A cooling unit problem at The George Washington University’s Foggy Bottom Data Center pushed several campus systems offline late Wednesday, October 21, according to The GW Hatchet, the student newspaper that broke the story. By Thursday afternoon, GW’s technology status page said all Production, Test and Dev systems had been brought back online, though technicians were still visiting classrooms to fix equipment that did not come back on its own.
That is the short version of a data center cooling failure that touched registration records, administrative software, printing and classroom projectors at a major research university. The longer version matters more to anyone who runs infrastructure. Heat is the quiet threat to every server room, and a single cooling fault can turn a normal Wednesday night into a Thursday spent triaging lecture halls.
This analysis lays out what the reporting confirms, what GW has not said, how the incident compares with industry outage data, and what it means for campus IT teams weighing on-premises rooms against colocation and cloud. We also covered a recent Google Cloud outage in the UK that disrupted nine services, and the GW case shows the same lesson at campus scale: the cloud, and everything built on it, rests on cooling, power and people.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What Happened at GW’s Foggy Bottom Data Center
The GW Hatchet reported that a cooling system issue at the Foggy Bottom Data Center prompted officials to take several university technology systems offline on Wednesday night, with the disruption stretching into Thursday. GW Information Technology told the community by email at around 11:45 p.m. Wednesday that a problem with a cooling unit had forced several systems down, including Banner, GWeb, GW Printing and classroom technology.
The first notice set out a simple recovery rule. In the Hatchet’s account, GW IT wrote: “These systems will remain offline until temperatures return to normal operating levels.” Facilities staff and IT staff worked in parallel, one group on the physical cooling problem and the other on bringing servers back in a safe order once the room cooled down.
The disruption did not hit everything. GW IT said GWorld, university email and Blackboard stayed operational throughout. That split tells you something about how the university has arranged its services. Core identity, mail and the learning platform kept running, while administrative and desktop-delivery systems that depend on the on-site data center went dark.
By Thursday afternoon the university reported that the majority of services were back, and the status page then carried a notice that all Production, Test and Dev systems had been restored. GW IT’s own status language stayed cautious, saying it “continues to work to fully restore all services.” In plain terms, the servers were up, but the cleanup was not finished.
Incident Timeline: From Wednesday Night to Thursday Afternoon
The timeline below pulls together the times The GW Hatchet attributed to GW IT’s notices. Where the reporting gives no time, we say so rather than guess. The overall arc runs roughly 15 hours from the first email to the all-systems notice, but GW has not said when the cooling fault itself began, so that figure describes the communication window and not the outage length.
| When | What GW IT reported | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Wednesday, Oct. 21, about 11:45 p.m. | Email says a cooling unit issue forced Banner, GWeb, GW Printing and classroom technology offline | The GW Hatchet |
| Thursday, Oct. 22, 8:42 a.m. | Temperature issues still disrupting classroom technology on all GW campuses, with a temporary fix bringing temperatures down | The GW Hatchet |
| Thursday morning | Certain services still offline, academic instruction named as the first priority | The GW Hatchet |
| Thursday afternoon | Majority of services brought back online | The GW Hatchet |
| Thursday, 2:30 p.m. | All Production, Test and Dev services back online, two services still affected, 46 operating normally | GW status page, via The GW Hatchet |
| Friday, by 10 a.m. | Next update promised by GW IT | The GW Hatchet |
Two details stand out. First, GW IT chose a temporary measure to cool the room while Facilities kept working on the permanent repair. That is standard practice, and it means the underlying equipment may still need attention. Second, the 2:30 p.m. update showed none of the tracked services completely down, even with two still marked as affected, so the incident moved from outage to degradation within about a day.
Which GW Systems Went Down and Which Stayed Up
The Hatchet listed the affected systems in detail, and the list reads like a map of how a university actually runs. Nine named platforms went down, along with license servers and classroom equipment. The table groups them by what they do.
| System | What it does | Status in reporting |
|---|---|---|
| Banner | Supports university administrative operations | Affected |
| GWeb | Student access to academic records and registration | Affected |
| Degree Works and DegreeMap | Academic planning tools | Affected |
| GW Printing (PaperCut) | Campus print management | Affected |
| Enterprise Account System | Account services | Affected |
| GW Documentum | Document management | Affected |
| Citrix and Omnissa Horizon | Virtual app and desktop delivery | Affected |
| License servers | Access to certain academic software | Affected |
| GWorld, email, Blackboard | Identity, mail and learning platform | Operational throughout |
Administrative and Records Systems
Banner and GWeb carry the heaviest weight in this list. Banner sits under enrollment, finance and records work, and GWeb is where students check academic records and register for classes. When both go dark overnight, staff lose their daily tools and students lose self-service. The Hatchet noted that GW has previously warned that work at the facility could affect network connections and access to applications such as Banner and GWeb, which suggests the university already treated this room as a single point of dependency.
