacenters--if during an interview I get the feeling that the boss expects regular site visits, I get the hell out of there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the technology business is staffed with armies of amateurs who do n't understand how to properly implement " lights-out management " at their datacenters .
They somehow feel safer , warmer , and fuzzier because they can physically drive to their servers at 3am to press a reboot switch , or pop a CD-ROM into a tray.Those of us who know better invest in per-port IP-KVM switching with virtual USB media support , plus remote power control .
We can hard power cycle a crashed server from the beach , using MidpSSH on a BlackBerry.If you 're really slick , you can even wire a server 's mainboard " clear CMOS " jumper to a remote-control relay card ( or a USB bit whacker on another host ) , and you can clear the BIOS settings remotely , if necessary .
That 's overkill for most organizations , but it 's awfully nice to know that you could just leave a stack of spare parts for the the local hands-on monkeys , and never visit the datacenter again.Personally , I hate datacenters .
The over-dried air plays hell with the sinuses , and you have to suck down a liter of water per hour to keep my lips from getting chapped .
And then , then the damn minimum-wage security guards act like they 're doing you a huge favor when you have to get buzzed through the ManTrap every 30 minutes to piss and chug another Evian .
And the noise leaves my ears ringing for hours after a visit .
Fuck datacenters--if during an interview I get the feeling that the boss expects regular site visits , I get the hell out of there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the technology business is staffed with armies of amateurs who don't understand how to properly implement "lights-out management" at their datacenters.
They somehow feel safer, warmer, and fuzzier because they can physically drive to their servers at 3am to press a reboot switch, or pop a CD-ROM into a tray.Those of us who know better invest in per-port IP-KVM switching with virtual USB media support, plus remote power control.
We can hard power cycle a crashed server from the beach, using MidpSSH on a BlackBerry.If you're really slick, you can even wire a server's mainboard "clear CMOS" jumper to a remote-control relay card (or a USB bit whacker on another host), and you can clear the BIOS settings remotely, if necessary.
That's overkill for most organizations, but it's awfully nice to know that you could just leave a stack of spare parts for the the local hands-on monkeys, and never visit the datacenter again.Personally, I hate datacenters.
The over-dried air plays hell with the sinuses, and you have to suck down a liter of water per hour to keep my lips from getting chapped.
And then, then the damn minimum-wage security guards act like they're doing you a huge favor when you have to get buzzed through the ManTrap every 30 minutes to piss and chug another Evian.
And the noise leaves my ears ringing for hours after a visit.
Fuck datacenters--if during an interview I get the feeling that the boss expects regular site visits, I get the hell out of there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529584</id>
	<title>Re:Fanless low power servers are the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all about performance/power.</p><p>Also, in a good server the CPU should consume as big a share as possible of the total power consumed. That is, there should be as little "overhead" power consumption from other parts such as the power supply.</p><p>A huge 1kW supply with 70\% efficiency is better than a tiny 10W supply with 65\% efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about performance/power.Also , in a good server the CPU should consume as big a share as possible of the total power consumed .
That is , there should be as little " overhead " power consumption from other parts such as the power supply.A huge 1kW supply with 70 \ % efficiency is better than a tiny 10W supply with 65 \ % efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about performance/power.Also, in a good server the CPU should consume as big a share as possible of the total power consumed.
That is, there should be as little "overhead" power consumption from other parts such as the power supply.A huge 1kW supply with 70\% efficiency is better than a tiny 10W supply with 65\% efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530728</id>
	<title>More details on Cray 2 cooling (from one who was t</title>
	<author>epiphyte(3)</author>
	<datestamp>1268915640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Cray 2 had a three stage cooling system; the flourinert was pumped through a heat exchanger and dumped it's heat into chilled water, which was either provided by the site's existing HVAC infrastructure or (more likely, since the dissipation was in the Megawatt range) by a dedicated freon-based water chiller. The 5th generation Cray Inc (as opposed to CCC) also used immersion cooling in a similar vein. Many other Cray machines (YMP, C90 and so on used the same 3-stage cooling system, but the modules weren't immersed in the flourinert, rather the coolant flowed through channels in a thermally conductive plate sandwiched between the two boards of each processor or memory module.
This wasn't a means of cooling the boards more cheaply; this was ECL logic... in those days it was the only way you could deliver the required power and have the thing not literally melt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cray 2 had a three stage cooling system ; the flourinert was pumped through a heat exchanger and dumped it 's heat into chilled water , which was either provided by the site 's existing HVAC infrastructure or ( more likely , since the dissipation was in the Megawatt range ) by a dedicated freon-based water chiller .
