Mac Pro Server

Rameses

Rameses

Rameses

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,453
Mac Pro Server

One item of interest that was overlooked in this morning's news that Apple is discontinuing the Xserve is that the company has added a new standard configuration to its Mac Pro lineup. The new "Server" configuration offers an entry-level 2.8 GHz quad-core processor with 8 GB of RAM, two 1 TB hard drives, and Mac OS X Server for $2999.

The specs on the Mac Pro Server configuration can be boosted with a full range of build-to-order options, including processor options up to dual 2.93 GHz six-core Westmere chips, up to 32 GB of RAM, additional hard drives, a second optical drive, RAID card, Fibre Channel PCI Express card, and Xsan storage area network software.

While Apple's "non-server" Mac Pro options could (and still can) be configured with Mac OS X Server, the new Server configuration offers an optimized starting point for building a machine to focus on server tasks rather than act as a workstation.
Click to expand...


http://store.apple.com/uk/configure/MC915B/A?mco=MTk4Mjc2NDE

:cool:

Two 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores) [+ £2,780.00]
32 GB (8 x 4 GB) [+ £2,720.00]

:eek:
 
A fairly strange decision imo. They must not be selling many xserve's to warrant the hardware outlay and support costs. Unless they want to push people to the Mac Pro.

Either way, not having a rack mountable server will probably rule Apple out for quite a few companies.
 
Xserve were outsourced anyway were they not?

Pretty sure they stopped making them directly and used a 3rd party or was that just for storage? :confused:
 
Isn't OS X Server pretty dire, especially compared to Windows and Linux?

Still, wouldn't mind having that land on my desk to play with. Folding@Home anyone? :D
 
This is one of those things that most people won't even notice, let alone care, but will completely suck for a few.
 
SiriusB said:
Isn't OS X Server pretty dire, especially compared to Windows and Linux?

Still, wouldn't mind having that land on my desk to play with. Folding@Home anyone? :D
Click to expand...

There is little wrong with Mac OS X server itself, it is quite good. But there isn't any justification for using it over Linux or Windows in most scenarios, especially when bringing price into the situation.
 
Westyfield2 said:
I don't see any mention of redundancy :(. A "server" without redundant PSUs is like, well, any other desktop PC.... Not a server!
Click to expand...

Yup, basically Apple has never made inroads because they cost too much.

Besides.. why sell servers when you can sell a service.. apple's cloud? :/
 
SiriusB said:
Isn't OS X Server pretty dire, especially compared to Windows and Linux?
Click to expand...

The combination of the power of UNIX (Well BSD actually) with the ease of use of OS X and full AD support make OS X Server a nice proposition.

Apple have never really pushed it though.

QwaF said:
There is little wrong with Mac OS X server itself, it is quite good. But there isn't any justification for using it over Linux or Windows in most scenarios, especially when bringing price into the situation.
Click to expand...

If you have a small organisation then OS X Server is a good choice as it doesn't cost a lot on it's own and has unlimited client access as support for many features including Directory Services, Email, Calendar, Wiki, Podcasting Server and more.

Buy a Mac Mini Server and use Linux on the clients and you can have power, ease of use and no need to cough up the horrible licensing costs that Microsoft demand.

Sure if you have in house expertise you can do the same with Linux but lot of small companies don't.
 
NickK said:
Yup, basically Apple has never made inroads because they cost too much.

Besides.. why sell servers when you can sell a service.. apple's cloud? :/
Click to expand...

The problem is "the cloud" just isn't going to hack any kind of application where speed, reliability or data protection is an issue - which are three good reasons why you'd want to buy an Xserve (or any local server) in the first place.

I actually think the move is kind of stupid, and I can only assume OSX Server is next on the chopping block unless they have a brain wave and decide to let you virtualize it on PC hardware.

Even Apple's own statement is backward:

Xserve Transition Guide said:
Depending on the workload and number of users, a single Xserve could be replaced with one or multiple Mac mini server systems.
Click to expand...

Uh? Everyone is trying to consolidate servers, not buy more! Oh, and in the case of the Mac Pro Servers, you have a nice little graphics card sat there drawing (read=wasting) power. It's almost as though they are discouraging any new potential customers from investing in OSX server.

At a time where iPhones/iPads are being rolled out into businesses they could have worked on some killer OSX Server features to backup, update and manage all these devices - but nobody in their right mind is going to bother doing that on a bunch of glorified workstations. Plus, although it's no excuse for inefficiency, the amount of cash Apple has at the moment it makes even less sense to kill something that surely isn't a huge drain on their resources? Worth a punt at least?

Strange decision in my opinion, but then I'm not privy to Apple's long term plans - you can only really infer from it that they are getting out of it altogether, and the whole "use a Mac Pro/Mini" is just a bone they're throwing to customers to at least give them the opportunity to look elsewhere for their server needs over the next few years.
 
What apple have missed is the opportunity to create Apple Slices - the mac mini derived blade server (basically stack 24 mac mini main board).

That would increase the density substantially of the processing power required.

Many OSX hosting companies actually buy mac minis and mount them on their sides running off a common power connector. However the latest mac mini update where they did away with the power brick screws that idea up for people.

As for speed - it depends.

If you require a server then you'll probably be faster doing batch processing using the cloud. If you're doing realtime processing such as MRI scanner analysis and volumetric display then an Xserve isn't going to work either and that's where a MacPro would come in. If you wanted further analysis work on that MRI the cloud could provide Xgrid processing power. Beyond that you're into leasing super computer time.

Seriously though - Apple are going for the company in a box for enterprise. You buy all your company iMacs, MBPs, MBA, iPhone and iPad and let them work with applications running in the cloud. Your business processes and enterprise engineering etc will work in the cloud.
I've stated this to EAs and they've not understood the difference. You'll be buying services from companies in the Apple cloud.. your sales pipelining, your billing, inventory, your VoIP telephony etc. The only thing is.. how much would the apple premium be?
 
Last edited:
The problem for Apple is that corporate IT is always trying to extract every last dollar from the cost of their IT operations. People are under pressure to spend as little as possible, and trying to get approval for capex spend on a load of servers that cost maybe double if not more than the commodity x84 box from another vendor without any real business case to back it up just isn't going to fly.

Companies with thousands of rack mount or blade servers were probably not going to ever consider Apple in the first place. Companies with a tiny rack mounted on the wall with 3 or 4 servers in (say a marketing agency or small company with niche IT needs) which might consider them in the first place, would probably just be as happy with a few mac minis or mac pro machines sat on a shelf somewhere.

It's much easier for them in the consumer market where people are willing to pay a premium for style, design, perceived ease of use, to fit in with the crowd... etc etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom