PDA

View Full Version : Jaguar: Mac OS X Server


arn
Jun 11, 2002, 10:09 AM
Slaptech details (http://www.slaptech.com/index.php#jaguar) some upcoming features of the Mac OS X Server version of Jaguar.

Performance and stability seem to be most signficant features, with improvements in Network, File, Print and Mail services.

topicolo
Jun 11, 2002, 10:53 AM
seems interesting, but what is the market for such an os? just the xserves? It doesn't seem that this server version of Jag is gonna affect Apple's bottom line too much

DaveGee
Jun 11, 2002, 11:12 AM
Well... I was real happy to read about IP Failover. Talk about the ultimate in availability!

"IP Failover is Apple's new high availability service for certain server and service configurations. With this feature, if one server fails, a second server can take over the failed server's IP address, and assume its workload with minimal interruption."

IP Failover alone could sell a bunch of folks who are looking for 'never down' servers! It's nothing that 'the kids' will think of as important but those with the money to spend (and they are out there) will be very happy to hear about this feature that you can bank on.

Dave

Rower_CPU
Jun 11, 2002, 12:50 PM
I'm stoked...can't wait to see the final product!

They're definitely putting up great competition for Dell and company.:)

Sayer
Jun 11, 2002, 01:05 PM
The current Xserve is just Apple dipping its toe into the water. The RAID rackmount and probably a beefier Xserve will follow soon enough filling out the server segment of Apple's hardware lines. This is obviously where the "Server" variant of Mac OS X will end up living.

OS X Server is really Mac OS X rebuilt with some internal changes (larger/more buffers, I/O and network performance tweaks) and the Server services strapped on top. Its not a completely separate product per se so there is a lot of synergy and shared effort between Desktop and Server OSes.

This stategy is way better than the A/UX days when the server OS was radically different from the desktop OS.

Interiority
Jun 11, 2002, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
seems interesting, but what is the market for such an os? just the xserves? It doesn't seem that this server version of Jag is gonna affect Apple's bottom line too much

OS X Server probably only has a negligable impact on Apple's bottom line, but adds credibility at the top end of the product range. Users of Mac desktops / laptops don't need to rely on Wintel / Linux boxes for file and web services, but can have an Apple solution all the way.

Also, it provides an industrial strength platform for running apps like WebObjects and the recently announced Oracle / Sybase for OS X. With any luck, this all broadens the appeal of the Mac, resulting in increased hardware sales all round...

Cappy
Jun 11, 2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Sayer
OS X Server is really Mac OS X rebuilt with some internal changes (larger/more buffers, I/O and network performance tweaks) and the Server services strapped on top.

Does Apple have any documentation that supports this statement?

It would be nice to have such a list of differences when presenting an argument to go with Server to someone if needed. I've heard of this before but I'd like to clarify whether it's an asumption or those differences truly exist.

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
seems interesting, but what is the market for such an os? just the xserves? It doesn't seem that this server version of Jag is gonna affect Apple's bottom line too much


One of the criticisms many people have about macs is that they are just 'toys', with no real serious applications. Having a foothold in the server market, together with a top-notch server OS should help to dispell that notion. Also though, servers are where the real money is spent. You won't be looking at $3k systems, but closer to the $30k, where serious profits can be made. Apple are headed that way, it would seem.

Re. the article. The cube is supported? Who is going to run any serious server on a cube? Not surprising apple aren't bothering to support that for the jaguar release.

Rower_CPU
Jun 11, 2002, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Cappy
Does Apple have any documentation that supports this statement?

It would be nice to have such a list of differences when presenting an argument to go with Server to someone if needed. I've heard of this before but I'd like to clarify whether it's an asumption or those differences truly exist.