The 5th generation Cray Inc ( as opposed to CCC ) also used immersion cooling in a similar vein .
Many other Cray machines ( YMP , C90 and so on used the same 3-stage cooling system , but the modules were n't immersed in the flourinert , rather the coolant flowed through channels in a thermally conductive plate sandwiched between the two boards of each processor or memory module .
This was n't a means of cooling the boards more cheaply ; this was ECL logic... in those days it was the only way you could deliver the required power and have the thing not literally melt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cray 2 had a three stage cooling system; the flourinert was pumped through a heat exchanger and dumped it's heat into chilled water, which was either provided by the site's existing HVAC infrastructure or (more likely, since the dissipation was in the Megawatt range) by a dedicated freon-based water chiller.
The 5th generation Cray Inc (as opposed to CCC) also used immersion cooling in a similar vein.
Many other Cray machines (YMP, C90 and so on used the same 3-stage cooling system, but the modules weren't immersed in the flourinert, rather the coolant flowed through channels in a thermally conductive plate sandwiched between the two boards of each processor or memory module.
This wasn't a means of cooling the boards more cheaply; this was ECL logic... in those days it was the only way you could deliver the required power and have the thing not literally melt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528902</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed</title>
	<author>Bob-taro</author>
	<datestamp>1268906880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...you want convection (every joule of pump energy from a circulating pump gets transferred into the oil at yet more heat) which means deep tanks which means, to the server environment, goodbye high density.</p></div><p>Really?  You could say the same about air moved by a fan (that the fan's energy contributes to the overall heat).  I'm no expert in this area, but I've seen liquid cooled PCs and the only big component is the radiator.  I would think you could pack liquid cooled components more densely than air cooled, and you could put the radiator in another room.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you want convection ( every joule of pump energy from a circulating pump gets transferred into the oil at yet more heat ) which means deep tanks which means , to the server environment , goodbye high density.Really ?
You could say the same about air moved by a fan ( that the fan 's energy contributes to the overall heat ) .
I 'm no expert in this area , but I 've seen liquid cooled PCs and the only big component is the radiator .
I would think you could pack liquid cooled components more densely than air cooled , and you could put the radiator in another room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...you want convection (every joule of pump energy from a circulating pump gets transferred into the oil at yet more heat) which means deep tanks which means, to the server environment, goodbye high density.Really?
You could say the same about air moved by a fan (that the fan's energy contributes to the overall heat).
I'm no expert in this area, but I've seen liquid cooled PCs and the only big component is the radiator.
I would think you could pack liquid cooled components more densely than air cooled, and you could put the radiator in another room.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712</id>
	<title>Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1268903100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much harder does it make doing standard move cables/switch harddrives/change components maintenance?</p><p>One of the advantages of a standard rack to me is that all of that is fairly easy and simple, so you can fix things quickly when something goes wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much harder does it make doing standard move cables/switch harddrives/change components maintenance ? One of the advantages of a standard rack to me is that all of that is fairly easy and simple , so you can fix things quickly when something goes wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much harder does it make doing standard move cables/switch harddrives/change components maintenance?One of the advantages of a standard rack to me is that all of that is fairly easy and simple, so you can fix things quickly when something goes wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528156</id>
	<title>Re:Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1268904300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, although if this became standard and built into racks then maybe each server would just have a button next to it that pumped out the coolant quickly.  Hot-swaps probably wouldn't work inside the case itself, since you'd have to remove the coolant to perform this task.</p><p>Alternatively, you could perform a hot swap immersed in oil if you did it quickly - the oil probably couldn't be circulated with the case open but it would at least be there.  I'm not sure that this would actually buy you much though, as oil has low heat capacity.  Without pumps running the cooling might not be better than air cooling without fans.  So, maybe hot-swaps would be totally out of the question unless the case could be designed to allow oil to flow without being under pressure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , although if this became standard and built into racks then maybe each server would just have a button next to it that pumped out the coolant quickly .
Hot-swaps probably would n't work inside the case itself , since you 'd have to remove the coolant to perform this task.Alternatively , you could perform a hot swap immersed in oil if you did it quickly - the oil probably could n't be circulated with the case open but it would at least be there .
I 'm not sure that this would actually buy you much though , as oil has low heat capacity .
Without pumps running the cooling might not be better than air cooling without fans .
So , maybe hot-swaps would be totally out of the question unless the case could be designed to allow oil to flow without being under pressure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, although if this became standard and built into racks then maybe each server would just have a button next to it that pumped out the coolant quickly.
Hot-swaps probably wouldn't work inside the case itself, since you'd have to remove the coolant to perform this task.Alternatively, you could perform a hot swap immersed in oil if you did it quickly - the oil probably couldn't be circulated with the case open but it would at least be there.
I'm not sure that this would actually buy you much though, as oil has low heat capacity.
Without pumps running the cooling might not be better than air cooling without fans.
So, maybe hot-swaps would be totally out of the question unless the case could be designed to allow oil to flow without being under pressure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31533738</id>
	<title>Re:How longer before we re-invent the mainframe?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1269032220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm starting a pool. How much longer before the mainframe is re-invented to power cloud computing. I'm taking 1.5 years. Any other bets?</i></p><p>Already happened.  Seriously.  How do you define "mainframe"?  Let's look at the "characteristics" section of wikipedia's article on them:</p><p>* ability to run (or host) multiple operating systems, and thereby operate not as a single computer but as a number of virtual machines</p><p>It's quite common for any server type now to do this.</p><p>* add or hot swap system capacity non disruptively and granularly</p><p>Hot swappable components are becoming commonplace on PC-architecture based servers now.</p><p>* designed to handle very high volume input and output (I/O) and emphasize throughput computing</p><p>Modern server chipsets do a lot of I/O processing offloading in similar ways to mainframes.</p><p>The only thing in that list that isn't common on PC-based servers is "execution integrity characteristics for fault tolerant computing", which appears to be a feature only of \_some\_ mainframes anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting a pool .
How much longer before the mainframe is re-invented to power cloud computing .
I 'm taking 1.5 years .
Any other bets ? Already happened .
Seriously. How do you define " mainframe " ?
Let 's look at the " characteristics " section of wikipedia 's article on them : * ability to run ( or host ) multiple operating systems , and thereby operate not as a single computer but as a number of virtual machinesIt 's quite common for any server type now to do this .
* add or hot swap system capacity non disruptively and granularlyHot swappable components are becoming commonplace on PC-architecture based servers now .
* designed to handle very high volume input and output ( I/O ) and emphasize throughput computingModern server chipsets do a lot of I/O processing offloading in similar ways to mainframes.The only thing in that list that is n't common on PC-based servers is " execution integrity characteristics for fault tolerant computing " , which appears to be a feature only of \ _some \ _ mainframes anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting a pool.
How much longer before the mainframe is re-invented to power cloud computing.
I'm taking 1.5 years.
Any other bets?Already happened.
Seriously.  How do you define "mainframe"?
Let's look at the "characteristics" section of wikipedia's article on them:* ability to run (or host) multiple operating systems, and thereby operate not as a single computer but as a number of virtual machinesIt's quite common for any server type now to do this.
* add or hot swap system capacity non disruptively and granularlyHot swappable components are becoming commonplace on PC-architecture based servers now.
* designed to handle very high volume input and output (I/O) and emphasize throughput computingModern server chipsets do a lot of I/O processing offloading in similar ways to mainframes.The only thing in that list that isn't common on PC-based servers is "execution integrity characteristics for fault tolerant computing", which appears to be a feature only of \_some\_ mainframes anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529642</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yuck.</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1268909820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason they use oil, or some fluorocarbon is that it doesn't conduct electricity, like water does.  However, just because they have oil in the servers does not mean that they will be pumping oil out of the server room, or even out of the server itself, to cool it.  One way you could do it is to oil cool each server in a rack using a rack mounted supply, then use a water system to cool the rack mounted supply.  This is the way Iceotope does it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason they use oil , or some fluorocarbon is that it does n't conduct electricity , like water does .
However , just because they have oil in the servers does not mean that they will be pumping oil out of the server room , or even out of the server itself , to cool it .
One way you could do it is to oil cool each server in a rack using a rack mounted supply , then use a water system to cool the rack mounted supply .
This is the way Iceotope does it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason they use oil, or some fluorocarbon is that it doesn't conduct electricity, like water does.
However, just because they have oil in the servers does not mean that they will be pumping oil out of the server room, or even out of the server itself, to cool it.
One way you could do it is to oil cool each server in a rack using a rack mounted supply, then use a water system to cool the rack mounted supply.
This is the way Iceotope does it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528874</id>
	<title>Re:Submerged hard disks?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1268906820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the fluid would completely ruin the hard drive because they're not designed for that.</p><p>There's two ways around this problem that I see:<br>1) Use SSD disks instead of mechanical platter HDs.<br>2) Use regular HDs, but do not submerge them in the cooling oil.  Instead, put them in some type of aluminum enclosure which conducts the heat to the cooling oil, but keeps it from contacting the HD itself, sort of like what the water-cooling enthusiasts do for their hard drives today.</p><p>And yes, I believe you're correct about equalization; the disks have filters to keep contaminants out and the air inside clean, but they're not designed to be pressurized, so they have to equalize with the ambient air pressure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the fluid would completely ruin the hard drive because they 're not designed for that.There 's two ways around this problem that I see : 1 ) Use SSD disks instead of mechanical platter HDs.2 ) Use regular HDs , but do not submerge them in the cooling oil .