Desktop, Printing and License Services
Citrix and Omnissa Horizon deliver virtual desktops and applications, so their outage hits labs and remote users who depend on campus-hosted software. The affected license servers matter for the same reason. When a license server drops, an installed application can refuse to start even though the user’s own laptop works fine. These are the failures people notice at 9 a.m. while the root cause sits in a machine room they will never see.
Classroom Technology
GW IT said in its Thursday 8:42 a.m. email that the temperature problem was disrupting classroom technology across all GW campuses, and that touchpads controlling cameras and projectors might be offline. Its stated first priority was “restoring technology that directly supports academic instruction, including classroom technology and access to academic software.” That explains why technicians went room to room afterward. Some classroom controllers do not reconnect by themselves after the backend returns.
What GW Has Not Confirmed
Several basic questions remain open. The Hatchet said a university spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment on the outage and a timeline for operations returning to normal. Based on the available reporting, GW has not publicly identified the exact cooling component that failed, whether a chiller, a pump, a control system or an in-room unit. It has not given a total outage duration for each service, a count of affected users or a financial loss estimate.
One more caution applies. Some summaries circulating online describe the story as a cooling malfunction that forced “several non-essential functions” offline and caused additional failures at Gelman Library. Our research traced that wording to a 2014 account of an earlier cooling problem at the same campus data center. The current Hatchet report does not mention Gelman Library, and the reporting we reviewed does not establish that the library outage belongs to this week’s incident. Readers should treat any Gelman Library claim tied to October 2026 as unconfirmed.
That distinction is worth holding onto because search interest in this topic is rising and thinly sourced rewrites tend to blend old and new details. What we can say with confidence is narrower: a cooling unit issue, a set of named systems offline, a stepwise recovery and a final status notice that all Production, Test and Dev systems were back.
Why a Data Center Cooling Failure Escalates So Fast
Servers turn nearly all the electricity they use into heat. Cooling equipment removes that heat as fast as it appears, so when it stops, room temperature climbs on a clock measured in minutes, not hours. The exact pace depends on how dense the racks are and how much thermal buffer the room has, and GW has not shared those details.
Modern hardware protects itself. Processors slow down when they run hot, and many systems shut off at set temperature thresholds to avoid permanent damage. Operators also shut down non-critical equipment on purpose to cut the heat load and buy time for the critical gear. GW IT’s statement that systems would stay offline until temperatures returned to normal fits this pattern, whether the shutdowns were automatic, manual or a mix of both.
Recovery is slower than failure. Operators rarely switch everything back on at once, because a full power-up draws heavy load and adds heat while the cooling system is still fragile. Storage and databases come first, then application servers, then the front-end services that users touch. That order explains why GW could report the majority of services restored on Thursday afternoon but still have classroom controllers and a few services to fix.
Cooling in the Outage Statistics: What the Industry Data Says
GW’s problem is a common one. Two widely cited industry sources put cooling and thermal faults among the leading causes of data center downtime, and their figures are quoted below exactly as published.
- Uptime Institute, in its Annual Outage Analysis 2024 executive summary: “Cooling problems caused 19% of data center outages in 2023.”
- Uptime Institute, same report: “Fifty-five percent of data center operator respondents reported experiencing an outage during the three years preceding the 2024 report.”
- Vertiv, in its 2025 white paper Understanding the Cost of Data Center Downtime: “Data center outages related to failures or inadequacies of critical cooling systems accounted for approximately 20% of reported outages.”
- Vertiv, same paper: “Fifteen percent of data center outage root causes were directly attributed to thermal issues, including water incursion and equipment failures related to heat density and cooling capacity.”
Read together, those numbers say that roughly one in five outages in the sampled data traces back to cooling. The two firms measure different samples and use different definitions, so the figures are not interchangeable. The direction is consistent, though. Cooling is not an exotic failure mode. It is a routine one, and any operator running an older room should price it into the risk register.
Uptime Institute’s 2026 analysis, as summarized in our research, reported that power failures accounted for 45% of impactful data center events in 2025, which keeps power the leading cause of major outages. The same analysis described a late-2025 cooling-maintenance incident in which a chiller failure caused an 11-hour outage affecting global trading systems. Cooling failures can hit well-run, heavily funded facilities too, not only campus server rooms.
Downtime Costs and the Insurance Question
GW has not disclosed any financial impact, and a university does not lose revenue per minute the way a trading firm does. Still, the general cost picture frames why operators spend heavily on cooling redundancy. An article in POWER magazine on keeping critical infrastructure running through extreme weather cites N1Critical figures putting data center downtime at roughly $300,000 to $540,000 per hour. Read the POWER analysis for the sourcing, and note those numbers describe commercial facilities with customer churn and service-level penalties, not a campus.
