Apple Updates Mac Mini and Adds Server Option

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/20/apple-updates-mac-mini-and-adds-server-option/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/10/20/123234-mac_mini_500.jpg

Apple today updated (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/20imac.html) its Mac mini (http://www.apple.com/macmini/), offering spec bumps to its existing $599 and $799 models and adding a new $999 server model (http://www.apple.com/macmini/server/).Apple today also announced that the Mac mini, the world's most energy efficient desktop, is now faster, offers more storage and comes standard with double the memory. Starting at $599, the entry level Mac mini features a faster 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2GB of DDR3 1066 MHz memory, a 160GB hard drive, five USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 800, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M integrated graphics and a SuperDrive. The $799 Mac mini features a 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 4GB of memory and a larger 320GB hard drive. Apple now offers a $999 Mac mini that is specially configured with Mac OS® X Snow Leopard® Server. Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server features two 500GB hard drives for a total of 1TB of server storage in the tiny 6.5-inch square by 2-inch tall Mac mini enclosure.The server model runs Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server and replaces the Mac mini's usual optical drive with a second 2.5-inch hard drive, allowing for the 1 TB total hard drive capacity.

Article Link: Apple Updates Mac Mini and Adds Server Option (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/20/apple-updates-mac-mini-and-adds-server-option/)

[mainstreetmark]

A thousand dollar mini, eh?

[thegoldenmackid]

Yay for the Mini.

[profets]

talk about an over priced mac mini server...

[Eidorian]

A thousand dollar mini, eh?The cost of the server license? Otherwise what market is it targeting? Mini servers aren't an Apple invention.

[cube]

mini server has no optical disk, low end hard disk is too small :mad:

[Veri]

Finally, a regular expandable Mac to act as a home server/test platform... oh, in a /mini/ case. Wait, 2.5" server drives?

[QCassidy352]

I know people will knock this, but keep in mind it comes with OS X server, which sells for $499 by itself. This isn't a bad deal at all.

[jdl8422]

I guess the mini server is good if you dont have a really large company. I dont think its easy to expand, but I guess you can always buy 2x1tb or 2x2tb. Assuming it can handle that.

[thegoldenmackid]

A thousand dollar mini, eh?

$3,800 iMac?

[Eidorian]

I know people will knock this, but keep in mind it comes with OS X server, which sells for $499 by itself. This isn't a bad deal at all.It's a product with no target market.

[Small White Car]

This is probably a good time to mention the secure server facility that will host your own Mac Mini for you (http://www.macminicolo.net/facility.html).

Get one of these in there and you're in business!

[profets]

I guess the mini server is good if you dont have a really large company. I dont think its easy to expand, but I guess you can always buy 2x1tb or 2x2tb. Assuming it can handle that.

you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

[tseitz89]

Still $100 to much, needs to be $500 they could sell so many more mac minis if that was the price

[mainstreetmark]

you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

We have a mac mini that serves FileMaker. So what?

[DipDog3]

Can't say that I am really impressed with these updates.

[rgarjr]

Not much updated on the mini but a CPU speed bump.

[profets]

We have a mac mini that serves FileMaker. So what?

what if the disk fails mid-day?

[ltldrummerboy]

I found a new Apple Remote on the Mac mini BTO page.

[Small White Car]

what if the disk fails mid-day?

I can't answer you for the guy who currently uses it, but the whole point of this new one is that it has 2 drives which you could mirror raid.

So as for your original question "who would use this?" I don't see why you couldn't.

[fungus]

The mini gets the update love, but not the price drop :(

If that server was $800 and could do RAID 0/1, I'd be taking an expensive lunch break at the mall today...

[Ted13]

you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

I guess you've never heard about MacMini Colo and others like it. Actually if you have a crowded server room or need smaller test/QA machines, the Mini server is a godsend.

And another thing -- what's more reliable -- a single Xserve or a pair of redundant Minis for less money? Yes, clearly the XServe has way grater performance, but not all server tasks require major horsepower.

[profets]

I can't answer you for the guy who currently uses it, but the whole point of this new one is that it has 2 drives which you could mirror raid.

So as for your original question "who would use this?" I don't see why you couldn't.

ok, so even this new one, $1000, you get 2x 2.5" 500gig, 5400rpm disks with no expansion options... dont you think for the money you could get much better disks or solutions for the price?

[rgarjr]

I found a new Apple Remote on the Mac mini BTO page.

Is that remote made out of Alu?

[ChrisA]

mini server has no optical disk, low end hard disk is too small :mad:

The mini uses the smaller notebook size disks. 500GB is the largest size made. The mini server comes with two of these. Apple has packed the most amount of disk space possible into the mini server. OK may you need more? Buy a RAID box and plug it into the FW800 port.

Why would you want an optical drive on a server? Servers are typically kept in a dark closet, many times without a keyboard or monitor plugged in. If you want to rip a CD you'd put the CD into the desktop computer and store the files on the server.

That said, I'd prefer to have a BSD or Solaris based server with space inside for more and larger disks. But there are people who like Mac OS Server and this is a bargain. The OS costs $500 so in this case you gt the Mac Mni for only another $500.

[MacSA]

Still too expensive for the specs.

[KnightWRX]

The mini gets the update love, but not the price drop :(

If that server was $800 and could do RAID 0/1, I'd be taking an expensive lunch break at the mall today...

Raid 0 ? Yeah, losing all the data because one of the 2 drives fail is always a good thing :rolleyes:

And you can do mirroring through OS X.

This mini server is really nice. Might replace my 2 energy hungry Solaris box that run my home network.

And another thing -- what's more reliable -- a single Xserve or a pair of redundant Minis for less money? Yes, clearly the XServe has way grater performance, but not all server tasks require major horsepower.

The Xserve. Redundant power supply and hot swap drives.

But for small businesses and home servers, the Mac Mini is very nice.

[Small White Car]

dont you think for the money you could get much better disks or solutions for the price?

That would be up to you to show, since you brought it up.

I don't know, what is a better solution? You tell me. Telling me to imagine something doesn't really prove anything.

[profets]

I guess you've never heard about MacMini Colo and others like it. Actually if you have a crowded server room or need smaller test/QA machines, the Mini server is a godsend.

And another thing -- what's more reliable -- a single Xserve or a pair of redundant Minis for less money? Yes, clearly the XServe has way grater performance, but not all server tasks require major horsepower.

mac mini colo? lol, never have. i'm not saying there arent uses, just surprised i guess. all good anyway, i guess there are uses for it. i thought mac mini based server would be targetted primarily for home use. but would have been nice for more price option and more expansion options

[OllyW]

Is that remote made out of Alu?

Yes.

I need to lose the 4 plastics ones I've already got before I go for an aluminium one. :)

[profets]

That would be up to you to show, since you brought it up.

I don't know, what is a better solution? You tell me. Telling me to imagine something doesn't really prove anything.

well, in terms of file sharing, a decent NAS appliance with multiple hot swap bays for 3.5" disks and full RAID options.

i guess its different if the mac mini isnt used primarily for storage though

[jdl8422]

you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

I was going by what they said on the Apple Site. I'm not saying its good or bad. I'm just saying, according to the Apple they suggest businesses.

[cube]

The mini uses the smaller notebook size disks. 500GB is the largest size made. The mini server comes with two of these. Apple has packed the most amount of disk space possible into the mini server. OK may you need more? Buy a RAID box and plug it into the FW800 port.

Why would you want an optical drive on a server? Servers are typically kept in a dark closet, many times without a keyboard or monitor plugged in. If you want to rip a CD you'd put the CD into the desktop computer and store the files on the server.

That said, I'd prefer to have a BSD or Solaris based server with space inside for more and larger disks. But there are people who like Mac OS Server and this is a bargain. The OS costs $500 so in this case you gt the Mac Mni for only another $500.

The low end comes with only 160GB. That's what I was talking about.

There should be a mini version that accepts one 12mm disk, has an optical drive, and comes with OSX Server.

[smiddlehurst]

you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

Why not? Take a small company currently running a few standalone macs and transferring files around via e-mail, memory stick or cloud services. There's a LOT of companies out there that fit that description and for those that are looking to step up to a central server then this could be a very good fit for them. Keep the apple environment, pay someone a one-off fee to set it up if required (depending on if they've got someone who's IT literate on payroll) and off they go.

Would I recommend it for companies with resources to go Xserve? No, probably not, but there WILL be places this device fits in perfectly. £800 versus £2,400 is not insignificant after all and for the price of one Xserve and a decent level of HD space you could get one of these plus a couple of iMacs or Macbooks. That's very important to places that don't have much IT budget. Is it going to be a massive seller for Apple? No, absolutley not. But it'll shift some units, enough I'm sure to justify its existence, and in so doing it's probably helping Apple to keep the cheaper server options from other companies out of otherwise Apple-only shops.

Edit Oops, almost forgot, as a test environment this might be just about perfect.

[MacFanUK]

I like the specs of the new Mini's but I must admit, I was kinda expecting a price drop. Definitely prefer the mini's to the the new iMacs.

[skeep5]

can you do with this mini, what you can do with the HP home server?

[jdl8422]

I noticed on the Apple site they suggest an external storage solution, sold in their store. This storage box only connects by firewire 800. Im wondering why they didnt add a SATA port or ESATA port to the server mini. Or is ethernet fast enough?

[MikeELL]

It's a product with no target market.

Haha, No. This is the just the beginning of what they're doing. Like I said in this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8593831#post8593831) Apple's gameplan is heading towards mobile devices even when it comes to their computers.

Apple needs to have the Mac Mini server already in place when it launches the tablet. I can forsee a situation where Apple wants each household to have an iMac/Mac Pro for the study/serious work, a mac mini server in the living room as a media server, and tablets for each person.

[redtimebold]

I was just doing a little fantasy shopping and see that the remote control option for buying a new mac mini shows a picture of a silver remote with black buttons.

[profets]

I noticed on the Apple site they suggest an external storage solution, sold in their store. This storage box only connects by firewire 800. Im wondering why they didnt add a SATA port or ESATA port to the server mini. Or is ethernet fast enough?

gigabit is quite fast, but eSata would have been better

[KindredMAC]

And I haven't said that in terms of Apple updates for quite some time...

But back to the mini....
There is only one thing I have issue with and that is the entry level price point is still $599. All I wanted to see was $499.

With Snow Leopard Server, you get all the benefits of of the server applications.

For me personally it is VERY tempting for my home network.

[pro547]

can you do with this mini, what you can do with the HP home server?

From what I know about the HP Home server then yes you can do that with the Mini.

[ericinboston]

Thanks for the nice and slow 5400 RPM drives (STILL!!!!) Apple.

Total bummer.

[coreyaustin]

The new remote will be a nice addition to the HTMM (Home Theatre Mac Mini).

[profets]

can you do with this mini, what you can do with the HP home server?

you can use 2.5" 5400rpm disks

[3.1416]

Still too expensive for the specs.It compares well to the Dell Studio Hybrid. As a generic desktop it's not a good value, as a small form factor box it is.

[javaJake]

Interesting... the buyer's guide still says to hold off...

[rgarjr]

that new mini server does look a bit weird without the disc slot

http://images.apple.com/macmini/images/overview-routing-miniserver-20091020.png

[profets]

regarding mac mini server from apples site
After selecting Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server, you can add external storage for RAID 5 data protection, Apple Remote Desktop software, an external SuperDrive, and other options.

i guess what i would have like to see is a bigger unit. maybe same dimensions but taller or something for more disk space. if its being used as a server it shouldnt have to be kept so small right?

[jaw04005]

Did they add any sort of wizard to OS X Server for media sharing? I don’t think OS X Server has any built-in media sharing options. I suppose you could run full-blown iTunes on there, but that would be kind of clunky.

[calderone]

Did they add any sort of wizard to OS X Server for media sharing? I don’t think OS X Server has any built-in media sharing options. I suppose you could run full-blown iTunes on there, but that would be kind of clunky.

No. This isn't a media server.

[profets]

No. This isn't a media server.

that sucks.. but i'm sure if its running SL you could install some sort of media sharing software?

[depulse]

5400 RPM harddisks on a server?

Only from Apple...

[HyperZboy]

3 WORDS... Mythical Mac Mini-tower!

And it should be $999 or less. I've pretty much decided that other than a laptop possibly, I'm not buying another "disposable" iMac or other over-priced Mac desktop until this beast is released.

The whole concept of the iMac is ANTI-GREEN since they are ultimately disposable and non-upgradeable and the screens are useless once the machine is outdated, meaning short life-spans. I've never liked this Apple marketing strategy. I'm surprised no one has called Apple out on this yet.

Maybe this Mac Mini server will have a niche market possibly, but that market is not my expertise so I'll leave that to others to comment on.

Unfortunately, I want a Mac with that power w/ a tiny bit of expandability that doesn't exist as Apple just refuses to release such a Mac.

I think tons of PC switchers would jump on board too for such a machine and seriously increase market share. Something bigger than a G4 Cube, but around the same size or smaller than a G4 tower, such that it doesn't compete with the Mac Pro line. What Apple has done with the Mini proves this is easily possible.

