PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X Server w/o Xserve?




tipem
Sep 1, 2008, 06:17 PM
Hey,

I see that Apple is just selling the flat disc of Mac OS X Server without an Xserve. Because Xserve's are exceptionally expensive and therefore impracticable in most efficient business cirumstances, what's an ideal non-Xserve server hardware setup (e.g., processor type, type of RAM, power supply, processor speed, cores, motherboard, etc)? I know that Apple builds their OS based upon their hardware setup, so what kind of hardware would be needed in a server to run OS X Server just as good as an Xserve? :)

Thanks in advanced... just trying to learn.



Trip.Tucker
Sep 1, 2008, 06:24 PM
Apple sell OS X server for existing Xserve's or other Apple produced hardware. It will not install on non Apple hardware.

Xserve's are far from expensive, our low end servers cost us around $7,000 vs Apple Xserve for around $3,000.

First thing you need to do is read up, do some research on hardware costs.
Here's a starting point: forget p.c.'s. No corporation will throw together p.c. components for server hardware, so you need to start looking at the prices of HP, IBM, SUN, etc.

cherry su
Sep 1, 2008, 06:28 PM
Hey,

I see that Apple is just selling the flat disc of Mac OS X Server without an Xserve. Because Xserve's are exceptionally expensive and therefore impracticable in most efficient business cirumstances, what's an ideal non-Xserve server hardware setup (e.g., processor type, type of RAM, power supply, processor speed, cores, motherboard, etc)? I know that Apple builds their OS based upon their hardware setup, so what kind of hardware would be needed in a server to run OS X Server just as good as an Xserve? :)

Thanks in advanced... just trying to learn.

[decked out] Mac Pro

tipem
Sep 2, 2008, 10:20 AM
I figured it would run on only Mac-powered stuff...

Mac Pros start around the same as Xserves so... yeah... might as well go with the Xserve.

Just curious, but I've never heard of a server costing $7000 and the Xserve equivalent costing around $3000. What was the hardware your $7000 one? I'd like to compare.

richard.mac
Sep 2, 2008, 10:25 AM
configure a Dell or Sun with the same specs as the XServe then take into account that XServe includes ulimited user OS X server.

Consultant
Sep 2, 2008, 11:10 AM
NO, XServe is competitively priced as mentioned earlier.

It's only expensive if you never deal with enterprise level hardware.

A single Xserve can deliver HD video on demand to 200 users. Not your typical windows server that chokes on a few streams. Example of implementation:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/18/apple_enterprise_sending_thousands_of_macs_into_hotels_cruise_ships.html

However, you can run OS X server on any Mac that supports it (most recent Macs), it just won't have as muscle as running it on Xserve.

Cromulent
Sep 2, 2008, 11:24 AM
The Mac Pro and the Xserve are pretty much even Steven in terms of performance, just that the Xserve is better if you need to have servers in a rack.

yellow
Sep 2, 2008, 11:32 AM
I have Server 10.5.4 running on an MBP, doing a fine job of serving up NetInstalls for me. So, the limit of the hardware is the limit of the minimum required hardware for OS X Server. Practical limits depend on what you want to do with it.

Trip.Tucker
Sep 2, 2008, 03:28 PM
I figured it would run on only Mac-powered stuff...

Mac Pros start around the same as Xserves so... yeah... might as well go with the Xserve.

Just curious, but I've never heard of a server costing $7000 and the Xserve equivalent costing around $3000. What was the hardware your $7000 one? I'd like to compare.

HP, IBM, SUN. The DL380 G5's we order with our bare minimum of DASDI storage, QLogic cards, ram and management licenses plus warranty, 24/7 4 hour response, and Windows licenses all adds up.

Some of the IBM's we purchase are running around $52k a pop. BEFORE connectivity to SAN, etc

corbywan
Sep 2, 2008, 07:00 PM
NO, XServe is competitively priced as mentioned earlier.

It's only expensive if you never deal with enterprise level hardware.

A single Xserve can deliver HD video on demand to 200 users. Not your typical windows server that chokes on a few streams. Example of implementation:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/18/apple_enterprise_sending_thousands_of_macs_into_hotels_cruise_ships.html

However, you can run OS X server on any Mac that supports it (most recent Macs), it just won't have as muscle as running it on Xserve.

What a cool article? Makes me want to take a cruise just to use the cool Macs. Man, I'm a nerd.

stukdog
Sep 3, 2008, 07:28 AM
As others have mentioned, the XServe is fairly priced when compared to a similiar server.