Instead , put them in some type of aluminum enclosure which conducts the heat to the cooling oil , but keeps it from contacting the HD itself , sort of like what the water-cooling enthusiasts do for their hard drives today.And yes , I believe you 're correct about equalization ; the disks have filters to keep contaminants out and the air inside clean , but they 're not designed to be pressurized , so they have to equalize with the ambient air pressure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the fluid would completely ruin the hard drive because they're not designed for that.There's two ways around this problem that I see:1) Use SSD disks instead of mechanical platter HDs.2) Use regular HDs, but do not submerge them in the cooling oil.
Instead, put them in some type of aluminum enclosure which conducts the heat to the cooling oil, but keeps it from contacting the HD itself, sort of like what the water-cooling enthusiasts do for their hard drives today.And yes, I believe you're correct about equalization; the disks have filters to keep contaminants out and the air inside clean, but they're not designed to be pressurized, so they have to equalize with the ambient air pressure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31537044</id>
	<title>Distilled water</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1269012600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it at all feasible to run a computer submerged in distilled water? You'd have to ensure that the water remains pure, obviously, but this might be easier than dealing with computers submerged in oil. The obvious advantage is that distilled water is more benign and MUCH easier to work with. Any spills can be cleaned up with a rag, for one thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it at all feasible to run a computer submerged in distilled water ?
You 'd have to ensure that the water remains pure , obviously , but this might be easier than dealing with computers submerged in oil .
The obvious advantage is that distilled water is more benign and MUCH easier to work with .
Any spills can be cleaned up with a rag , for one thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it at all feasible to run a computer submerged in distilled water?
You'd have to ensure that the water remains pure, obviously, but this might be easier than dealing with computers submerged in oil.
The obvious advantage is that distilled water is more benign and MUCH easier to work with.
Any spills can be cleaned up with a rag, for one thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532096</id>
	<title>Ob. bad puns</title>
	<author>zorro-z</author>
	<datestamp>1268926140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose if this business plan doesn't pan out, we shouldn't say that they went under?</p><p>Or, perhaps, if they sign a bad mortgage on their offices, and wind up owing more than the building is work, they'll *really* be underwater.</p><p>Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose if this business plan does n't pan out , we should n't say that they went under ? Or , perhaps , if they sign a bad mortgage on their offices , and wind up owing more than the building is work , they 'll * really * be underwater.Thank you , I 'll be here all week .
Try the veal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose if this business plan doesn't pan out, we shouldn't say that they went under?Or, perhaps, if they sign a bad mortgage on their offices, and wind up owing more than the building is work, they'll *really* be underwater.Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Try the veal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531510</id>
	<title>Risks to dedicated server lessees?</title>
	<author>tom\_fpsb</author>
	<datestamp>1268920860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a dedicated server lessee I would be interested to know if there is a risk of liquid escaping and destroying hardware, or the system failing and hardware overheating and then failing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a dedicated server lessee I would be interested to know if there is a risk of liquid escaping and destroying hardware , or the system failing and hardware overheating and then failing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a dedicated server lessee I would be interested to know if there is a risk of liquid escaping and destroying hardware, or the system failing and hardware overheating and then failing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528434</id>
	<title>The test</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1268905200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh..... there's something Google didn't think of and try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh..... there 's something Google did n't think of and try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh..... there's something Google didn't think of and try.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532388</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yuck.</title>
	<author>Zapo\_Verde</author>
	<datestamp>1268928540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most power transformers are oil cooled. In every substation there are a few big ones, and there are many smaller ones on pole tops or on the ground in suburbs. They pump the oil through the transformer and into a radiator that may or may not be fan cooled. If you build it right, sometimes you dont even need a pump, you can just use the changing density of oil as it heats to have it move itself through the loop.

Cooling computers would use the same principle. Oil is a good insulator. There is a certain amount of fire hazard, especially since an arc through the oil will break it down into gasses like acetylene and hydrogen. I'm sure on youtube there are some rather spectacular videos of transformer fires.

However there are ways to mitigate the fire risk, and oil cooling is a rather old and well known technology. It has been used in the power industry for more than 50 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most power transformers are oil cooled .
In every substation there are a few big ones , and there are many smaller ones on pole tops or on the ground in suburbs .