It's just plain crazy in my opinion that Apple doesn't do it.
I'd have bought another Mac already if such a Mac existed.
What a lost opportunity. :(

PS: I know people are going to scream that Apple just posted its biggest sales in history, but guess what? Those were largely laptop sales, NOT desktops.

Steve Jobs needs to stop being stubborn and release this type of beast.

[mytdave]

K, folks, think about it. This new mini server is a steal. Look, it comes with the unlimited version of MacOS X Server which would be $999 by itself! So... you're getting Snow Leopard Server and a "FREE" computer. What's to complain about?

Is it an Xserve? No. It's not meant to be. It's a great small business/home server. Two 2.5" 500GB drives are just fine. BTW - most major server products are migrating to 2.5" drives. And, in case you haven't figured this out... all Macs support software RAID 1/0. So, set up your two disks for a fast 1TB volume, or a mirrored 500GB set for redundancy. And/or connect an external 500GB-1TB hard drive via FW800 for Time Machine backup, and you're set 5 ways 'til Sunday. This is a great server for small specialized purposes.

Could Apple do more with this box? Sure. Hopefully they will in a future release. eSATA would be a good feature to add to a server appliance. But for now, this is still a killer package. Count me in - I'm starting to save up pennies at this moment.

[Bubba Satori]

Still too expensive for the specs.

Yep, by about $150 each. But I guess enough people will buy them that Apple will make up in margin what they lose in volume. Sorry, I'm not going to play that game and neither will my customers when they see what $600-$800 buys these days.

[Anghammarad]

No blu-ray is really a bummer. I can (only just) understand Apples reluctancy to add blu-ray if they feel it will be a competition to renting in iTunes store but if that is the case then, please introduce movie rentals into the swedish itunes store already

[ateslik]

What a wierd offering. The target market is very unclear.

For business, this machine does not have adequate storage or speed.

So I have to assume the target market would be home users. But for a home user its nearly useless with only one network port. You need two ports. One for the external network (internet connection), and one port for the internal network (home router). Network Address Translation for the internal ips to share the external connection.

:\

[LEStudios]

$3,800 iMac?

Yeah with 16GB on Quad Core 2.8GHz! I'm sold! :D

[mytdave]

No. This isn't a media server.

Actually, iTunes is a media sever as well as a client. I've been using it to serve media for quite some time. Works great.

MacOS X Server includes very robust tools for serving media, including QTSS.

[calderone]

Actually, iTunes is a media sever as well as a client. I've been using it to serve media for quite some time. Works great.

MacOS X Server includes very robust tools for serving media, including QTSS.

OS X Server is not a media server. I run a Mini with OS X Server, I know what it does. I wasn't talking about the Mini itself.

Did you read the question I responded to? He asked if they added a wizard for media sharing. The obvious answer is no, because OS X Server's primary function is not to serve media. IF you want to do that, client can do it just fine.

If you buy this (particular version of the Mini) to serve media, you are an idiot.

EDIT: Let me add to this. I know not saying OS X Server cannot do media sharing, I am saying that you would be wasting money and you would probably never properly set it up if you don't know how to configure a server.

[satty]

Just two weeks ago I was configuring a Mac Mini with 4GB memory and 320 GB harddrive plus Mac OS X server on the New Zealand Apple Online Store. The total price was around

NZD 3,000.00

I thought 'No, that's a little bit too much money'. Now you get the combo for

NZD 1,750.00

And you can even add the external 4 TB Raid Storage system for a total of

NZD 3,100.00

I would call this is a significant improvement.

[LEStudios]

you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

You know its really amazing how many companies still uses the 2007 Mac mini as a Server. It's not a hard concept I been using my Western Digital Studio II 2TB (two 1TB in Raid-0) for storage of my music and videos from iTunes going on 2 years. Technically that is a storage because Apple implementing sharing and streaming of music and videos since AppleTV (since I notice with AppleTV) so yeah 5400RPM 8MB Cache can work for you. Lot of you guys need to think outside the box. :D

[najarro]

Didn't the old mac mini's come with a mini-display port to DVI?! These don't?

[jaw04005]

No. This isn't a media server.

OS X Server is not a media server. I run a Mini with OS X Server, I know what it does. I wasn't talking about the Mini itself.

Did you read the question I responded to? He asked if they added a wizard for media sharing. The obvious answer is no, because OS X Server's primary function is not to serve media. IF you want to do that, client can do it just fine.

If you buy this (particular version of the Mini) to serve media, you are an idiot.

Well, Phil Schiller seems to think it is:

As many probably already know, it turns out that many Mac Mini owners use their machines as inexpensive servers. Seeing an opportunity — Apple’s Xserve professional server line starts at $2,999 – Apple has launched a Mac Mini server for $999. The target Schiller says is small businesses for whom an XServe would be too expensive, as well as enthusiast consumers looking for an inexpensive, small-footprint media server server to share files around the house.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2009/10/apple_announces.html

Which is why I asked, I thought maybe they were shipping a new media sharing/Windows Home Server-type wizard for OS X Server. The last version of Server I used (10.3) was overly complicated to setup for a home server device.

Looks like they missed an opportunity here.

[mytdave]

What a wierd offering. The target market is very unclear.

For business, this machine does not have adequate storage or speed.

So I have to assume the target market would be home users. But for a home user its nearly useless with only one network port. You need two ports. One for the external network (internet connection), and one port for the internal network (home router). Network Address Translation for the internal ips to share the external connection.

:\

Actually, 1TB is more than enough space for business. I'm running an entire dept. of 120+ people on an older Dell file server with a 365GB array. I might just evaluate this mini for feasability as a economical replacement.

No, you don't need two network ports. You should already have a router in place running NAT, even at home (like a wireless base station). 95% of the time your servers will be using just one port. We have over 60 servers in our data center, and 2 of them are dual homed (using 2 ports) and none of them are running NAT.

[calderone]

Well, Phil Schiller seems to think it is:

As many probably already know, it turns out that many Mac Mini owners use their machines as inexpensive servers. Seeing an opportunity — Apple’s Xserve professional server line starts at $2,999 – Apple has launched a Mac Mini server for $999. The target Schiller says is small businesses for whom an XServe would be too expensive, as well as enthusiast consumers looking for an inexpensive, small-footprint media server server to share files around the house.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2009/10/apple_announces.html

Which is why I asked, I thought maybe they were shipping a new media sharing wizard for OS X Server. The last version of Server I used (10.3) was overly complicated to setup for a home server device.

Looks like they missed an opportunity here.

I am guessing Phil Schiller hasn't setup an OS X Server. Mac OS X server is fair too complex to passed of as a media server.

They are going to be inundated with phone calls from users who bought this thing and can't get it work. I guarantee it. And I don't think those users are going to go out and find a consultant.

OS X client does everything a home user would need, in a much more user friendly way.

[smiddlehurst]

What a wierd offering. The target market is very unclear.

For business, this machine does not have adequate storage or speed.

:\

Utter and complete tosh I'm afraid. The company I was working a year ago had over 30 servers, not a one of them rack mountable, and between them we just about topped 1TB of useable storage. And this was not a small business, we were turning over about £30 Million a year and running about 3,000 users across the business.

Yes, if you're running big databases etc then you need more grunt. But as a basic server for small businesses or as task-specific servers? Perfect. Those that think you MUST have a quad core server-class processor for even the smallest server are deluding themselves. Are there performance improvmenets to be gained from an XServe? Of course but a LOT of businesses don't require them and this gives them a lovely introduction to OS X Server without the need to invest a ton of money in infrastructure they don't really need.

[Le Big Mac]

Look, it comes with the unlimited version of MacOS X Server which would be $999 by itself!

They droped the price to $499 for unlimited users a few months ago.

[jaw04005]

I am guessing Phil Schiller hasn't setup an OS X Server. Mac OS X server is fair too complex to passed of as a media server.

They are going to be inundated with phone calls from users who bought this thing and can't get it work. I guarantee it. And I don't think those users are going to go out and find a consultant.

OS X client does everything a home user would need, in a much more user friendly way.

I agree. I haven’t used it since 10.3, but it’s too complicated to use in a home environment.

Unless they did what Microsoft did and used OS X Server as the backbone and created a new console app/setup wizard for home users that could let them administer iTunes remotely. That would be awesome.

[calderone]

They droped the price to $499 for unlimited users a few months ago.

Even so, it should be priced at at LEAST $1099 (assuming the base Mini). But this is the higher end Mini, with another 500GB hard drive. They are essentially giving you Mac OS X Server.

[mytdave]

OS X Server is not a media server. I run a Mini with OS X Server, I know what it does. I wasn't talking about the Mini itself.

Did you read the question I responded to? He asked if they added a wizard for media sharing. The obvious answer is no, because OS X Server's primary function is not to serve media. IF you want to do that, client can do it just fine.

If you buy this (particular version of the Mini) to serve media, you are an idiot.

EDIT: Let me add to this. I know not saying OS X Server cannot do media sharing, I am saying that you would be wasting money and you would probably never properly set it up if you don't know how to configure a server.

QuickTime Streaming Server
QuickTime Broadcaster
Podcast Producer
Standard file serving (guess what, that includes media files)
No "wizard" needed
-- All features of MacOS X Server
You're talking to an IT Admin, yes I know how to set up a server.
And I have an existing mini running as a media server at home. Works great. This offering from Apple is even better, and a great deal.

[DraziGuy]

The mini did get a price drop....

In Canada anyways. $80 bucks less today than it was yesterday... makes it much less cost effective to drive across the border and buy one.

[LEStudios]

No blu-ray is really a bummer. I can (only just) understand Apples reluctancy to add blu-ray if they feel it will be a competition to renting in iTunes store but if that is the case then, please introduce movie rentals into the swedish itunes store already

Because Apple don't want spend money on licensing technologies from Sony and Microsoft that really don't work. Why do a Google Search for 1080p Bluray rip you'll see at least 400 movies! with Transformers Revenge of the Fallen being one of them! 15GB 1080p X264 MKV with DTS 1.5Mbps!

[KidMoe85]

Didn't the old mac mini's come with a mini-display port to DVI?! These don't?

No, they come with mini DVI to DVI adapters.

[pmjoe]

I wish Apple would offer a 7200 RPM drive option. I have a faster drive in my G4 mini.

I'm in the educational store looking at these and the link for the mini server is broken.

[hprata]

Well, Phil Schiller seems to think it is:

As many probably already know, it turns out that many Mac Mini owners use their machines as inexpensive servers. Seeing an opportunity — Apple’s Xserve professional server line starts at $2,999 – Apple has launched a Mac Mini server for $999. The target Schiller says is small businesses for whom an XServe would be too expensive, as well as enthusiast consumers looking for an inexpensive, small-footprint media server server to share files around the house.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2009/10/apple_announces.html

Which is why I asked, I thought maybe they were shipping a new media sharing/Windows Home Server-type wizard for OS X Server. The last version of Server I used (10.3) was overly complicated to setup for a home server device.

Looks like they missed an opportunity here.


I suggest ordering an OS X Server demo disc and start messing with it. I found it simple to set up basic media serving. I have not tried more complicated setups as I do not have much free time. I think its great!!! Awesome price with a lot of potential. As for future upgrades they are possible limited but possible. I would prefer external devices as a means to upgrade (Raid and Time machine backups or extra storage) rather than internal replacements. As for needing two Gigabit ports totally not necessary for most people. Gigabit has plenty of bandwidth for most. PS Like the internal raid 1+0 setup idea should be default.

[ingenious]

I can't understand why people are complaining about this... You get two 500GB hard drives capable of using RAID1 and Snow Leopard Server, which retails for $499 itself.

This is an amazing deal. If I had the funds, I'd be picking one up this afternoon.

[calderone]

QuickTime Streaming Server
QuickTime Broadcaster
Podcast Producer
Standard file serving (guess what, that includes media files)
No "wizard" needed
-- All features of MacOS X Server
You're talking to an IT Admin, yes I know how to set up a server.
And I have an existing mini running as a media server at home. Works great. This offering from Apple is even better, and a great deal.

Again, I am not saying what Mac OS X Server can or cannot do. I am telling you what it isn't. It is not a media server. In no way does that mean it CANNOT serve media. It is OBVIOUS that it can.

No "wizard" needed. You are right, but knowledge on how to setup a server would help no?

Let's think about the home use though. Most users don't even know they can serve files with OS X Client. Without a wizard they will not be able to setup this thing up, especially if they can't do it in client.

And just so you know, you are also talking to an admin (although not certified yet). I know full well what OS X Server has and what it can do.

The reason I am saying this is not a media server is because that is not what it is made for. Sure, it may be able to do things, and of course it can. But because it can do that doesn't mean we should call it a media server OS.

The setup is hardly a walk in the park. You know how to setup a server, but the majority of people here do not.

[mytdave]

I am guessing Phil Schiller hasn't setup an OS X Server. Mac OS X server is fair too complex to passed of as a media server.

They are going to be inundated with phone calls from users who bought this thing and can't get it work. I guarantee it. And I don't think those users are going to go out and find a consultant.

OS X client does everything a home user would need, in a much more user friendly way.