However, if you don't need that much processing power, then Mac minis work well too. We have quite a few customers running Leopard Server on their Mac minis. If you are running this in your home, the other bonus is that the Mac mini is much quieter and takes far less power. (About 1/20 of the XServe power needs.)

foidulus
Sep 3, 2008, 02:53 PM
if you don't really have an overwhelming reason to get Mac Server, my advice is don't, go with Linux instead. While I love the mac workstation, I can say that my experience with Mac servers has been somewhat frustrating, and judging by some of the horror stories I have heard about Leopard, my frustration is only the tip of the iceberg.

Unfortunately I think one of the reasons that the Server has so many issues is that Steve Jobs just doesn't care about it. If you look at it, there are a ton of really good IDEAS in Mac OS X server, but unfortunately many of them are pulled off in less than stellar fashion. Almost, but not quite. I think if Mr. Jobs just put a little bit more resources into making Mac OS X server more bug-free, than it would be a wonderful product. But as it stands, Linux can do almost anything Mac can do, and often does it better.

v-roc
Sep 4, 2008, 08:27 AM
For a small company (1 - 10 users) you might want to try this out. http://www.macminicolo.net/. You can buy a mac mini or buy it from them and install OS X server on it. You can do this your self as well but from a residential location your upload times will probably be crappy with broadband if you are moving around big files so it might be worth it to have them host it for you.

tipem
Sep 4, 2008, 09:47 AM
if you don't really have an overwhelming reason to get Mac Server, my advice is don't, go with Linux instead. While I love the mac workstation, I can say that my experience with Mac servers has been somewhat frustrating, and judging by some of the horror stories I have heard about Leopard, my frustration is only the tip of the iceberg.

Unfortunately I think one of the reasons that the Server has so many issues is that Steve Jobs just doesn't care about it. If you look at it, there are a ton of really good IDEAS in Mac OS X server, but unfortunately many of them are pulled off in less than stellar fashion. Almost, but not quite. I think if Mr. Jobs just put a little bit more resources into making Mac OS X server more bug-free, than it would be a wonderful product. But as it stands, Linux can do almost anything Mac can do, and often does it better.
What are some of the more frustrating problems you've had with Mac OS X server?

Les Kern
Sep 5, 2008, 11:19 PM
Leopard OS X Server is the best deal on the PLANET. Cheapest way is to run it on a headless Mini. I am, and it works like a charm. Ebay, less than 500 bucks.

MacsRgr8
Sep 6, 2008, 05:04 PM
What are some of the more frustrating problems you've had with Mac OS X server?

Mac OS X Server 10.5.0 - 10.5.2 had one hell of an annoying OD crash bug, which after auto restart of the OD the AFP service couldn't let users authenticate... :(
Not everyone had this issue, but it was reported on a massive scale...

Mac OS X Server 10.5.3 and up, seems to be brilliant! :)

thecowgoddess
Sep 17, 2008, 12:39 PM
We currently use a ReadyNAS NV+ for media Storage, but need to upgrade to something more reliable and bigger hard drive. We use alot of large Adobe CS3 suite files for video/print work.

Would you be able to run 5-10 Mac/PC users and 2TB of data with two MacMinis connected to each other and running Leopard Server? We have a quote for a true Xserve, but wondered if this would be a reliable solution for 1/2 the price.

Thank you,

CG Ingram
IT Liason

Valorite
Sep 18, 2008, 04:27 PM
Question: I want to set up an mac server for my small business and saw this topic.

Is there any benefit to getting an Xserve over a MacPro?(both with dual-quad 2.8)

Far as I can tell, Mac pro uses same ram, same processors, has a better v-card(not like this makes a difference, but it's still a plus).

Has 1 *more* HDD bay built in...has the same expandability options as the xserve(fibre,san,raid,etcetc) and even after buying macOS server(10client) is almost $500 cheaper?
Edit: Plus apple-care is 1/5 the price for the pro.

Is the only benefit to the Xserve basically it's form-factor?(i.e. rackmount if you were gonna buy like 10 of them).

Is there anything I'm missing as to why I'd consider a Xserve over a MacPro assuming I only planned to buy one?

yippy
Sep 18, 2008, 04:38 PM
Question: I want to set up an mac server for my small business and saw this topic.

Is there any benefit to getting an Xserve over a MacPro?(both with dual-quad 2.8)

Far as I can tell, Mac pro uses same ram, same processors, has a better v-card(not like this makes a difference, but it's still a plus).