They pump the oil through the transformer and into a radiator that may or may not be fan cooled .
If you build it right , sometimes you dont even need a pump , you can just use the changing density of oil as it heats to have it move itself through the loop .
Cooling computers would use the same principle .
Oil is a good insulator .
There is a certain amount of fire hazard , especially since an arc through the oil will break it down into gasses like acetylene and hydrogen .
I 'm sure on youtube there are some rather spectacular videos of transformer fires .
However there are ways to mitigate the fire risk , and oil cooling is a rather old and well known technology .
It has been used in the power industry for more than 50 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most power transformers are oil cooled.
In every substation there are a few big ones, and there are many smaller ones on pole tops or on the ground in suburbs.
They pump the oil through the transformer and into a radiator that may or may not be fan cooled.
If you build it right, sometimes you dont even need a pump, you can just use the changing density of oil as it heats to have it move itself through the loop.
Cooling computers would use the same principle.
Oil is a good insulator.
There is a certain amount of fire hazard, especially since an arc through the oil will break it down into gasses like acetylene and hydrogen.
I'm sure on youtube there are some rather spectacular videos of transformer fires.
However there are ways to mitigate the fire risk, and oil cooling is a rather old and well known technology.
It has been used in the power industry for more than 50 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530048</id>
	<title>Re:Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Wolfraider</author>
	<datestamp>1268911620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to go see the datacenter at godaddy if they can get all those girls to wear bikini's to the server room.

mmm, room full of oily, scantly clad girls, That's where I want to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to go see the datacenter at godaddy if they can get all those girls to wear bikini 's to the server room .
mmm , room full of oily , scantly clad girls , That 's where I want to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to go see the datacenter at godaddy if they can get all those girls to wear bikini's to the server room.
mmm, room full of oily, scantly clad girls, That's where I want to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528986</id>
	<title>Re:Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1268907240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we get old timey shirts with our name on them too?</p><p>"I see, ahh, your problem here maam.  Your server rack is down a few pints.  I'll top it off and put it on the lift and check the pump too."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we get old timey shirts with our name on them too ?
" I see , ahh , your problem here maam .
Your server rack is down a few pints .
I 'll top it off and put it on the lift and check the pump too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we get old timey shirts with our name on them too?
"I see, ahh, your problem here maam.
Your server rack is down a few pints.
I'll top it off and put it on the lift and check the pump too.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529890</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed</title>
	<author>dasdrewid</author>
	<datestamp>1268910840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious, and you seem like the guy to ask, has anyone done full center immersion?  With the proliferation of shipping container rack systems, would it be possible to seal the entire container into one giant unit with a manhole on the top, then drop in a diver with either tanks or a line and let them do maintenance without worries of spillage?  You'd be able to keep the same density as is currently used, since you'd be able to use the normal maintenance space as space for convection currents and the normal A/C units as heat exchangers.  If the depth specifically is an issue, you could always move the racks to floor, since a diver wouldn't require a floor to walk on...
</p><p>Like I said, I'm just curious.  I don't really know much about any of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious , and you seem like the guy to ask , has anyone done full center immersion ?
With the proliferation of shipping container rack systems , would it be possible to seal the entire container into one giant unit with a manhole on the top , then drop in a diver with either tanks or a line and let them do maintenance without worries of spillage ?
You 'd be able to keep the same density as is currently used , since you 'd be able to use the normal maintenance space as space for convection currents and the normal A/C units as heat exchangers .
If the depth specifically is an issue , you could always move the racks to floor , since a diver would n't require a floor to walk on.. . Like I said , I 'm just curious .
I do n't really know much about any of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious, and you seem like the guy to ask, has anyone done full center immersion?
With the proliferation of shipping container rack systems, would it be possible to seal the entire container into one giant unit with a manhole on the top, then drop in a diver with either tanks or a line and let them do maintenance without worries of spillage?
You'd be able to keep the same density as is currently used, since you'd be able to use the normal maintenance space as space for convection currents and the normal A/C units as heat exchangers.
If the depth specifically is an issue, you could always move the racks to floor, since a diver wouldn't require a floor to walk on...
Like I said, I'm just curious.
I don't really know much about any of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528766</id>
	<title>Canada Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268906400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone tell me why we cannot simply move many of these servers to northern Canada? Canada has great fibre optic infastructure and the average temperature 8 months out of the year is well below a nominal temperature for cpu's. Blow the cold air in and push the warm air into administrative buildings. Cheap and Green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone tell me why we can not simply move many of these servers to northern Canada ?
Canada has great fibre optic infastructure and the average temperature 8 months out of the year is well below a nominal temperature for cpu 's .