Setting up a real server can be complex, if not impossible, task for Joe-average home user, but there are two, well three, answers to that... 1. Ya don't have to. One can run MacOS X server just like "client" without server admin tools. 2. One could RTFM instead of complaining. 3. SL Server has a "Server Preferences Application" that makes basic setup drop dead easy. I think most home users could figure out how to use it.

[Anghammarad]

Why do a Google Search for 1080p Bluray rip you'll see at least 400 movies! with Transformers Revenge of the Fallen being one of them! 15GB 1080p X264 MKV with DTS 1.5Mbps!

I have no interest in illegal downloading of copyrighted material.

[arkmannj]

My opinion:
I think the server version should have ditched a USB port (or two)
gained an extra FW800 port
and gained and extra GBit Ethernet port

[tvfilm]

wish they would add HDMI to this

[mytdave]

They droped the price to $499 for unlimited users a few months ago.

I did not know that. If that is the case, methinks I'll pick up a copy and run it on some existing hardware!

[thejadedmonkey]

Re: Mini server

It would be perfect for a small business like my father has, but it doesn't have any easy access to get to the hard drives, and I just don't trust OS X in a business environment, and their lack of business class tech support is a no-no for any business.

And it's too expensive for a home, which would benifit from a Drobo or something along those lines.

Yeah, the only market I can see for this is an all OS X business that doesn't yet have a server, but needs one.

[Brien]

The server mini is cool, but they really need to get the mini back down to $499.

[calderone]

Setting up a real server can be complex, if not impossible, task for Joe-average home user, but there are two, well three, answers to that... 1. Ya don't have to. One can run MacOS X server just like "client" without server admin tools. 2. One could RTFM instead of complaining. 3. SL Server has a "Server Preferences Application" that makes basic setup drop dead easy. I think most home users could figure out how to use it.

You are absolutely right. And while this Mini is a good deal, why not simply buy the plain ole Mini and run the same stuff in OS X Client?

I will admit that this Mini is a good deal, but what is the point if you are simply going to serve media?

[arkmannj]

wish they would add HDMI to this

I haven't looked, is there a mini Display port to HDMI cable...maybe ?
Or they are expecting you to use the DVI cable, then a DVI to HDMI cable and use the mini TOS for audio.

[hprata]

Again, I am not saying what Mac OS X Server can or cannot do. I am telling you what it isn't. It is not a media server. In no way does that mean it CANNOT serve media. It is OBVIOUS that it can.

No "wizard" needed. You are right, but knowledge on how to setup a server would help no?

Let's think about the home use though. Most users don't even know they can serve files with OS X Client. Without a wizard they will not be able to setup this thing up, especially if they can't do it in client.

And just so you know, you are also talking to an admin (although not certified yet). I know full well what OS X Server has and what it can do.

The reason I am saying this is not a media server is because that is not what it is made for. Sure, it may be able to do things, and of course it can. But because it can do that doesn't mean we should call it a media server OS.

The setup is hardly a walk in the park. You know how to setup a server, but the majority of people here do not.


No It is a media server because as you put it "it can" and it was designed to do so because it is there and works! Thats like saying some who has a computer, but does not use their computer does not have a computer! It does not make sense.
You should say it is to hard to setup as a media server for beginners. Which I still have to disagree for basic stuff. What would you suggest for the beginner than at this price?

[mytdave]

I wish Apple would offer a 7200 RPM drive option. I have a faster drive in my G4 mini.

I'm in the educational store looking at these and the link for the mini server is broken.

I agree a 7200rpm option would be nice. Although it is quite possible that two 7200 drives in that space could be enough to tip the thermal envelope in the wrong direction.

[calderone]

No It is a media server because as you put it "it can" and it was designed to do so because it is there and works! Thats like saying some who has a computer, but does not use their computer does not have a computer! It does not make sense.
You should say it is to hard to setup as a media server for beginners. Which I still have to disagree for basic stuff. What would you suggest for the beginner than at this price?

Your analogy is a strike out.

I am talking about how much something is defined, not whether or not someone/something has or does not have something.

Snow Leopard client CAN serve media, but do we call it a media server OS? Does Apple call it OS X Media? No, but it can serve media.

I am saying it is not easy to setup OS X Server properly. If you want to share out some files, sure it is easy. But you do not need OS X Server to do it.

At that price, I would suggest a base Mini and some network storage. Done.

[sorc1]

2.26 mac mini for me =)

[EagerDragon]

To me it would be ideal with a second Ethernet port but I guess they decided against it.

Not bad 999 for the mini and the server software.

BTW I order my OSX Server Eval Disk using my company info and hope to receive it in 3 to 7 weeks. It does not state the period lenght so I assume it is because it can not be used to set a production system and as such there is no license time period.

I been wanting a copy of OSX server to play with and learn, this eval will be great!!!!!!!!!!

[profets]

I agree a 7200rpm option would be nice. Although it is quite possible that two 7200 drives in that space could be enough to tip the thermal envelope in the wrong direction.

thats probably true..

it would have been cool to make the server taller and have some more options within. they say its a server after all.. doesnt need to be tiny

[profets]

To me it would be ideal with a second Ethernet port but I guess they decided against it.



out of curiousity, why would second ethernet be ideal? for load balancing or something similar?

[mytdave]

wish they would add HDMI to this

no need. display port can adapt to everything. mini display port to hdmi:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311&seq=1&format=2

[Serif]

It's a product with no target market.

Really? I intend to buy one of these little beasties as they're pretty much exactly what I want; a system running OS X Server that I can tinker with at home without feeling guilty at splurging a load of money on. I've actually been keeping my eyes open for a second hand XServe for just this purpose but the new mini server looks to be a much better fit and, compared to an XServe, is much better house trained in terms of noise and power usage.

So, maybe a limited target audience (though we may all be surprised), but certainly not the case of no target audience. ;)

[mytdave]

The server mini is cool, but they really need to get the mini back down to $499.

Agreed!

[numediaman]

Interesting update -- and certainly not worth planning an event.

I wouldn't mind these kinds of updates of the mini if they came more regularly. The gap between the last update and the previous one was way too long and created speculation that they were ending the mini.

This one is nice, but not enough to make me want to rush out and buy one.

The low end model gets a gig more RAM, a very small speed bump and a very small hard drive bump. If I were going to buy one yesterday I would appreciate the upgrade today.

The update doesn't look so bad when you compare it with where the mini was a year ago. For an additional $100 you can have 4 gigs of RAM on your mini -- that's a huge improvement over where the product was before the last update.

I do tons of Photoshop and music editing on an old G4 mini, you can imagine what having four gigs and an Intel chip would feel like compared to that old machine -- and that old machine is still very usable.

[Lershac]

I have been using a mini as a SBS2003 server for years with much success. Supports 10 users with Blackberry exchange server, an external raid storage device attached that houses all the data in mirror raid. Even been through a hard drive failure that had me down for like 5 hours (ripping apart the mini to get at the drive, replace drive, re-image the OS disk from backup made nightly using a nice free imaging software DriveimageXML).

Now that several users switched over to Iphones, I consider doing so as well for myself and switching to this server... if only tethering was enabled for iphones without JB.

And for all the naysayers... size is a consideration in a small business. This thing sits on a rack shelf in a closet that houses ALL the network gear for the office and house in the space of a regular server would take up.

Anyone know if the server supports OTA syncing of ical? Thats another killer feature that has me stuck on BB.

And what about supporting remote access for the in-house macs?

[EagerDragon]

It's a product with no target market.

Small businesses with 10 to 50 employees can use this as an internal server to handle their mail, their internal web sites, their wiki, etc and also to integrate their iPhone into their company.

You can add a lot more disk drives to this or a Drobo with up to 8 2T drives.

I think it is a great value given that it comes with SNL which iis 499 by it self so 500 more for the hardware is great.

Lots of small businesses can use this baby.

Also you can use these for server co-location, where you provide the server and the ISP host it for you.

[Mac4Brains]

To be a useful server for handling a home or small business network, it would need to be able to handle DHCP server functions. With out the second RJ-45 port, it is severally handicapped right off the bat.

The second issue I am worried about is, is this a full OSX 10.6 server system or a slimed down version? Can I use it to host a in home FTP server and be able to access it over the internet if I got it a real world IP address for it?

In the end I am getting one, but I think I will wait until a second generation comes out and see if it has the second RJ-45 port, then get one. Otherwise I might seek to use the USB to Ethernet port adapter for the MacBook Air so it can DHCP my network.

[EagerDragon]

out of curiousity, why would second ethernet be ideal? for load balancing or something similar?

For many reasons including putting an internal firewall between this server and lets say database servers. Allows you to create a separte network, maybe can use it with XSAN which I believe needs a second ethernet card.

Can also put this baby facing the Internet and acting as your firewall, gives you full visibility at what is coming at you and you can programatically act on the attacks.

Also second interface can be used as the Management interface so you can SSH or use remote access into the box using a private network with out having to use the same network that faces the Internet.

[RazHyena]

The mini is still pricy but the speed bump and double RAM is enough to make me consider actually getting one now. I'm happy with this update. :)

Just one question: Why no optical in the server model? :confused:

[Lershac]

To be a useful server for handling a home or small business network, it would need to be able to handle DHCP server functions. With out the second RJ-45 port, it is severally handicapped right off the bat.

The second issue I am worried about is, is this a full OSX 10.6 server system or a slimed down version? Can I use it to host a in home FTP server and be able to access it over the internet if I got it a real world IP address for it?

In the end I am getting one, but I think I will wait until a second generation comes out and see if it has the second RJ-45 port, then get one. Otherwise I might seek to use the USB to Ethernet port adapter for the MacBook Air so it can DHCP my network.

Hmm, put it on the internal network with a router with DHCP turned off, tell the router to point its DMZ function to the server address. Poof.

[mytdave]

You are absolutely right. And while this Mini is a good deal, why not simply buy the plain ole Mini and run the same stuff in OS X Client?

I will admit that this Mini is a good deal, but what is the point if you are simply going to serve media?

I'm trying to see where you're coming from on this media serving thing... Since I'm running a mini as a media server right now, based on the previous Mac mini running regular 10.5, which works fine... why would I want this new mini server?

I guess because it's an overall better deal. My mini setup was $599 for the Mini, $60 for extra RAM, $300 for two cheap external 1TB hard drives (one primary, other backup), and some extra $ for various doo-dads. That's $959 not including the doo-dads.

This new mini server has a faster CPU, more RAM standard, two internal 500GB drives (which even in software RAID 0 should be faster than my single external 1TB drive via FW800), AND includes MacOS X Server. All for $999. It's really a good deal, and should perform much better than the one I built up with various parts. It would make a good media server.

[Lershac]

The mini is still pricy but the speed bump and double RAM is enough to make me consider actually getting one now. I'm happy with this update. :)

Just one question: Why no optical in the server model? :confused:

To fit in the second drive.

I wonder why they didnt go with the WD 1TB 2.5" drives? I wonder if they will in teh future?

[weckart]

The mini uses the smaller notebook size disks. 500GB is the largest size made....



Uh huh? S'pose this thing must have some mystery component inside, (http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?origin=gbase20.3&prodID=B246109) which doesn't exist.

[hprata]

Your analogy is a strike out.

I am talking about how much something is defined, not whether or not someone/something has or does not have something.

Snow Leopard client CAN serve media, but do we call it a media server OS? Does Apple call it OS X Media? No, but it can serve media.

I am saying it is not easy to setup OS X Server properly. If you want to share out some files, sure it is easy. But you do not need OS X Server to do it.

At that price, I would suggest a base Mini and some network storage. Done.

Fair enough I agree this is much to much for just sharing some files. Its clearly great for small business for freelance video, Graphic artists and photographers and not to mention dedicated colocation hosting. Not to mention people stuck with G5 xserve who can't afford a new intel xserve. PS still say it is a media server and obviously more. The problem here is that the media server definition is Not well defined

[hiptobesquare]

I wish they would have lowered the prices a bit, or included the Core i5 or i7 Quad-core processors on-board, like the new iMac27.

It is still a bit too high for what you get in the box.

The MiniServer is an interesting concept... too bad you can't pro-rate the server OS, to 5-user or whatever, instead of whole hog... but I guess there is probably some bundled savings in there anyway.

If it weren't a thousand bucks... I would be sorely tempted to build my central media and storage server to something like this.

A Mini Server with no on-board optical...
-with two 64 or 128 Intel SSDs in a RAID configuration for OS speed and redundancy. Partitioned for BootCamp, but also running VMWare Fusion from that partition, within Mac OS.
-with a Drobo attached to the FW800 port, or on the network.
-gigabit ethernet to the router.
-Firewire external bluRay player / superdrive-burner, if there is any way to get the thing to play BluRay movies.
-digital audio out to my receiver
-miniDP to HDMI out to a high-def monitor.
-good auto-focus web-cam/mic for video-phone/telepresence chats.
-perhaps TV and radio tuners, if I can get them too cooperate with my satellite TV service, otherwise it would have to be parallel to my DVR-tuner.
-Serving iTunes library, file service and central storage, centralized TimeMachine backup archive for both itself, and other machines, and upgrade test/image server with Mac OS Server facilities for other machines around the house... central iPhone docking and syncing source... and on and on.