Has 1 *more* HDD bay built in...has the same expandability options as the xserve(fibre,san,raid,etcetc) and even after buying macOS server(10client) is almost $500 cheaper?
Edit: Plus apple-care is 1/5 the price for the pro.

Is the only benefit to the Xserve basically it's form-factor?(i.e. rackmount if you were gonna buy like 10 of them).

Is there anything I'm missing as to why I'd consider a Xserve over a MacPro assuming I only planned to buy one?

Yea, you are missing a few things. The Xserve also has monitoring tools and the option for redundant power supplies. I think there are also a few other enterprise server features (like hardware remote management) but I am not sure exactly what they are.

stukdog
Sep 18, 2008, 04:42 PM
Is there anything I'm missing as to why I'd consider a Xserve over a MacPro assuming I only planned to buy one?

The other big benefit is that the Mac Pro is much easier to use in your office. (If that is where you plan to keep your server.) An XServe is large, heavy, much louder and is really made for a rack.

A Mac Pro you can sit next to a desk and it will fit right in.

Valorite
Sep 18, 2008, 05:04 PM
Yea, you are missing a few things. The Xserve also has monitoring tools and the option for redundant power supplies. I think there are also a few other enterprise server features (like hardware remote management) but I am not sure exactly what they are.

Well, this server isn't going to be running anything mission critical so not having redundant power supplies isn't going to be an issue(plus it's another $200).

However I'm unsure what tools you mean, wouldn't those be part of the server software? or is there some kind of internal diagnostic firmware in the Xserve? Edit: Or are there some features of OSX leopard server that are simply locked out when it's not running on an xserve?

Les Kern
Sep 18, 2008, 10:27 PM
Well, this server isn't going to be running anything mission critical so not having redundant power supplies isn't going to be an issue(plus it's another $200).

I'd suggest the Pro. I have 25 Xserves and about 5 Pros all running Leopard Server, and I recently decided to go with Pro's whenever it's indicated in future projects. I have three more in the box ready to be tasked. Saves money, they don't need a rack, solid machines.

Valorite
Sep 18, 2008, 10:52 PM
Yeah, pretty much couldn't justify the extra $1300 for an Xserve($500 for 2nd proc and the diff in apple care) over the Pro for what's essentially the same machine minus some hardware diagnostic features.

Thanks for all the advice from everyone.

yippy
Sep 19, 2008, 09:51 AM
It sounds like Pro is better for you in your case.

What I meant by extra features was things like the ability to turn on/off the Xserver and monitor its load without ever touching, or even being able to see the machine.

pithom
Sep 19, 2008, 01:09 PM
Hi there,

I'm trying to install OSX Server 10.4.7 on a B&W G3 (450Mhz 1GB RAM).

I know the hardware is old but for my server needs it will do just fine. The problem is the installer complains about incompatability with the computer.

I have heard there is a way to make OSX Server 10.4 install and run on this hardware but so far all my research has been futile.

The firmware is up to date, as a matter of fact I can run OSX client 10.4.11 on it without a problem. Does anyone know how to get the installer to work or how get OSX server on this machine by some means? TIA

myjay610
Sep 23, 2008, 06:18 PM
if you don't really have an overwhelming reason to get Mac Server, my advice is don't, go with Linux instead. While I love the mac workstation, I can say that my experience with Mac servers has been somewhat frustrating, and judging by some of the horror stories I have heard about Leopard, my frustration is only the tip of the iceberg.

Unfortunately I think one of the reasons that the Server has so many issues is that Steve Jobs just doesn't care about it. If you look at it, there are a ton of really good IDEAS in Mac OS X server, but unfortunately many of them are pulled off in less than stellar fashion. Almost, but not quite. I think if Mr. Jobs just put a little bit more resources into making Mac OS X server more bug-free, than it would be a wonderful product. But as it stands, Linux can do almost anything Mac can do, and often does it better.

What Linux software makes it as easy to set up as OS X server? If you read through the Apple documentation it isn't that bad. Sure, you could build a Linux server and separately install all the services you might need. Puppet for OD/LDAP, Apache, FTP, NFS, NTP, etc. But for someone to be able to sit down and read a single source of documentation that tells them how to set that all up isn't going to be easy to find. I could be wrong, but my experience with setting up Linux services is that if you aren't comfortable with the CLI and tweaking applications then you'll have a hard time. Nothing is that easy to do in Linux, and I'm sure developers are going to keep it that way.