Blow the cold air in and push the warm air into administrative buildings .
Cheap and Green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone tell me why we cannot simply move many of these servers to northern Canada?
Canada has great fibre optic infastructure and the average temperature 8 months out of the year is well below a nominal temperature for cpu's.
Blow the cold air in and push the warm air into administrative buildings.
Cheap and Green.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31550140</id>
	<title>I've seen it, it works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These guys have really put a lot of thought into the system.  The oil is much more efficient at moving heat out of the boxes than air, and holds more heat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys have really put a lot of thought into the system .
The oil is much more efficient at moving heat out of the boxes than air , and holds more heat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys have really put a lot of thought into the system.
The oil is much more efficient at moving heat out of the boxes than air, and holds more heat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31533800</id>
	<title>Density?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1268990580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article describes a system where servers are stored in what is essentially a rack laid down on the ground and filled with oil.  Now, this is going to be too heavy, I would have thought, to be able to support any off the ground, so you're limited to only using the bottom 60cm or so of each room in your datacenter for server storage.  Isn't this going to mean you only get half as many servers in there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article describes a system where servers are stored in what is essentially a rack laid down on the ground and filled with oil .
Now , this is going to be too heavy , I would have thought , to be able to support any off the ground , so you 're limited to only using the bottom 60cm or so of each room in your datacenter for server storage .
Is n't this going to mean you only get half as many servers in there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article describes a system where servers are stored in what is essentially a rack laid down on the ground and filled with oil.
Now, this is going to be too heavy, I would have thought, to be able to support any off the ground, so you're limited to only using the bottom 60cm or so of each room in your datacenter for server storage.
Isn't this going to mean you only get half as many servers in there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527928</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The place where oil immersion makes sense is in the data center, especially at a large one where the surrounding buildings already have a chilled water loop for cooling. All you need is a heat exchanger to turn hot oil into cold, and cold water into warm. You don't have to turn over building fulls of air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The place where oil immersion makes sense is in the data center , especially at a large one where the surrounding buildings already have a chilled water loop for cooling .
All you need is a heat exchanger to turn hot oil into cold , and cold water into warm .
You do n't have to turn over building fulls of air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The place where oil immersion makes sense is in the data center, especially at a large one where the surrounding buildings already have a chilled water loop for cooling.
All you need is a heat exchanger to turn hot oil into cold, and cold water into warm.
You don't have to turn over building fulls of air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529218</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because liquids are much more efficient at transferring and carrying heat so you don't need to expend as much energy turning huge fan blades to blow large volumes of air past a heat sink versus a small pump providing a gentle current.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because liquids are much more efficient at transferring and carrying heat so you do n't need to expend as much energy turning huge fan blades to blow large volumes of air past a heat sink versus a small pump providing a gentle current .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because liquids are much more efficient at transferring and carrying heat so you don't need to expend as much energy turning huge fan blades to blow large volumes of air past a heat sink versus a small pump providing a gentle current.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530594</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who HAS built &amp; run oil immersed</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1268914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are SSD's submersible?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are SSD 's submersible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are SSD's submersible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527630</id>
	<title>how much does it cost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268902860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the new Xeon 5600's run at less power than previous CPU's. and SSD's also run a lot cooler. how much does this liquid cooling enclosure cost and what is the performance compared to just upgrading your hardware?</p><p>HP is going to ship their Xeon 5600 servers starting on the 29th</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the new Xeon 5600 's run at less power than previous CPU 's .
and SSD 's also run a lot cooler .
how much does this liquid cooling enclosure cost and what is the performance compared to just upgrading your hardware ? HP is going to ship their Xeon 5600 servers starting on the 29th</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the new Xeon 5600's run at less power than previous CPU's.
and SSD's also run a lot cooler.
how much does this liquid cooling enclosure cost and what is the performance compared to just upgrading your hardware?HP is going to ship their Xeon 5600 servers starting on the 29th</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528554</id>
	<title>Re:Submerged data center</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1268905620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, you're not the only one.  I had a vision of sysadmins in SCUBA gear doing hardware swaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , you 're not the only one .
I had a vision of sysadmins in SCUBA gear doing hardware swaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, you're not the only one.
I had a vision of sysadmins in SCUBA gear doing hardware swaps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528330</id>
	<title>I wonder what kind of oil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268904900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the datacenter in the movie the matrix the humans are emerged in. Good solution too when the "components" fail. Just flush it out the drain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the datacenter in the movie the matrix the humans are emerged in .
Good solution too when the " components " fail .
Just flush it out the drain ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the datacenter in the movie the matrix the humans are emerged in.