I am sure there are folks who could figure out all manner of other uses for such a system. phone answering to email conversion, security camera monitoring and recording, home automation control,

It would make a nice little image-cloning and systems management server with a drobo attached redundant storage, at work, too.

[hprata]

To be a useful server for handling a home or small business network, it would need to be able to handle DHCP server functions. With out the second RJ-45 port, it is severally handicapped right off the bat.

The second issue I am worried about is, is this a full OSX 10.6 server system or a slimed down version? Can I use it to host a in home FTP server and be able to access it over the internet if I got it a real world IP address for it?

In the end I am getting one, but I think I will wait until a second generation comes out and see if it has the second RJ-45 port, then get one. Otherwise I might seek to use the USB to Ethernet port adapter for the MacBook Air so it can DHCP my network.

Why tax the server with that get a decent router

[mytdave]

thats probably true..

it would have been cool to make the server taller and have some more options within. they say its a server after all.. doesnt need to be tiny

Agreed. I would like to see Apple release a "same-footprint-but-tall" version of the mini, possibly with 4 drive bays inside. And if it were that tall, it could conceivably be big enough to sport a single short x16 PCIe slot. :)

[EagerDragon]

To be a useful server for handling a home or small business network, it would need to be able to handle DHCP server functions. With out the second RJ-45 port, it is severally handicapped right off the bat.

The second issue I am worried about is, is this a full OSX 10.6 server system or a slimed down version? Can I use it to host a in home FTP server and be able to access it over the internet if I got it a real world IP address for it?

In the end I am getting one, but I think I will wait until a second generation comes out and see if it has the second RJ-45 port, then get one. Otherwise I might seek to use the USB to Ethernet port adapter for the MacBook Air so it can DHCP my network.

This is fuil OSX Server. I agree that it is severly handicaped due to missing 2nd ethernet port. With a USB to Ethernet dongle you can add the second port but it may not provide you the same speed, not sure, have not tried one of those dongles yet.

Yes you can use it as an FTP server or even better an SFTP server or use WebDAv, plus you can host your own web server, applicaiion server, database server, and more. Best would be a public IP but there are services that will assign you a DNS and allow you to use a private IP with their software, it will map the two addresses so you can always find your server in the Internet. See this one as a sample: http://www.dyndns.com/ you register your DNS subdomain with them (free I think), install their software, and everytime your system changes IP, it send it to them and they re-map back to the subdomain.

Obviously a permanent public IP address would be better. Some ISP(s) will charge you X dollars for it, some will give you one or more if you switch to a commercial account (which cost more).

[Tastannin]

To me it would be ideal with a second Ethernet port but I guess they decided against it.

Not bad 999 for the mini and the server software.

BTW I order my OSX Server Eval Disk using my company info and hope to receive it in 3 to 7 weeks. It does not state the period lenght so I assume it is because it can not be used to set a production system and as such there is no license time period.

I been wanting a copy of OSX server to play with and learn, this eval will be great!!!!!!!!!!

#1 - Apple did not build in a 2nd Ethernet port because you can easily add one using the USB Ethernet dongle they have for the MBA (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB442Z/A?mco=MTA5OTAyNTU). In fact you probably can add as many ethernet dongles as you can find USB ports for. ;)

#2 - The OSX Server Eval Disk came to my home beginning of this month, and the trial key they gave me is good through the end of November. As far as I can see, the media is the same as the full retail edition and does not say anything regarding it being a trial version. I'm gonna install it in VMware Fusion play with it in there. :)

[Eidorian]

Small businesses with 10 to 50 employees can use this as an internal server to handle their mail, their internal web sites, their wiki, etc and also to integrate their iPhone into their company.

You can add a lot more disk drives to this or a Drobo with up to 8 2T drives.

I think it is a great value given that it comes with SNL which iis 499 by it self so 500 more for the hardware is great.

Lots of small businesses can use this baby.

Also you can use these for server co-location, where you provide the server and the ISP host it for you.I took another look at the product page for it after the dust settled. I see your points. We'll be complaining about the lack of an additional Ethernet port though. :p

#1 - Apple did not build in a 2nd Ethernet port because you can easily add one using the USB Ethernet dongle they have for the MBA (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB442Z/A?mco=MTA5OTAyNTU). In fact you probably can add as many ethernet dongles as you can find USB ports for. ;)You want dual gigabit. WANT

[profets]

Agreed. I would like to see Apple release a "same-footprint-but-tall" version of the mini, possibly with 4 drive bays inside. And if it were that tall, it could conceivably be big enough to sport a single short x16 PCIe slot. :)

yup, couldnt agree more. also, eSATA would be nice

[Lershac]

I took another look at the product page for it after the dust settled. I see your points. We'll be complaining about the lack of an additional Ethernet port though. :p

You want dual gigabit. WANT

WHY? Just put it behind a router and point the router DMZ or port forward what you need!

Thats what most small businesses use anyway.

[calderone]

I'm trying to see where you're coming from on this media serving thing... Since I'm running a mini as a media server right now, based on the previous Mac mini running regular 10.5, which works fine... why would I want this new mini server?

I guess because it's an overall better deal. My mini setup was $599 for the Mini, $60 for extra RAM, $300 for two cheap external 1TB hard drives (one primary, other backup), and some extra $ for various doo-dads. That's $959 not including the doo-dads.

This new mini server has a faster CPU, more RAM standard, two internal 500GB drives (which even in software RAID 0 should be faster than my single external 1TB drive via FW800), AND includes MacOS X Server. All for $999. It's really a good deal, and should perform much better than the one I built up with various parts. It would make a good media server.

I don't doubt that it is a good deal. Hell, I would pick it up if I didn't already have an 10.6 Server license.

[KnightWRX]

I took another look at the product page for it after the dust settled. I see your points. We'll be complaining about the lack of an additional Ethernet port though. :p

You want dual gigabit. WANT

Yeah, but you'll probably have problems saturating the single Gigabit link as it is with the kind of hardware and disks found in there or that you would externally connect. WANT doesn't mean NEED.

And since the thing doesn't have redundant power supplies, I doubt redundant network links would be worth it. If you really need the redundancy, the Mac Mini isn't the product you're looking for.

To be a useful server for handling a home or small business network, it would need to be able to handle DHCP server functions. With out the second RJ-45 port, it is severally handicapped right off the bat.

What ? That doesn't even start making sense. My Ultra 5 has 1 Ethernet port, and it has a fully functionning DHCP server.

[Eidorian]

Yeah, but you'll probably have problems saturating the single Gigabit link as it is with the kind of hardware and disks found in there or that you would externally connect. WANT doesn't mean NEED.

And since the thing doesn't have redundant power supplies, I doubt redundant network links would be worth it. If you really need the redundancy, the Mac Mini isn't the product you're looking for.I apologize. It is NEED.

[Lershac]

I apologize. It is NEED.

How so?

[KnightWRX]

I apologize. It is NEED.

So you need it for what ? Looks ? Because other than that, I don't see you even being able to push Gigabit out from the box or into it. Bonding the links for more speed ? Only on paper yeah... And redundant network links with multi-pathing ? On a server with a single power supply ? Waste of a switch port. :rolleyes:

If you need redundancy, you'll be getting something with hotswap drive bays, hot swap redundant power supplies and proper Ethernet adapters.

If you expect to be saturating a Gigabit network link, you'll be running RAID 1+0 or 0+1 on SAS drives or Fiberchannel to actually be able to get those kind of read and write performances.

For small office/home e-mail or streaming or webserving, 100 mbit is fine, Gigabit is nice to have. Dual gigabit is overkill.

[TuckBodi]

Still $100 to much, needs to be $500 they could sell so many more mac minis if that was the price

Agreed! Apple needs to get these under the magical $500 price point again. Perception is huge and I can't tell you how many friends ask me why Apple doesn't have something under $500 which has been common on other PC makers for some time now.

[aristotle]

It's a product with no target market.
Are you sure about that? The target market would be companies which are mainly PC but want to test their websites on Safari on the mac or companies doing iPhone development who want to have a centralized server for automated iPhone app builds or a number of other uses for smaller companies.

[hprata]

So you need it for what ? Looks ? Because other than that, I don't see you even being able to push Gigabit out from the box or into it. Bonding the links for more speed ? Only on paper yeah... And redundant network links with multi-pathing ? On a server with a single power supply ? Waste of a switch port. :rolleyes:

If you need redundancy, you'll be getting something with hotswap drive bays, hot swap redundant power supplies and proper Ethernet adapters.

If you expect to be saturating a Gigabit network link, you'll be running RAID 1+0 or 0+1 on SAS drives or Fiberchannel to actually be able to get those kind of read and write performances.

For small office/home e-mail or streaming or webserving, 100 mbit is fine, Gigabit is nice to have. Dual gigabit is overkill.

Well put great features and price for specific situations. Welcomed in the hardware line up :)

[TuckBodi]

It's a product with no target market.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I have several small business owner friends who have gone the PC route of setting up small networks in their business and have turned into logistic nightmares where this would fit in perfectly. I thin kthe halo effect is going to hit this segment soon and big. Kudos to Apple for having a product like this.

[hprata]

Agreed! Apple needs to get these under the magical $500 price point again. Perception is huge and I can't tell you how many friends ask me why Apple doesn't have something under $500 which has been common on other PC makers for some time now.

Ask them how they feel about that price when they complain about their PC acting up

[opeter]

Can someone tell me about this: on the Apple site, there is an information about a 2,66 GHz CPU for Mac mini. Is that a BTO option?

[Eidorian]

Ask them how they feel about that price when they complain about their PC acting upMy $287 Inspiron 546s are running great. :confused:

[Lershac]

I will also be watching the refurb/clearance section carefully over the next few days, hopefully they will put the older models on clearance.

[Eric H]

So, we're a small Windows-based company (10 in the office, 3 remote salespeople). I'm a die-hard Mac guy, former editor/animator, but not an IT type. We use MS Dynamics (formerly Great Plains) for our ERP and Act for CRM, with a third party company helping with each. We are seriously considering switching from Windows/Dynamics/Act to Mac and NetSuite.

All that being said, it looks like this Mini Server would be just what we need as any serious number crunching would be done on the cloud. Near as I can tell, all we would need is email hosting, some minor data storage (.docs, .xls, some small (<20MB) database files, etc), and a way to send software updates to the desktops and remote laptops.

Any thoughts on this set-up?

[wizard]

mini server has no optical disk, low end hard disk is too small :mad:
I'm mixed on this. Obviously it won't cut the mustard for a video or iTunes server as the storage is like of puny. If those two drives could be set up in mirroed RAID configuration I could see strong sales to the developer community as a source code control server and other uses. Not everybody needs terabytes of server storage 500 GB is suitable for a number of server uses.

Like you though I'm kinda mad as I was really expecting or I should say wanted a multimedia server. Ideally a device that provided 2TB of RAIDed storage in the base model with expandability. It kinda looks like a cheaper Mini and a Ethernet accesses Drobo is the way to go. I've also flirted with the idea of just getting an XServe.


Dave

[hprata]

My $287 Inspiron 546s are running great. :confused:

You seem to be in the minority every sub $500 PC owner I know is always complaining about stalls crashes and bad performance. I guess I should pose that question to everyone I meet to get an accurate assessment of sub $500 :)

[Eidorian]

You seem to be in the minority every sub $500 PC owner I know is always complaining about stalls crashes and bad performance. I guess I should pose that question to everyone I meet to get an accurate assessment of sub $500 :)I have a bunch of nurses using them as their desktop machines. They're using Internet Explorer 8 too because the government and insurance companies hate everything else. :p

We replaced their Pentium 4 towers with these machines.

[hprata]

I'm mixed on this. Obviously it won't cut the mustard for a video or iTunes server as the storage is like of puny. If those two drives could be set up in mirroed RAID configuration I could see strong sales to the developer community as a source code control server and other uses. Not everybody needs terabytes of server storage 500 GB is suitable for a number of server uses.

Like you though I'm kinda mad as I was really expecting or I should say wanted a multimedia server. Ideally a device that provided 2TB of RAIDed storage in the base model with expandability. It kinda looks like a cheaper Mini and a Ethernet accesses Drobo is the way to go. I've also flirted with the idea of just getting an XServe.


Dave

xServe is best, but you could just get an external FW 800 like OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro Dual RAID

[mdriftmeyer]

and you would have a customer.

I'm not interested in a mini for file serving, but I would have been interested for an affordable GPGPU solution add-on.

[hprata]

I have a bunch of nurses using them as their desktop machines. They're using Internet Explorer 8 too because the government and insurance companies hate everything else. :p

We replaced their Pentium 4 towers with these machines.

Same machine? (Inspiron 546)

[Deanster]

Lots of people talking out their butts about what 'business' needs.

Until recently, I owned a 15-person travel agency (now sold), and was CEO, IT manager, and help desk, along with 1000 or so other job titles. The business sold about $10 million a year in travel - still small-ish, but hardly a trivial business.

Back in 2004, I purchased a dual G5 Xserver to act as the do-everything server for the company. e-mail, website, Filemaker, shared files, backup for critical files on the windows-based desktop machines, etc. All our desktops were Windows-based.

Turned out the Xserver was MASSIVE overkill. Four years in, it rarely passed 20% CPU usage, and the combined system/primary storage was using about 50 gigs on an 80 gig mirrored primary drive.