For a university, the costs show up in different places: staff overtime, lost class time, delayed registration work and the reputational hit of a visible failure. Those costs are hard to total, which may be why GW has not tried publicly. They are real all the same, and they land on the same budget lines that pay for the cooling upgrades that might have prevented the event.
Insurance adds another layer. A Summer 2026 article in the Federation of Regulatory Counsel’s journal, Data Centers, AI, and the Next Insurance Coverage Stress Test, argues that data center losses rarely involve a single peril. A utility power loss can lead to thermal damage, customer claims and extra expense, and one event can touch property, equipment breakdown, business interruption and liability coverage at once. A cooling failure fits that description closely, and policy language on equipment breakdown and business interruption decides who pays.
Payments firms feel this pressure most. Our report on the Revolut outage that hit card payments in seven nations showed how quickly a physical infrastructure event reaches customers, and regulators and insurers now ask pointed questions about that chain.
Campus IT Under Pressure: The Higher Education Angle
Universities run some of the most varied IT estates anywhere. A single institution may host registration software, research clusters, learning platforms, library systems and building controls, often across decades of accumulated hardware. Budgets for facilities upgrades compete with academic priorities, and a data center that works every day invites deferral of the dull maintenance that keeps it working.
Education is also a favorite target for attackers and a frequent source of data exposure, which stretches thin security and operations teams further. Our coverage of the California ETS breach, where reports cite 7 million students, shows the other side of campus technology risk. An outage and a breach are different events, but both reveal how much institutional function depends on a small number of systems.
GW’s experience points to a design choice many campuses face. Services hosted off-site or in a vendor’s cloud, which appear to include GWorld, email and Blackboard in this incident, kept running. Services anchored in the on-site facility did not. The Hatchet’s reporting does not say where each service is hosted, so that reading is an inference from which systems survived. It is still a useful one.
On-Premises, Colocation or Cloud: A Competitive Comparison
Every cooling failure revives the same argument about where workloads should live. The honest answer is that each model moves the cooling risk to a different party and does not remove it. The table compares the three common options on who owns the cooling plant and how a thermal event reaches the customer. It uses qualitative ratings, not measured figures, because no single dataset covers all three fairly.
| Model | Who owns cooling | How a cooling fault reaches you | Typical trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| On-premises campus data center | The institution | Directly, and often across many services at once | Full control, but redundancy depends on the institution’s own budget |
| Colocation | The facility operator | Through the operator’s contract and service levels | Professional plant, but you still own the servers and the restart plan |
| Public cloud | The cloud provider | As a regional or zone-level incident | Strong redundancy options, but you design for failure across zones |
| Hybrid | Shared | Depends on which workload sits where | Flexible, but adds integration and monitoring work |
The cloud is not immune, as the Google Cloud UK incident above showed. Providers do spread risk across zones and regions, and a customer who deploys across zones can ride through a single-site cooling fault. Moving back the other way has costs too. We looked at that trade in our piece on why cloud repatriation to US dedicated servers is cutting IT bills for mid-size companies, which shows that some organizations are deliberately bringing steady workloads home. Anyone who does that takes on cooling and power risk again.
For deeper background on platform choices, see our cloud computing coverage. The practical takeaway for a campus: classify services by how much it hurts when they stop, and put the ones that hurt most where cooling redundancy is strongest.
Historical Context: A Facility With a Record of Cooling Trouble
GW’s Foggy Bottom data center has been here before. Our research found a 2014 account reporting that cooling-system malfunctions at the Foggy Bottom campus data center forced several non-essential functions offline, with additional failures causing outages at Gelman Library. That account gave no precise list of library systems affected and no outage duration. The 2014 report is a historical reference, not evidence about this week.
Twelve years is a long gap, and the facility has presumably changed in that time. The pattern is still instructive. Cooling plant ages, loads grow and the people who built the original design move on. An institution can go a decade without a visible failure and then lose a night to one.
Park Place Technologies publishes a guide to the causes of data center outages and how to prevent them, a useful checklist for teams building a risk register after an incident like this one. The recurring theme across such guides is that cooling and power failures are predictable categories, and prevention is mostly about maintenance discipline, monitoring and tested failover.
Rising Heat Density Strains Legacy Rooms
The wider backdrop is a surge in heat density. Uptime Institute’s 2026 analysis, per our research, said AI and high-density computing are raising stress on power and cooling systems, especially in older facilities. A campus room designed for the server loads of an earlier decade has less headroom when someone installs a GPU-heavy research cluster, and cooling headroom often vanishes before anyone notices.