Good solution too when the "components" fail.
Just flush it out the drain ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530944</id>
	<title>Re:Maintaince Access?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268917080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's actually not a horrible idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's actually not a horrible idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's actually not a horrible idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532988</id>
	<title>mineral oil</title>
	<author>Eric Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1268934420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Submersion cooling using mineral oil isn't new, dating back to the use of Fluorinert in the Cray 2.</i>
<p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorinert" title="wikipedia.org">Fluorinert</a> [wikipedia.org] is not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral\_oil" title="wikipedia.org">mineral oil</a> [wikipedia.org], nor even very similar to mineral oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Submersion cooling using mineral oil is n't new , dating back to the use of Fluorinert in the Cray 2 .
Fluorinert [ wikipedia.org ] is not mineral oil [ wikipedia.org ] , nor even very similar to mineral oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Submersion cooling using mineral oil isn't new, dating back to the use of Fluorinert in the Cray 2.
Fluorinert [wikipedia.org] is not mineral oil [wikipedia.org], nor even very similar to mineral oil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528932</id>
	<title>Re:Same Thermal Output</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1268907000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not cheaper to cool oil.  However, it's easier, because you can use oil-to-water heat exchangers, and cool the whole server farm with a chilled water plant (like A/C, but only chills water and never uses it to cool air).  The benefit of this is that you don't have to worry about airflow, ductwork, and the like, and you can pack servers much more densely into a space than with air cooling.  Since floor space in a facility like this is expensive, this saves money.  It might also be more efficient to use chilled water in pipes to cool the servers directly rather than chilling air and blowing that around a big building.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not cheaper to cool oil .
However , it 's easier , because you can use oil-to-water heat exchangers , and cool the whole server farm with a chilled water plant ( like A/C , but only chills water and never uses it to cool air ) .
The benefit of this is that you do n't have to worry about airflow , ductwork , and the like , and you can pack servers much more densely into a space than with air cooling .
Since floor space in a facility like this is expensive , this saves money .
It might also be more efficient to use chilled water in pipes to cool the servers directly rather than chilling air and blowing that around a big building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not cheaper to cool oil.
However, it's easier, because you can use oil-to-water heat exchangers, and cool the whole server farm with a chilled water plant (like A/C, but only chills water and never uses it to cool air).
The benefit of this is that you don't have to worry about airflow, ductwork, and the like, and you can pack servers much more densely into a space than with air cooling.
Since floor space in a facility like this is expensive, this saves money.
It might also be more efficient to use chilled water in pipes to cool the servers directly rather than chilling air and blowing that around a big building.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531134</id>
	<title>Re:Submerged data center</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That would have been <i>cool!</i></p> </div><p>Pun intended? lol</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would have been cool !
Pun intended ?
lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would have been cool!
Pun intended?
lol
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040</id>
	<title>Oh yuck.</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1268904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll obviously need to be scaling before
you invest in a system that involves a big vat
full of oil.</p><p>Also, what does the fire marshall think of
a big vat full of oil?  Hazardous disposal?  Oh
boy... some company goes BK, and they leave behind
a big vat full oil and outdated electronics.</p><p>I didn't dig deep enough to see if they are actively pumping
the oil or not.  If they are, they're not doing it right.
Any system that really cuts cooling costs should be
using a LTD engine to transform the heat into useful work.</p><p>Of course, you still need to reject the heat someplace.
At one place, it was my understanding that they had a helluva
time trying to explain to some manager why they had to cut
a hole in the building to let heat out of the server room.
It's the same basic thermodynamics of "what happens if you leave
the refrigerator door open".  The room just gets hotter.</p><p>So.  You'll have to have some kind of oil-air heat exchanger
<em>someplace</em>.  The hole for an oil line coming out of
the server room is smaller... but it's an oil line.  Back
to the hazard factor...</p><p>Don't get me wrong.  I understand why they used oil in things
like Crays.  The rate of heat exchange between the electronics
and the oil is evidently better.  It's the same reason why 50
degree water gives you hypothermia in 10 minutes and 50 degree air doesn't.</p><p>So.  That leads us to the questions:  Is your overall system
efficiency going to be better in some way by running hotter?  Does that
savings offset the cost of the oil system?</p><p>Plainly, a commodity Intel server box doesn't run hot enough to require
oil for effective heat transfer, unless you overclock it.  If you can get
twice the effective computing power in a room with fire-hot overclocked
servers and the fancy oil cooler, ok maybe it's worth it?</p><p>Note:  I don't lay any claim to be an expert in this field.  These
are just the kind of questions I think a generally intelligent person
should ask.  If somebody who really knows this stuff can *politely*
rebut, then great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll obviously need to be scaling before you invest in a system that involves a big vat full of oil.Also , what does the fire marshall think of a big vat full of oil ?