The reality is that business users often don't really need much storage. e-mail, word/excel docs, etc. aren't big by modern standards. If you're not storing a few dozen ripped DVD's and an immense music and photo library, or working with video in some other way, files tend to be pretty small.

Similarly, the base version with 160gig HD is a natural for running the OS on the primary drive, and using an external array for bulk storage, which is a good way to go in any case. Or add another 160 and mirror. Or put in an SSD. or...

at what works out to $500 for OS X Server, and $500 for a mini-server, it's a heck of a deal, that should be attractive to all kinds of businesses as a primary server, as a backup, as a test or prototype server, to break off something that's currently on an over-used server, etc. Advanced home users will also find work for it...

Long story short, it's a mighty powerful and extremely flexible little unit at a very good price. I don't think they'll sell a bazillion of them, but they should sell a lot.

I remember reading that nearly every cluster of slot machines in Las Vegas has a Mac Mini in the base, acting as a server for the cluster... 1000's and 1000's of them for that use alone...

The REAL question is whether they've fixed the power plug for the Mini, so it doesn't kill the power every time you jostle the damn thing. That alone is darn near a deal-killer for the server role. 8^)

[jjthomps]

So, we're a small Windows-based company (10 in the office, 3 remote salespeople). I'm a die-hard Mac guy, former editor/animator, but not an IT type. We use MS Dynamics (formerly Great Plains) for our ERP and Act for CRM, with a third party company helping with each. We are seriously considering switching from Windows/Dynamics/Act to Mac and NetSuite.

All that being said, it looks like this Mini Server would be just what we need as any serious number crunching would be done on the cloud. Near as I can tell, all we would need is email hosting, some minor data storage (.docs, .xls, some small (<20MB) database files, etc), and a way to send software updates to the desktops and remote laptops.

Any thoughts on this set-up?

We ran the original Great Plains, and instead of upgrading to PC's we went the NetSuite approach. We told them we wanted local consultants to assist since GP was 12+ years old. The transition would be substantial.

We worked with a consultant group, signed the deal, and NetSuite fired them without replacements. We tried to back out, and $8,500 settlement, three flights to San Fran later....we got out of the contract.

We now work with AcctVantage. A Mac "centric" solution that is cross platform.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

This makes me really want a mac mini server. I think that making the mini a server was an exellent idea since so many people are using the mac mini that way already. I've been contemplating buying a mini with an external drive to use as a media server but this makes it much more attractive since I wouldn't have to attach the external drive.

[Kebabselector]

The prices for the non server minis are still a little too high, at least the top spec model actually looks to be worth the difference this time.

It would be nice if they sold the server version without the server OS though or allowed the no DVD/Twin HDD option (not actually checked if they do!)

[Eidorian]

Same machine? (Inspiron 546)I ordered several. Sempron + 780G and it has HDMI out that no one will ever use.

[wizard]

So, we're a small Windows-based company (10 in the office, 3 remote salespeople). I'm a die-hard Mac guy, former editor/animator, but not an IT type. We use MS Dynamics (formerly Great Plains) for our ERP and Act for CRM, with a third party company helping with each. We are seriously considering switching from Windows/Dynamics/Act to Mac and NetSuite.

All that being said, it looks like this Mini Server would be just what we need as any serious number crunching would be done on the cloud. Near as I can tell, all we would need is email hosting, some minor data storage (.docs, .xls, some small (<20MB) database files, etc), and a way to send software updates to the desktops and remote laptops.

Any thoughts on this set-up?

1.
Let Google or another cloud service do the E-Mail server for you. A good part of somebodies wages will go to managing your E-Mail system otherwise.
2.
I don't know enough about this new machine to comment on it directly so take conservative view of the hardware. It might be far cheaper to go to an XServe depening upon exactly what you are looking for.


Some of the problems/advantages associated a Mini as a server:
dis: very difficult to service!
Adv: external power supply that is fast to swap.
Dis: that power supply can come unhooked real easy.
Adv: low power laptop parts.
Dis: lack of dual Ethernet ports ( one to connect to a RAID)
Adv: very compact, you can easily put thousands into a room.
Dis: poor serviceability means having a hot backup is very important.
Adv: should work well in an Apple environment.
Dis: Apples server OS tech has been wanting in the past. SL might have fixed this?
Adv: a well know platform hardware wise
Dis: not many people target the Mac OS Server operating system.
Adv: Build apps in Cocoa
Dis: Apple is slow to adopt the latest open source shells and stuff. Where is Python 3.1 for example.

You can chew on that for awhile. Like all things there are many trade offs. In this case a simpler Mini with an external RAID might make more sense.


Dave

[gavstephenson]

wish they would add HDMI to this

Why would this be a good thing?

(That's a genuine question - I'm thinking of buying a Mini and hooking it up to a TV or a monitor, but I've never owned a TV and don't know the first thing about all this DVI, VGA, HDMI stuff)

[steveh]

Wait, 2.5" server drives?

Why not?

After all, obscure companies like IBM, HP, Sun and so on use 2.5" SATA drives in many of their 1U rackmount servers.

[steveh]

you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

Why the heck not? Lots of small companies use them, or similarly-configured small servers, and they do just fine.

[steveh]

what if the disk fails mid-day?

Ever heard of FireWire? Consider attaching a drive or three set up as a RAID for storage.

People have been doing it for years.

[newfoundglory]

On 7 Oct, i posted this photoshop hack job:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8609339&postcount=855


How freaky is that!!!!

And it gets stranger... turn the $$ into ££ and they are also the correct price too on the UK store!!

[EagerDragon]

WHY? Just put it behind a router and point the router DMZ or port forward what you need!

Thats what most small businesses use anyway.

If you place a server in the DMZ with a single Ethernet interface, then all traffic including administration of the server and connections from the server to the database which is normally in the internal network, they all have to talk via the same ethernet port. This means the same firewall gets involved each time. This reduces security.

Using the second port to talk to/from the internal network preferable over a second (and separate) Firewall, it allows you to manage your servers using the second interface and allow the server to speak with the databases in the internal network without worring about hackers crafting packets with spoofed IP addresses and also simplifies the firewall rules of both firewalls.

Just because a lot of busineses do things in a ceirtain way does not mean they should.

Just to give you an example ..... PCI-DSS regulation for credit cards recommends that all PCI-DSS servers be moved to a separate network with its own firewall in between the PCI-DSS servers and the rest of the internal network. Failure to follow the sugestion, makes the rest of the servers in the internal network also subject to PCI-DSS since they can communicate with the PCI-DSS servers. See https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/pa_dss.shtml

There are many other standards for security and for privacy besides the above. Most large corporations that want no headaches use hosts with two Ethernet interfaces.

[oldwatery]

Overall great news!
The Mini is alive and well :)
Respectable upgrades to the basic machines.
The server is a brilliant move by Apple.
I predict sales will surprise everyone.
A real bargain taking into account the software included.

[JCP21]

mac mini server i might research this a bit more http://tsutton.site90.net/imgs/signature_smiley3.jpg

[pmjoe]

To be a useful server for handling a home or small business network, it would need to be able to handle DHCP server functions. With out the second RJ-45 port, it is severally handicapped right off the bat.
I don't see how a second Ethernet port has anything to do with the mini running a DHCP server. A DHCP server can sit anywhere on the network (but you'd want to make sure you disable whatever one is currently running). If you want to use the mini as some kind of gateway/firewall between a home/business intranet and the Internet, it's probably more secure to use whatever router/gateway/firewall box you're currently using and just DMZ the server ports you want to open to the world.
The second issue I am worried about is, is this a full OSX 10.6 server system or a slimed down version? Can I use it to host a in home FTP server and be able to access it over the internet if I got it a real world IP address for it?
It's a full version of OS X Server. FTP is inherently insecure, I'd never put a FTP server where people could access it on the Internet anymore, unless I didn't care about the data there and the accounts were separate ids/passwords from other meaningful accounts.

[pmjoe]

Can someone tell me about this: on the Apple site, there is an information about a 2,66 GHz CPU for Mac mini. Is that a BTO option?
Yes. You can select 2.66 GHz under the higher-end non-server model.

[MorphingDragon]

My $287 Inspiron 546s are running great. :confused:

Eidorian, we're a special breed called a computer pixie. :rolleyes:

I can even make Linux magically work.

[profets]

Ever heard of FireWire? Consider attaching a drive or three set up as a RAID for storage.

People have been doing it for years.

well, its not an issue if the new mini server has 2 drives. but i was talking about the old mini, and what to do if the disk dies. i've never used a mini before. can a drive plugged in with firewire be setup in raid with the internal disk through software?

[mytdave]

I'm mixed on this. Obviously it won't cut the mustard for a video or iTunes server as the storage is like of puny. If those two drives could be set up in mirroed RAID configuration I could see strong sales to the developer community as a source code control server and other uses. Not everybody needs terabytes of server storage 500 GB is suitable for a number of server uses.

Like you though I'm kinda mad as I was really expecting or I should say wanted a multimedia server. Ideally a device that provided 2TB of RAIDed storage in the base model with expandability. It kinda looks like a cheaper Mini and a Ethernet accesses Drobo is the way to go. I've also flirted with the idea of just getting an XServe.


Dave

Actually it does cut the mustard for a video/iTunes server. I'm doing that very thing with an older mini w/1TB external drive. Works great. This new mini server has two 500GB drives - which you can stripe RAID 0 for a 1TB volume. More than enough for most people. If you are really space hungry, add an external drive, or if you want to keep the itty-bitty form factor, plunk down some cash for two 1TB 2.5" drives from WD and swap out the drives in the mini server... you can then RAID those into a 2TB volume.

[aafuss1]

The new server config will be great for those co-located type installations.

[CrunchyPickle]

the server is not nearly as robust as the new Hp Smart Server. I was avoiding the hp as I wanted a complete mac environment. But I may have to press the button.

I always wanted the mini as a HTPC. But I'm not seeing much difference between the previous version and this one that makes a big difference playing media.

[sirozha]

I haven't looked, is there a mini Display port to HDMI cable...maybe ?
Or they are expecting you to use the DVI cable, then a DVI to HDMI cable and use the mini TOS for audio.

Monoprice has a product that does the job of combining the mini display port with USB audio into HDMI:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5969&seq=1&format=2

I personally purchased it a few days ago and watched a few HD shows purchased via iTunes and streamed from a Macbook Pro. The quality is perfect, and the sound is great. But I use the amplifier built into my TV with external stereo speakers by Polk Audio.

For those who have a 5.1 setup, you can use the Kanex adapter (twice as expensive) that combines mini display port with either USB audio (for stereo output) or TOS (for 5.1) into HDMI:
http://kanexlive.com/products/item.aspx?id=3495

[calderone]

Actually it does cut the mustard for a video/iTunes server. I'm doing that very thing with an older mini w/1TB external drive. Works great. This new mini server has two 500GB drives - which you can stripe RAID 0 for a 1TB volume. More than enough for most people. If you are really space hungry, add an external drive, or if you want to keep the itty-bitty form factor, plunk down some cash for two 1TB 2.5" drives from WD and swap out the drives in the mini server... you can then RAID those into a 2TB volume.

Let me ask you a question.

I just got off the phone with Apple. They are going to let me return my current Mini, well past the 14 days thanks Apple!

I was set to go with the 2.66 model as: I already have an OCZ SSD for my server (assuming single drive) and a copy of SL Server.

Even with EDU, that puts me very close to the new dual HD model. I am on the fence on which one to order now.

Hmm... I think I will just go with the 2.66 model. I already have SL Server, a fast HDD and no need for a dual drive Mini as I have robust network storage. I would probably just pull the 500GB drives out and put something faster in anyway.

Looks like I have made up my mind.

[mosa]

On a different topic...

I've been wanting a Mac mini for a long time but am I wrong in thinking that the new low end iMac is a much better value than a Mac mini almost maxed out? With the iMac I get a Magic Mouse, better processor, and a screen for less than $200 more. Here is my Mac mini configuation:

2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
320GB Serial ATA Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Wireless Keyboard
User's Guide (English)
iWork '09 preinstalled
Apple Remote

For $1086. The Low end iMac + iWork and remote is $1267. If I match the hard drive and add the mouse the Mac mini is like $50 less and still totally inferior.

[mytdave]

Why would this be a good thing?

(That's a genuine question - I'm thinking of buying a Mini and hooking it up to a TV or a monitor, but I've never owned a TV and don't know the first thing about all this DVI, VGA, HDMI stuff)

Hooking a Mac mini up to a TV rocks! That's what I did. If you're going to connected one to a TV, I would suggest the regular model, not the server model. You are going to want the DVD drive so you can slip in a rented movie or things like that.

HDTVs have many inputs. The most common now is "HDMI". Many also have RGB, DVI, and VGA inputs in addition to or instead of HDMI. I prefer DVI myself, but HDMI is, well, similar in signaling (except w/audio), and just a different connector.

Apple is moving all of their computers to the new DisplayPort standard (and there are very very good reasons for doing so). Just get yourself a mini display port to HDMI adapter, and you're good to go. Here's one:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311&seq=1&format=2

[space1nvaders]

ok, so even this new one, $1000, you get 2x 2.5" 500gig, 5400rpm disks with no expansion options... dont you think for the money you could get much better disks or solutions for the price?