New purpose-built sites show the other end of the spectrum. Our report on 3E Network’s 9 MVA power deal for a Finland AI hub shows how builders now secure power first and design cooling around dense AI racks. Legacy campus rooms were never designed to that standard, and retrofitting them is slow and expensive.
GW has not said whether heat density played any role in this incident, and nothing in the reporting suggests it did. The broader point is narrower. Every institution with an aging machine room should check how much cooling margin it has left before it adds the next rack.
What GW IT’s Recovery Order Reveals
GW IT’s Thursday morning message put academic instruction first. Classroom technology and access to academic software came ahead of administrative convenience, with other services promised “as conditions allow.” That is a sensible triage rule, and it shows the university had a ranking in place before the event.
The communication pattern also deserves credit. GW IT emailed the community late Wednesday, updated on Thursday morning, published a status page and promised a Friday follow-up by 10 a.m. Many outages at larger organizations go quiet for hours, so regular updates with named systems help users plan around the gap. The weak point was the lack of a stated timeline, which the Hatchet noted a spokesperson had not yet supplied.
One more lesson sits in the phrase about technicians visiting classrooms. Automated recovery covered the servers but not the edge devices. Teams should test the full chain from data center to lectern, because a restored backend does not guarantee a working projector.
How Campus IT Teams Can Audit Cooling Risk Now
An incident like this gives IT leaders a rare window of attention from executives. The checklist below turns that attention into action. It rests on general operating practice, not on anything GW has disclosed.
- Map every service to its hosting location and rank each by the cost of an hour offline.
- Ask facilities for the age, maintenance history and redundancy level of each cooling unit, including the controls.
- Install temperature sensors at rack level and wire alerts to a person who will wake up.
- Define automatic and manual shutdown thresholds in advance, and decide which systems go down first to cut heat load.
- Document a restart order and rehearse it, including edge devices such as classroom controllers.
- Move the highest-impact services, or their failover copies, to a second site or a cloud region.
- Review insurance wording on equipment breakdown and business interruption before the next event, not after.
None of these steps is exotic. Most cost far less than the outage they prevent, and several cost nothing beyond a few hours of planning. The hard part is persuading a budget committee that a machine room that has run fine for years needs attention.
Predictions: What Comes Next for Campus Data Center Cooling
These are our own expectations based on the pattern of this incident and the industry data above. They are analysis, not statements from GW or any named expert.
- GW will name the failed component. Student press and campus pressure usually pull more detail out of a university within weeks, and the Friday update may already add some.
- More universities will move classroom-critical services off single-site rooms. The split between services that survived and services that failed gives CIOs an easy case to put in front of their boards.
- Rack-level thermal monitoring will move up procurement lists. It is cheap relative to the outage it shortens, and it gives operators earlier warning.
- AI cluster plans on campus will face a cooling audit first. Teams will be asked to prove thermal headroom before approval.
- Insurers will ask harder thermal-event questions at renewal. Policy language on equipment breakdown and business interruption will draw more scrutiny across education and enterprise accounts.
FAQ: GW Data Center Cooling Failure
What caused the GW technology outage?
The GW Hatchet reported that a cooling unit issue at the Foggy Bottom Data Center forced several systems offline. GW has not publicly identified the exact component that failed.
When did the outage start and end?
GW IT’s first email went out at around 11:45 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21. By 2:30 p.m. Thursday, officials said all Production, Test and Dev services were back online. The precise start and total duration of the fault are not confirmed.
Which systems were affected?
The Hatchet named Banner, GWeb, Degree Works, DegreeMap, GW Printing’s PaperCut, the Enterprise Account System, GW Documentum, Citrix, Omnissa Horizon, license servers and some classroom technology. GWorld, university email and Blackboard stayed operational.
Is everything fixed now?
Not entirely. GW IT said technicians were still visiting classrooms to resolve technology that did not restore automatically, and its status message said it continues to work to fully restore all services. A further update was promised by 10 a.m. Friday.
Was Gelman Library affected this time?
The current Hatchet report does not mention Gelman Library. A 2014 account tied a cooling malfunction at the same campus data center to library outages, and some online summaries mix the two. Treat a library link to this week’s event as unconfirmed.
How common are cooling-related data center outages?
Common enough to plan around. Uptime Institute reported that cooling problems caused 19% of data center outages in 2023, and Vertiv’s 2025 white paper put cooling-related failures at approximately 20% of reported outages.
Would moving to the cloud have prevented the outage?
It might have reduced exposure for some services, but it would not remove the risk. Cloud providers run cooling plants too, and customers still need to design across zones. GW’s own email, Blackboard and GWorld kept running during the disruption.