Hazardous disposal ?
Oh boy... some company goes BK , and they leave behind a big vat full oil and outdated electronics.I did n't dig deep enough to see if they are actively pumping the oil or not .
If they are , they 're not doing it right .
Any system that really cuts cooling costs should be using a LTD engine to transform the heat into useful work.Of course , you still need to reject the heat someplace .
At one place , it was my understanding that they had a helluva time trying to explain to some manager why they had to cut a hole in the building to let heat out of the server room .
It 's the same basic thermodynamics of " what happens if you leave the refrigerator door open " .
The room just gets hotter.So .
You 'll have to have some kind of oil-air heat exchanger someplace .
The hole for an oil line coming out of the server room is smaller... but it 's an oil line .
Back to the hazard factor...Do n't get me wrong .
I understand why they used oil in things like Crays .
The rate of heat exchange between the electronics and the oil is evidently better .
It 's the same reason why 50 degree water gives you hypothermia in 10 minutes and 50 degree air does n't.So .
That leads us to the questions : Is your overall system efficiency going to be better in some way by running hotter ?
Does that savings offset the cost of the oil system ? Plainly , a commodity Intel server box does n't run hot enough to require oil for effective heat transfer , unless you overclock it .
If you can get twice the effective computing power in a room with fire-hot overclocked servers and the fancy oil cooler , ok maybe it 's worth it ? Note : I do n't lay any claim to be an expert in this field .
These are just the kind of questions I think a generally intelligent person should ask .
If somebody who really knows this stuff can * politely * rebut , then great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll obviously need to be scaling before
you invest in a system that involves a big vat
full of oil.Also, what does the fire marshall think of
a big vat full of oil?
Hazardous disposal?
Oh
boy... some company goes BK, and they leave behind
a big vat full oil and outdated electronics.I didn't dig deep enough to see if they are actively pumping
the oil or not.
If they are, they're not doing it right.
Any system that really cuts cooling costs should be
using a LTD engine to transform the heat into useful work.Of course, you still need to reject the heat someplace.
At one place, it was my understanding that they had a helluva
time trying to explain to some manager why they had to cut
a hole in the building to let heat out of the server room.
It's the same basic thermodynamics of "what happens if you leave
the refrigerator door open".
The room just gets hotter.So.
You'll have to have some kind of oil-air heat exchanger
someplace.
The hole for an oil line coming out of
the server room is smaller... but it's an oil line.
Back
to the hazard factor...Don't get me wrong.
I understand why they used oil in things
like Crays.
The rate of heat exchange between the electronics
and the oil is evidently better.
It's the same reason why 50
degree water gives you hypothermia in 10 minutes and 50 degree air doesn't.So.
That leads us to the questions:  Is your overall system
efficiency going to be better in some way by running hotter?
Does that
savings offset the cost of the oil system?Plainly, a commodity Intel server box doesn't run hot enough to require
oil for effective heat transfer, unless you overclock it.
If you can get
twice the effective computing power in a room with fire-hot overclocked
servers and the fancy oil cooler, ok maybe it's worth it?Note:  I don't lay any claim to be an expert in this field.
These
are just the kind of questions I think a generally intelligent person
should ask.
If somebody who really knows this stuff can *politely*
rebut, then great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531974</id>
	<title>Go here to learn more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268924880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A youtube animation of using <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZS10GtAjvU&amp;feature=channel" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">evaporative cooling </a> [youtube.com] for server cooling. <br> <br>
The fluorinated fluids are low viscosity and evaporate quickly and thus dry allowing quick and easy servicing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A youtube animation of using evaporative cooling [ youtube.com ] for server cooling .
The fluorinated fluids are low viscosity and evaporate quickly and thus dry allowing quick and easy servicing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A youtube animation of using evaporative cooling  [youtube.com] for server cooling.
The fluorinated fluids are low viscosity and evaporate quickly and thus dry allowing quick and easy servicing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529794</id>
	<title>Re:Submerged data center</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268910480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I was thinking <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/13/0453229/Permanent-Undersea-Homes-Soon-Temporary-Ones-Now" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this guy</a> [slashdot.org] had finally found his niche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I was thinking this guy [ slashdot.org ] had finally found his niche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I was thinking this guy [slashdot.org] had finally found his niche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31533738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31536720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31536994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1955238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31532130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31536994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31536720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31531294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31529890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31530594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31527544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1955238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31533738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1955238.31528802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