I agree. This is the only thing that bugs me. I want 7200 RPM or maybe even an SSD boot and 500 GB 7200 data drive. Plug it into backup storage and that will do for me. If RAID is serious then for $799 they have that RAID 5 box which is better than slow internal hard drives.

Leopard Server justifies the price but I don't need Leopard Server on every one I buy - just the main. I run Citrix on Mac Mini and all that needs is a basic Mini with 4GB and would be nice to have SSD (way faster windows).

[cis4life]

can someone answer this question for me...

First let me tell you all what I'm looking for. I'm a developer that recently started working with the iphone / ipod touch SDK to develop an application. I have a little money for startup and looking for a nice little dev box / server where I can load the SDK and develop with XCode. I'm assembling a small team and would like it if I can do some small server functions with it such as email and collborative things and such.

I saw the new mac mini with SL Server on it and im excited but need to know...

1.) can I load regular mac software on SL Server edition? Like can I load XCode and Interface builder and my Adobe stuff to it and run it like it was a regular mac mini?

2.) is there a way to RDP (remote desktop) the mini server from a Windows PC. Like a remote desktop app. I know I read about VNC, and if thats my option, is VNC slow compared to remote desktop?

Thanks for any info I can get on these questions...

[mosa]

That is exactly what I want to do. I have a Samsung 46" HDTV 650 series which I occasionally connect my powerbook to for music or movies. However can you justify the price of a Mac mini for this setup when the iMac appears to be a much better value and performance?

[Lershac]

Most large corporations that want no headaches use hosts with two Ethernet interfaces.

And what large corporation is this targetted to?

this thing is fine for most 1-50 (or even more) user setups. email, some file hosting, etc.

sheesh some people want to poke holes in everything

[calderone]

can someone answer this question for me...

First let me tell you all what I'm looking for. I'm a developer that recently started working with the iphone / ipod touch SDK to develop an application. I have a little money for startup and looking for a nice little dev box / server where I can load the SDK and develop with XCode. I'm assembling a small team and would like it if I can do some small server functions with it such as email and collborative things and such.

I saw the new mac mini with SL Server on it and im excited but need to know...

1.) can I load regular mac software on SL Server edition? Like can I load XCode and Interface builder and my Adobe stuff to it and run it like it was a regular mac mini?

2.) is there a way to RDP (remote desktop) the mini server from a Windows PC. Like a remote desktop app. I know I read about VNC, and if thats my option, is VNC slow compared to remote desktop?

Thanks for any info I can get on these questions...

1) Yes you can. There is a nice set of features in SL Server for collaboration, file services, mail, calendaring, address book, etc.

2) VNC is indeed what you will have to use. Speed boils down to what client you use in Windows. UltraVNC, RealVNC, TightVNC, etc etc. My department uses Tight VNC and it works alright for what we do, support calls.

It sounds like you would be using it extensively for coding. I can't imagine that would be very comfortable in any VNC client on Windows.

It is doable though.

[Lershac]

If you place a server in the DMZ with a single Ethernet interface, then all traffic including administration of the server and connections from the server to the database which is normally in the internal network, they all have to talk via the same ethernet port. This means the same firewall gets involved each time. This reduces security.


No it does not. The only time the firewall gets involved is when the server is accessed via the external IP that is associated with that DMZ.

Only external coming in traffic is routed through the firewall for the DMZ host.

[mytdave]

Monoprice has a product that does the job of combining the mini display port with USB audio into HDMI:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5969&seq=1&format=2

I personally purchased it a few days ago and watched a few HD shows purchased via iTunes and streamed from a Macbook Pro. The quality is perfect, and the sound is great. But I use the amplifier built into my TV with external stereo speakers by Polk Audio.

For those who have a 5.1 setup, you can use the Kanex adapter (twice as expensive) that combines mini display port with either USB audio (for stereo output) or TOS (for 5.1) into HDMI:
http://kanexlive.com/products/item.aspx?id=3495

That's cool to learn about those products (thanks for the links), although for me, and I would think most folks (or maybe I'm wrong), why bother with audio over HDMI? I run DVI to the TV, and TOS to the 5.1 receiver. The TV is just a big monitor. No audio going there... in-TV sound processing, amplifiers and speakers are very low quality.

[MarkHarrisonUK]

Would I use it as a firewall if it had two ethernet ports?

Nope - I'd still use a router or a REAL FIREWALL depending on the client and the requirement.

I've run sites that have had a pair of Checkpoint Firewalls, behind which were the webheads, behind which were a pair of Cisco firewalls (deliberately so if there WERE a Checkpoint exploit, it couldn't be used a second time if the webheads were compromised), behind which were the application servers, behind which was another firewall (Checkpoint, from memory, but completely separate), behind which was the database server...

No amount of dual-ethernetting, non-hardended OS is going to give you THAT :-)

But that's not the point - the IT market ecosystem is rich and complex, and the question for ME is "would I use it for my clients", which is to say, is there a market for the server version of the Mac Mini?

Maybe.. time will tell. Maybe it'll languish on the "unsold", but I'm willing to wager that Apple's inventory control is good enough to allow them to work that out once people buy (or don't.) In the meantime, its very existence gives more options :-)

I have a software development client who runs a Mac Mini 2007 as their file server, with a Drobo attached, for a small business half a dozen users. Their email is all cloud based, and they use Ubuntu for their web server... and a mix of Macs, Windows, and Linux boxes on their programmers' desktops... Their idea of a sensible upgrade would be a Droboshare :-)

... I'd be willing to wager that no-one ever predicted that a Mac Mini 2007 with a Drobo would ever have a niche as an SME server :-)

[KnightWRX]

This new mini server has two 500GB drives - which you can stripe RAID 0 for a 1TB volume.

:eek:

Twice the chance of catastrophic failure. I hope that data isn't important.

[MorphingDragon]

:eek:

Twice the chance of catastrophic failure. I hope that data isn't important.

Raid5 is the best thing ever invented.

[KnightWRX]

If you place a server in the DMZ with a single Ethernet interface, then all traffic including administration of the server and connections from the server to the database which is normally in the internal network, they all have to talk via the same ethernet port. This means the same firewall gets involved each time. This reduces security.

Using the second port to talk to/from the internal network preferable over a second (and separate) Firewall, it allows you to manage your servers using the second interface and allow the server to speak with the databases in the internal network without worring about hackers crafting packets with spoofed IP addresses and also simplifies the firewall rules of both firewalls.


We're talking small business. And bridging over 2 networks on a server is ludicrous as far as security goes. :rolleyes: If your server gets owned, the attacker now has open doors on both sides.

1 Ethernet port is all you need unless you're going to use it as an Internet gateway/NAT box. And if you're going to do that, why the heck are you buying a Mac Mini ?

Raid5 is the best thing ever invented.

RAID5 is just awful, both from a performance and robustness stand point. RAID6 is a big patch, throwing in a second parity disk doesn't quite fix the problem with RAID5.

RAID 1+0 is the most resilient and still offers pretty good performance with the right hardware (stripped mirrors).

[aaarrrgggh]

Hmm, put it on the internal network with a router with DHCP turned off, tell the router to point its DMZ function to the server address. Poof.

Most servers benefit from two NICs; Firewalls ideally have 3. iSCSI is the obvious thing you NEED a second port for, but having separate DMZ and LAN ports is nice even if you have a firewall upstream. We keep server to server traffic for management and rsync on separate networks for fine-grained ups, wake-on-LAN, and SSH logins.

[gavstephenson]

Hooking a Mac mini up to a TV rocks! That's what I did. If you're going to connected one to a TV, I would suggest the regular model, not the server model. You are going to want the DVD drive so you can slip in a rented movie or things like that.

HDTVs have many inputs. The most common now is "HDMI". Many also have RGB, DVI, and VGA inputs in addition to or instead of HDMI. I prefer DVI myself, but HDMI is, well, similar in signaling (except w/audio), and just a different connector.

Apple is moving all of their computers to the new DisplayPort standard (and there are very very good reasons for doing so). Just get yourself a mini display port to HDMI adapter, and you're good to go. Here's one:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311&seq=1&format=2

Very kind of you to explain. Thanks!

[KnightWRX]

Most servers benefit from two NICs; Firewalls ideally have 3. iSCSI is the obvious thing you NEED a second port for, but having separate DMZ and LAN ports is nice even if you have a firewall upstream. We keep server to server traffic for management and rsync on separate networks for fine-grained ups, wake-on-LAN, and SSH logins.

Way to expose your internal network to an attacker coming into a DMZ service. And seriously, the "DMZ" function on most routers is just awful. You should never, ever turn that on for anything. Do port forwardings to a dedicated segment. The firewall should filter external traffic coming in, and traffic going back to the Intranet. Then you have a proper DMZ. Only the select few services you want to expose should be open to the outside.

iSCSI is the only reason to have a dedicated nic. But this is a Mini and it has a FW800 port. Best just connect your external storage to the FW.

The Drobo pro features FW800. This makes a perfect external storage array for this Mac Mini.

[ticklemonster]

I am very surprised that the Mac OS X Server mini exists…

[EagerDragon]

On a different topic...

I've been wanting a Mac mini for a long time but am I wrong in thinking that the new low end iMac is a much better value than a Mac mini almost maxed out? With the iMac I get a Magic Mouse, better processor, and a screen for less than $200 more. Here is my Mac mini configuation:

2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
320GB Serial ATA Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Wireless Keyboard
User's Guide (English)
iWork '09 preinstalled
Apple Remote

For $1086. The Low end iMac + iWork and remote is $1267. If I match the hard drive and add the mouse the Mac mini is like $50 less and still totally inferior.

Yes the iMac would be a better value and you can use your current monitor as a second monitor for the iMac or pass it down to a friend.

However a lot of people here do not like computers with a built-in monitor and do not want to pay for a monitor every time they change systems. But it seems you do not care about that so have fun with the iMac, I think it is a great machine.

[calderone]

I am very surprised that the Mac OS X Server mini exists…

It's just a Mac Mini with a new lid, optical removed and a hard drive put in it's place. And they bundle it with OS X Server. It's not exactly revolutionary.

[smilinmonki666]

I think only a few people agree with me so far, the mac mini is aimed at:

Home Networks
Small/ Medium Business's


I think this is a perfect platform. OS X Server is by far the easiest. I know someone who is windows certified to the highest level plus more & installed os x server edition for a client for the first time time... guess what...

He installed it, & within 1 hour, 16 client iMacs were set up, ready, all roaming profiles worked... He said in his 30 years of it consultancy & networking jobs he has !!NEVER!! seen this. "It takes time with a windows set up, even for a 3 client/ 1 Server setup" he said.

I say, small/ medium business/ start up business
+ small budget
+ low loss of work
+ Time Machine
+ iPhone sync via cable or over air
+ simple to use web server/ email server
+ LOSS of time spent on problems
+ low running costs
+ SOMETHING LIKE THE DROBO FOR EXT STORAGE VIA ETH or FW or USB
+ small machine which can be hidden
+ Snow Leopard OS X
+ £799* (UK) / $999* (US) for all the above

= a winning effort.

A applaude Apple. They may have a large cost on the machine for some, but for the above... this is cheap. I was going to go with a mac mini for when I start up my business, now I'm going just get this.

It's Awesome!... but then thats just my views & thoughts...

[Le Big Mac]

But for a home user its nearly useless with only one network port. You need two ports. One for the external network (internet connection), and one port for the internal network (home router).

Why would you not just plug it into your router or switch? It doesn't function as the router itself. Use TC/AEBS or 3d party for that.

[aaarrrgggh]

Way to expose your internal network to an attacker coming into a DMZ service.

iSCSI is the only reason to have a dedicated nic. But this is a Mini and it has a FW800 port. Best just connect your external storage to the FW.

The Drobo pro features FW800. This makes a perfect external storage array for this Mac Mini.

I shouldn't have called it a dmz; it is really a fully isolated network in our setup, but multiple-level dmz systems (such as others have pointed out are required for credit card processing) aren't uncommon. Would also let the server manage VPN.

iSCSI is the only thing that really needs two ports (running off a USB dongle is idiotic), but many other systems become more complicated from a security perspective with just one.

[EagerDragon]

We're talking small business. And bridging over 2 networks on a server is ludicrous as far as security goes. :rolleyes: If your server gets owned, the attacker now has open doors on both sides.

If the server gets pwned, it does not mater if you have 1 or twelve Ethernet ports. He can use 1 as well as two.

Besides one does not use single layers of security and network security is the least effective form of security anyway.

You working on your CISA and CISSP I assume?

[Eric H]

We now work with AcctVantage. A Mac "centric" solution that is cross platform.

Would love to hear your impressions of AcctVantage. I glanced at it and it looks interesting, although the "cloud" and webstore integration with NetSuite are big draws for me.

Not sure how to PM someone on this forum...? Any way to contact you otherwise, jjthomps?

[mytdave]

Let me ask you a question.

I just got off the phone with Apple. They are going to let me return my current Mini, well past the 14 days thanks Apple!