I don't know about the I/O differences, but there are obviously network tweaks for OS X Server:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/specs.html

Now, the Xserve and subsequent versions of OS X Server will probably have more I/O specific tweaks, thanks to the Xserve's hardware.

kishba
Jun 11, 2002, 08:56 PM
does os x server come bundled with a web interface for controlling the server from a pc or a remote terminal?

i suppose ssh or telnet would allow the same functionality but apple's web team is extremely talented and their web interface would kick major @$$ (i personally feel that the novell web interface sucks)

and while we're on the topic of os x server... how well do mac os x clients authenticate to it? can you share remote directories easily without having to manually mount them or play with any scripts? i'm interested in convincing my boss to buy a few macs and i want to know exactly how to have teachers (i work at a school) be able to log on to the computers and access shares/applications without too much of a hassle

(ps my "idea" is to have os x server mount a novell share and then allow other x clients to mount it... just in case you were wondering/interested ;) )

Rower_CPU
Jun 11, 2002, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by kishba
does os x server come bundled with a web interface for controlling the server from a pc or a remote terminal?

i suppose ssh or telnet would allow the same functionality but apple's web team is extremely talented and their web interface would kick major @$$ (i personally feel that the novell web interface sucks)

and while we're on the topic of os x server... how well do mac os x clients authenticate to it? can you share remote directories easily without having to manually mount them or play with any scripts? i'm interested in convincing my boss to buy a few macs and i want to know exactly how to have teachers (i work at a school) be able to log on to the computers and access shares/applications without too much of a hassle

(ps my "idea" is to have os x server mount a novell share and then allow other x clients to mount it... just in case you were wondering/interested ;) )

The only web-based administration is the QuickTime Streaming Server Admin, the rest is via the "Server Admin" app, which can be installed and run from any OS X client.

I haven't tried auto-mounting remote directories…but with keychaining, it's simply a matter of placing an alias in the Login items that queries the file server and they click through a dialog box or two.

Yeah, I hate Novell and I'm slowly weaning people off of it here.:D

kishba
Jun 11, 2002, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Yeah, I hate Novell and I'm slowly weaning people off of it here.:D

i know how you feel... but it's decent for our district i suppose... i just want some blasted macs... i hate the current dells we have!

ibjoshua
Jun 12, 2002, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Sayer
..... The RAID rackmount and probably a beefier Xserve will follow soon enough filling out the server segment of Apple's hardware lines. This is obviously where the "Server" variant of Mac OS X will end up living.

i thought the RAID box came on the market at the same time as the 1U??

badtz
Jun 12, 2002, 12:57 AM
does that mean that the g4 cube WON'T work? or just not supported? if not, why not supported?

Rower_CPU
Jun 12, 2002, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by i_b_joshua
i thought the RAID box came on the market at the same time as the 1U??

Nope, not 'til this fall.:(

senjaz
Jun 12, 2002, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by DaveGee
Well... I was real happy to read about IP Failover. Talk about the ultimate in availability!

"IP Failover is Apple's new high availability service for certain server and service configurations. With this feature, if one server fails, a second server can take over the failed server's IP address, and assume its workload with minimal interruption."

IP Failover alone could sell a bunch of folks who are looking for 'never down' servers! It's nothing that 'the kids' will think of as important but those with the money to spend (and they are out there) will be very happy to hear about this feature that you can bank on.

Dave

One company I used to work for set up NT boxes in this manner too. Obviously the second machine is supposed to take over the primary one should it fail.

Only issue with this set up is when the secondary box falls over too. It's not my area of expertise but apparently the second machine did manage to assume the roll of the first, but then crashed itself a few seconds later.

Not sure how tipical of things in the PC world is. It's just another item on my list of why I'll never personally buy a PC.

j763
Jun 12, 2002, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm stoked...can't wait to see the final product!

They're definitely putting up great competition for Dell and company.:)

dell build h/w, they don't make s/w. I don't think OS X server is a competitor to IIS, osx server is already way too good for that sort of unfair comparison. :)

Rower_CPU
Jun 12, 2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by j763
dell build h/w, they don't make s/w. I don't think OS X server is a competitor to IIS, osx server is already way too good for that sort of unfair comparison. :)

Yes, but half of the Xserve equation is OS X Server...and this is where they're going after Dell.:)

firewire2001
Jun 14, 2002, 08:15 AM
does that mean that the g4 cube WON'T work? or just not supported? if not, why not supported?

os x server is compatible with the cube, is that what you were asking?

i dont think that anyone would really want to use a cube for a server though..