I was set to go with the 2.66 model as: I already have an OCZ SSD for my server (assuming single drive) and a copy of SL Server.

Even with EDU, that puts me very close to the new dual HD model. I am on the fence on which one to order now.

Hmm... I think I will just go with the 2.66 model. I already have SL Server, a fast HDD and no need for a dual drive Mini as I have robust network storage. I would probably just pull the 500GB drives out and put something faster in anyway.

Looks like I have made up my mind.

Rock on! :D

[calderone]

Way to expose your internal network to an attacker coming into a DMZ service. And seriously, the "DMZ" function on most routers is just awful. You should never, ever turn that on for anything. Do port forwardings to a dedicated segment. The firewall should filter external traffic coming in, and traffic going back to the Intranet. Then you have a proper DMZ. Only the select few services you want to expose should be open to the outside.

iSCSI is the only reason to have a dedicated nic. But this is a Mini and it has a FW800 port. Best just connect your external storage to the FW.

The Drobo pro features FW800. This makes a perfect external storage array for this Mac Mini.

You can put the DroboPro on a gigabit switch, which is faster in my tests. I prefer doing that over Firewire. Sure, I don't think there is any real performance hit. That said, a second NIC would have been nice.

The lack of a second NIC will probably make me go with a regular Mini since I already have a MOSXS license.

Rock on! :D

Not much of a question huh! :D

If only Apple had released this before I picked up MOSXS... A second NIC would have sold me already!

[KnightWRX]

If the server gets pwned, it does not mater if you have 1 or twelve Ethernet ports. He can use 1 as well as two.

Besides one does not use single layers of security and network security is the least effective form of security anyway.

You working on your CISA and CISSP I assume?

No, I'm a Unix sysadmin for 1100 server shop. With an extensive and segmented DMZ.

I stopped the certification game about 10 years ago.

[mytdave]

:eek:

Twice the chance of catastrophic failure. I hope that data isn't important.

RAID 0 is very, very common, especially in installs where maximum performance is required, and it's done in arrays with dozens of drives. That's why you have a separate drive/tape/etc. for BACKUP. :eek:

[KnightWRX]

RAID 0 is very, very common, especially in installs where maximum performance is required, and it's done in arrays with dozens of drives. That's why you have a separate drive/tape/etc. for BACKUP. :eek:

Dozens of drives ? Dozens more chances of catastrophic failure :eek:. You do understand that in a RAID 0 setup, losing 1 drive means losing the entire array right ? The more drives, the less robust.

RAID 1+0. All the performance over dedicated controllers (you are using redundant controllers for each side of the mirrors right ?), much more resilient.

And mirrors is a high availability solution, not a backup solution. You should never think of RAID as a replacement for proper backups.

[MorphingDragon]

No, I'm a Unix sysadmin for 1100 server shop. With an extensive and segmented DMZ.

I stopped the certification game about 10 years ago.

I never played the certification game yet I run an entire Law Firm. :D

[kingtj]

EG. I work for a steel fabrication firm with about 50 employees who have computers on our network (plus a few laptops out there).

We're mostly running Windows XP workstations and Windows 2003 servers, but there are times when we just need a small system to work as a server for a specific task. Right now, I've got an old rack-mounted Pentium III class system that was a file server, once upon a time, but as technology moved on - it was put aside. Since it still worked fine though, I put Linux on it and turned it into a web proxy and site filtering server. That's pretty much all it can handle, given its limited drive space and slow processor -- but it does the job.

If it finally dies though, I'd have to buy something to replace it. A Mac Mini server would certainly be a viable option. A big plus, at least in theory, would be ease-of-use in administering it too. Right now, if I quit working here, I'm pretty sure nobody else would have much of a clue how the Linux machine works - and might well end up pulling it out rather than spending time figuring it out. OS X Server should be a lot more user-friendly (although granted, not sure it'd do much in the way of site filtering without resorting to command-line Unix type products on it again?).


you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?

[manu chao]

The whole concept of the iMac is ANTI-GREEN since they are ultimately disposable and non-upgradeable and the screens are useless once the machine is outdated, meaning short life-spans.

Except naturally that with these new iMacs you can use them as an external screen.

[celticpride678]

I think the server option is the smartest thing Apple did today. It makes servers more affordable for consumers and it still has the compact design.

[calderone]

Dozens of drives ? Dozens more chances of catastrophic failure :eek:. You do understand that in a RAID 0 setup, losing 1 drive means losing the entire array right ? The more drives, the less robust.

RAID 1+0. All the performance over dedicated controllers (you are using redundant controllers for each side of the mirrors right ?), much more resilient.

And mirrors is a high availability solution, not a backup solution. You should never think of RAID as a replacement for proper backups.

If you are careful with your data, it really isn't a big deal.

For example, let's say I am a photographer. I pop the card into my reader, transfer my RAW files to my safe storage, say a Drobo. I have now backed up my originals and they will be burned to DVD later.

I now import these RAW files into Aperture. My Aperture library is stored on the local machine with the RAID array. It is backed up daily to my safe storage.

I work on my RAW files, and save some out as JPG. They can be saved to RAID and moved, or I can just export them out to my safe storage.

I am getting speed out of my RAID by working with the files locally, but I have them backed up on my safe storage.

Same can be applied to video. If I lost anything, it would be work, not data.

I think the server option is the smartest thing Apple did today. It makes servers more affordable for consumers and it still has the compact design.

I think Apple just realized that people were already doing it with the Mini. My only criticism is why limit it to the one designated as "server?" They should offer it BTO on the other Mac Mini's as well.

[EagerDragon]

No, I'm a Unix sysadmin for 1100 server shop. With an extensive and segmented DMZ.

I stopped the certification game about 10 years ago.

When the only tool at hand is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Kidding!!!!

You should go back to the certifications, if you let them expire and then need to find a new job, it is a bitch to get hired caused everyone else has them.

Maybe you should consider getting them back, you have a good head on your shoulder so getting them should not be an issue.

[flapjackspeeder]

Did anyone notice the tech specs page for the mini says "2.26GHz, 2.53GHz, or 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor"?

I can't find the 2.66 GHz option anywhere though! :confused:

[kingtj]

Eric, have you looked at the OS X product called Daylite Contact Manager?

http://marketcircle.com/daylite/

They even offer a service of migrating your existing ACT! data into their product.



So, we're a small Windows-based company (10 in the office, 3 remote salespeople). I'm a die-hard Mac guy, former editor/animator, but not an IT type. We use MS Dynamics (formerly Great Plains) for our ERP and Act for CRM, with a third party company helping with each. We are seriously considering switching from Windows/Dynamics/Act to Mac and NetSuite.

All that being said, it looks like this Mini Server would be just what we need as any serious number crunching would be done on the cloud. Near as I can tell, all we would need is email hosting, some minor data storage (.docs, .xls, some small (<20MB) database files, etc), and a way to send software updates to the desktops and remote laptops.

Any thoughts on this set-up?

[Yvan256]

Which means the CinnaMount mini USB Edition is still up-to-date. :cool:

[Yvan256]

Except naturally that with these new iMacs you can use them as an external screen.

Only with the 27", it seems.

[fungus]

:eek:

Twice the chance of catastrophic failure. I hope that data isn't important.

RAID 0 has a purpose separate from data redundancy. Why do you assume someone who uses it will not backup their data to another drive?

[pmjoe]

Did anyone notice the tech specs page for the mini says "2.26GHz, 2.53GHz, or 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor"?

I can't find the 2.66 GHz option anywhere though! :confused:
It's right there under "Processor" on the "2.53GHz : 320GB" model.

2.66 GHz isn't available on the other models though. So you have to get it with 4GB RAM and min 320 GB drive, and it is not available with the server model.

[MacFanUK]

I think the Mini server is a great idea, but I do think they should've kept the optical drive. I think if I went down the server route (currently toying with the idea), I would go for the 2.53GHz Mini and use external drives.

[Lershac]

When the only tool at hand is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Kidding!!!!

You should go back to the certifications, if you let them expire and then need to find a new job, it is a bitch to get hired caused everyone else has them.

Maybe you should consider getting them back, you have a good head on your shoulder so getting them should not be an issue.

certifications are qualifiers only when the one hiring does not know his subject material. And then they are of dubious value. I have known plenty of well certified kids I would not let near my network with administrator credentials. I have also known plenty of well certified individuals who were worth their weight in gold. I don't rely on them. I have also known plenty of non-certified administrators who were also worth their weight in gold. Take certifications with a grain of salt. If I were at the point in my career where certifications could help, I would only take them if my company paid for them. They never got me in a door or a leg up in an interview. Its all about who you know and what your experience is. If you are just getting into the game, certifications are fine, but do not rely on them to move your career along, expand your people skills and network.

[pmjoe]

I just wanted a new Mac mini ... now I have to decide if I want to mess with the server option. Could be fun though. Decisions, decisions ... :rolleyes:

Of course then you'd have to think about getting an external $99 SuperDrive if you wanted to do a fresh OS install. And then there's the $499 to upgrade when the next version of OS X Server comes out.

Apple just needs to stick this motherboard in a slightly larger case so I can use two 3.5" drives (of my choice) with a built in SuperDrive. Isn't the point of RAID mirroring that it's easier to recover from a failure? Who wants to tear apart a mini to replace a drive?

[z4n3]

K, folks, think about it. This new mini server is a steal. Look, it comes with the unlimited version of MacOS X Server which would be $999 by itself! So... you're getting Snow Leopard Server and a "FREE" computer. What's to complain about?

Is it an Xserve? No. It's not meant to be. It's a great small business/home server. Two 2.5" 500GB drives are just fine. BTW - most major server products are migrating to 2.5" drives. And, in case you haven't figured this out... all Macs support software RAID 1/0. So, set up your two disks for a fast 1TB volume, or a mirrored 500GB set for redundancy. And/or connect an external 500GB-1TB hard drive via FW800 for Time Machine backup, and you're set 5 ways 'til Sunday. This is a great server for small specialized purposes.

Could Apple do more with this box? Sure. Hopefully they will in a future release. eSATA would be a good feature to add to a server appliance. But for now, this is still a killer package. Count me in - I'm starting to save up pennies at this moment.


Agree with you, but they have dropped the price of OSX Server to 499 unlimited license some time ago :D

[labrats5]

Everyone who says the mac mini server is overpriced has literally no idea what they are talking about. It is insanely cheap. Look at this:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=becwar2&c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&kc=rec_server_networksol

This is Dell's starter server for small business. It comes with a Microsoft server license. The mac mini either matches or beats it in virtually every spec. It's core 2 duo trounces the pentium, it has faster RAM, and twice as much disk space. It does all this while being WAAAAY more power efficient and compact, and costing hundred less.

Wow.

Yes, this product isn't perfect. There are currently 4 main problems with it:

1) drive speeds. It needs to have 7200rpm drives as the default. It really matters in servers

2) Ease of entry. This has always been a problem with mac minis, but it matters a lot more when dealing with people who actually upgrade their product periodically.

3) support for 4gb RAM DIMMS. They are expensive as hell right now, but in 2 years people will want to upgrade to them.

4) Network expansion. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. Just an expresscard slot should suffice for people who need that extra ethernet or esata port.

There are a few people for whom these issues might be deal-breakers, but for everyone else, this is a flawed but incredibly well priced entry server. This is probably the ideal server right now for mixed PC and Mac businesses with 25 or fewer employees.

[z4n3]

can someone answer this question for me...

First let me tell you all what I'm looking for. I'm a developer that recently started working with the iphone / ipod touch SDK to develop an application. I have a little money for startup and looking for a nice little dev box / server where I can load the SDK and develop with XCode. I'm assembling a small team and would like it if I can do some small server functions with it such as email and collborative things and such.

I saw the new mac mini with SL Server on it and im excited but need to know...

1.) can I load regular mac software on SL Server edition? Like can I load XCode and Interface builder and my Adobe stuff to it and run it like it was a regular mac mini?

2.) is there a way to RDP (remote desktop) the mini server from a Windows PC. Like a remote desktop app. I know I read about VNC, and if thats my option, is VNC slow compared to remote desktop?

Thanks for any info I can get on these questions...


The only program you cannot get to work on SL Server is Front-row :rolleyes:

[mytdave]

Dozens of drives ? Dozens more chances of catastrophic failure :eek:. You do understand that in a RAID 0 setup, losing 1 drive means losing the entire array right ? The more drives, the less robust.

RAID 1+0. All the performance over dedicated controllers (you are using redundant controllers for each side of the mirrors right ?), much more resilient.

And mirrors is a high availability solution, not a backup solution. You should never think of RAID as a replacement for proper backups.

Yup, lose one drive and you're toast. But that's the price of speed. That's what backups are for.

Xserve RAID (x2): Chassis 1: 14 drives, 2 controllers @ 2Gb, RAID 0 entire set @ 4Gb/s. Chassis 2: Mirror of Chassis 1. Classic RAID 0+1 (not RAID 1+0). Fast. In this case we can lose a bunch of drives in either chassis, but not both or we're toast. That's why we back up the whole darn thing.

[pmjoe]

The only program you cannot get to work on SL Server is Front-row :rolleyes:
Well, there goes the idea of making it the Mac I hook up to the TV. ;)

[mytdave]

I think the Mini server is a great idea, but I do think they should've kept the optical drive. I think if I went down the server route (currently toying with the idea), I would go for the 2.53GHz Mini and use external drives.

I went that route. The external drives option is more expensive. Of course this new server didn't exist when I bought.

If you need an optical drive, you can use MacOS's optical drive sharing feature, or you can buy the external SuperDrive (CD/DVD drive). The mini server w/external CD/DVD is cheaper than buying a regular mini, OSX server, and 2 external hard drives. Just food for thought.

[z4n3]

Everyone who says the mac mini server is overpriced has literally no idea what they are talking about. It is insanely cheap. Look at this:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=becwar2&c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&kc=rec_server_networksol

This is Dell's starter server for small business. It comes with a Microsoft server license. The mac mini either matches or beats it in virtually every spec. It's core 2 duo trounces the pentium, it has faster RAM, and twice as much disk space. It does all this while being WAAAAY more power efficient and compact, and costing hundred less.

Wow.

Yes, this product isn't perfect. There are currently 4 main problems with it:

1) drive speeds. It needs to have 7200rpm drives as the default. It really matters in servers

2) Ease of entry. This has always been a problem with mac minis, but it matters a lot more when dealing with people who actually upgrade their product periodically.

3) support for 4gb RAM DIMMS. They are expensive as hell right now, but in 2 years people will want to upgrade to them.

4) Network expansion. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. Just an expresscard slot should suffice for people who need that extra ethernet or esata port.

There are a few people for whom these issues might be deal-breakers, but for everyone else, this is a flawed but incredibly well priced entry server. This is probably the ideal server right now for mixed PC and Mac businesses with 25 or fewer employees.


AGREE COMPLETELY! at last someone with logic :D most people here have never entered a server room before! Apple are going after the small business market with this one!

Things to take into account with this

Lower power consumption in the actual equipment and doing away with having air conditioning 24/7 (leave your air conditioning on 24/7 for a month and you will know the extra costs servers have) :D

Western Digital have faster 2.5 disks if speed & space is a issue

FW800 for all your RAID needs (enough said) :D

SL Server UNLIMITED (499 value)

No DVD (since when does a server need this?)

This is a HUGE move on Apples part, and personally think it is perfect, people will always pick faults, but the fact remains that this is GREAT value and could help many small businesses obtain and maintain a server at a MUCH lower cost.

Any IT department that buys these with a serious business use, would buy faster drives and pop the MacMinis drives into other equipments in the department. and 5400rpm for MOST users is more than enough, faster is better granted

example : The only Apple program that gives errors at this speed is FCS. so people should take into account this is for SMALL businesses working with Keynotes, Excel, Word etc. not 3D studios and FX houses :D

I know companies spending a small fortune maintaing old HP ProLiant ML350 G3 with 200+ users

GOOD JOB APPLE!!!!! :apple:

P.S. Great move to get GREENPEACE of your backs :p

[deconstruct60]

If you place a server in the DMZ with a single Ethernet interface, then all traffic including administration of the server and connections from the server to the database which is normally in the internal network, they all have to talk via the same ethernet port. This means the same firewall gets involved each time. This reduces security.


Not necessarily.
i. that router and DMZ can be to/from an internal network, not the external one. At some point going to have to cross from your first layer of firewalls to the second.

ii. The admin traffic can be run through ssh. Which defacto gets you a distinct network.


I not sure how you enhance security by having the server straddle two firewalled networks. If you root compromise that one server you busted through on both networks. If you want to audit/monitor what packets are crossing security boundaries it would be easier if that only happened at firewalls. .... not firewalls and potentially another set of servers.

I can see a separate admin network for redundant failure reachability. Your point of not putting mulitple functions/capabilities (dual firewall duties) runs counter to having servers straddle networks.


Using the second port to talk to/from the internal network preferable over a second (and separate) Firewall, it allows you to manage your servers using the second interface and allow the server to speak with the databases in the internal network without worring about hackers crafting packets with spoofed IP addresses and also simplifies the firewall rules of both firewalls.


Two ports to talk to two mostly trusted internal networks ( admin network , data sensitive internal ) I get. As pointed above seperating the firewalls and placing the second "inside" the mini server... don't get the point. Similarily for some rundundant/secure lights out admin network. If is a home or small office... get up and walk down to the mini. Sneakernet is your separate secondary network. (or USB dongle as folks have pointed out... there is no hefty "speed" problems on the typical admin network. )


[ I realize some folks are trying to it with the minimum amount of hardware. Take the mini and make it do everything.
i. time capsule,
ii. newtwork serving : firewall, DHCP, routing
iii. file/mail/calendar/streaming/etc.
iv. kitchen sink of whatever else.

But the two replies illustrated separating out ii.

If you later need to scale your architecture having the firewall(s) internal to a server that is
playing another role will be a problem. ]


Just to give you an example ..... PCI-DSS regulation for credit cards recommends that all PCI-DSS servers be moved to a separate network with its own firewall in between the PCI-DSS servers and the rest of the internal network.


And going in and dropping the server onto both networks with two interfaces is in compilance. Really???? If go to the point of putting something behind a firewall... you don't go back and hook it to the network on the OTHER side of the firewall!!! That is not buying you more security [ unless have split the server virtually so the ethernet ports are separated by secure virtual mechanisms. ]



There are many other standards for security and for privacy besides the above. Most large corporations that want no headaches use hosts with two Ethernet interfaces.

Most large corporations have uptime and redundancy requirements. May also be running multiple VMs to separate networks. Each VM could get its own ethernet.

But not primarily talking about large corps with Mini Server. Apple didn't announce was discontinuing the XServe box with these new Servers. However, has a couple of folks have pointed out, a XServe can be gross overkill for many small businesses and the vast majority of homes.

[calderone]

Agree with you, but they have dropped the price of OSX Server to 499 unlimited license some time ago :D

Even so, they are giving you OS X Server basically for free with the Mini Server.

[MattZani]

Im considering a Mac Mini server to be my Media Server, plugged into my TV for when i need to do stuff on the actual Mini, running PS3 Media Server to get everything to the PS3, and using the Home Network feature of iTunes to keep a copy of all my Music on my MBP (Put new Music on MBP, Auto Copied to Mini, automatically appears on PS3)

Whole setup would cost about £1,000, including a 1Tb External drive to SuperDuper too.

Shame i dont have any spare money :P

[peterman]

Hi All,

I've actually just read through almost every single post from the past 9 pages, and it was quite interesting at times. My questions are as follows.

I am the sole IT admin for a small company. Currently everything is setup as peer to peer using an older 1TB Time Capsule as the DHCP class 3 server and backup via time machine. I have other componets on the network such as 8port gigabit switch and a 8TB WD RAID5 NAS drive for the PC's etc. I'm currently wanting to upgrade us to a real Mac server and I've been looking at the MacPro with max storage and the RAID card to start doing internal backups and archive to an external for safekeeping too. My initial primary reason for wanting to upgrade to a "real" server is for inhouse email serving.

My question is that if I get the MacMini server and it alone houses my emails for the company, what is the best way to keep these backed up and safe?? I know I can easily backup various files to an external etc., but I'm talking about more the day to day drive failure that could happen. If it's a Tuesday afternoon and the HD suddenly fails and our entire company can no longer email, what is the best solution for having this quickly fixed? Do I mirror the 2 500's in the Mini? Can I Time Machine the 10.6 SL server to an external and if it fails restore to backup on the 2nd 500?

Any help is greatly appreciated, and I enjoy reading everyone's posts :)

Pete

[MattZani]

Hi All,

I've actually just read through almost every single post from the past 9 pages, and it was quite interesting at times. My questions are as follows.

I am the sole IT admin for a small company. Currently everything is setup as peer to peer using an older 1TB Time Capsule as the DHCP class 3 server and backup via time machine. I have other componets on the network such as 8port gigabit switch and a 8TB WD RAID5 NAS drive for the PC's etc. I'm currently wanting to upgrade us to a real Mac server and I've been looking at the MacPro with max storage and the RAID card to start doing internal backups and archive to an external for safekeeping too. My initial primary reason for wanting to upgrade to a "real" server is for inhouse email serving.

My question is that if I get the MacMini server and it alone houses my emails for the company, what is the best way to keep these backed up and safe?? I know I can easily backup various files to an external etc., but I'm talking about more the day to day drive failure that could happen. If it's a Tuesday afternoon and the HD suddenly fails and our entire company can no longer email, what is the best solution for having this quickly fixed? Do I mirror the 2 500's in the Mini? Can I Time Machine the 10.6 SL server to an external and if it fails restore to backup on the 2nd 500?

Any help is greatly appreciated, and I enjoy reading everyone's posts :)

Pete

You can download SuperDuper, plug in an external HDD, and set it to make a clone of the 2 Drives (Which i assume are formatted into 1 Big Drive) nightly, that way if a drive fails, you can boot off the SuperDuper clone (An assumption) and resume as normal, then you can schedule some down time, and replace the failed HDD, copy the clone back, and your back to normal usage.

[deconstruct60]

Yes, this product isn't perfect. There are currently 4 main problems with it:

1) drive speeds. It needs to have 7200rpm drives as the default. It really matters in servers


given folks suspect some of the Time Capsule problems are heat based ... how well is this mini going to cope with two faster drives going full blast?
The mini was designed for a hard drive and a not oftenly used DVD drive. Replace that with two drives going full blast is it really going to dissipate the heat correctly?

It really matters in servers which have concurrent users. In a home and very small office set up how many folks are going to be concurrent? If going to throw 20 hard core users at it.... yeah.




2) Ease of entry. This has always been a problem with mac minis, but it matters a lot more when dealing with people who actually upgrade their product periodically.


It is a pain.... but this is a defect that has existed with this product. Apple didn't do a major redesign here. They just are shipping the same thing as the non server version but with a very minor substitution and case tweak. That's it. The minimal amount of 'new' engineering went into this. Remove the SATA optical drive and replace with SATA hard drive . Remove the slot from the exterior of the case.

It would be nice if the mainstream mini was easier to open update too. This isn't new or special for a server.




3) support for 4gb RAM DIMMS. They are expensive as hell right now, but in 2 years people will want to upgrade to them.


Likely there just not supported because currently blow out the price spectrum. Also have power/thermal caps to think about.



4) Network expansion. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. Just an expresscard slot should suffice for people who need that extra ethernet or esata port.


express card is dead. Besides by time could jam one in (not sure why though) either USB 3.0 or Light Peak will be around. If it is just low speed and modest ethernet, can just use USB 2.0.

How many deployed home and small office networks have gigabit switches at their core. Starting from scratch today maybe but the ones deployed a couple of years ago are all likely 10 Mbps Ethernet.

[twoodcc]

now the server option does seem a like a good deal. a very good deal

[Yoursh]

Have to say, for me, the mini server is very tempting. Currently looking at upgrading from my old G4 Xserve(10.5 server) that I use as a home file backup/eyetv dvr/media host. Was hoping to see a price drop on the mini's since I've been looking at them as a replacement+adding a larger external storage solution. I was originally planning on picking up a base mini then adding 10.6 server, but cost wise the mini server is a better deal.

Only drawback I see is if the copy of 10.6 server is locked to the mini via a custom install disc. It would suck if you wanted to repurpose the server OS on another mac and run a client version of OSX on the mini in the future. If you bought a regular version of 10.6 server you could do that.

[psingh01]

I like this idea. I was actually researching a Mini + OSX Server package last week. Just to compare with things like the HP Media servers. It would be killer if it had hot swappable drives. Maybe 3 slots, even if it's only for the laptop size drives. All in a mini package. That would sell!

[deconstruct60]

My question is that if I get the MacMini server and it alone houses my emails for the company, what is the best way to keep these backed up and safe??


Presuming have a room/location can secure it. You could use an external 4 bay box similar to what Apple has on the mini server page in and in their store. Mirror the drives and when time to do backup. Shutdown mail server. Pull one/two of the mirrored drives. Stick in their rotation replacements. Have the system reestablish mirror. open mail server for business again.
(not sure if there will be enough bandwidth to have the system start taking mail and remirror at the same time. Plus you are running in a diminished redundancy mode.) Take your pulled backups and put them somewhere safe (preferably offsite or more disaster safe then your server. ).

Not sure if going to have secure data backup issues (e.g., customers/employees emailing senstive info). Kind of covering after the fact (since they were sent in the clear but sometimes ).





If it's a Tuesday afternoon and the HD suddenly fails and our entire company can no longer email, what is the best solution for having this quickly fixed? Do I mirror the 2 500's in the Mini? Can I Time Machine the 10.6 SL server to an external and if it fails restore to backup on the 2nd 500?


External, hot plug drives solve the disk replacement while keeping high uptime problem. Could run without a mirror and resilver the mirrored drive on the fly if the external box and software supports that.

Can use the dual internal drives to mirror the Operating system, configuration, and software. (not the bulk of the email. ) Probably can limp along for a couple days with just one OS/Software drive till can take mini down for a protracted surgery drive replacement. In short, I'd seperate the backup of the mail "data" from the server itself. Quite likely the mail data is of significant size difference that there "software" data.


Securing your email server from spam and external missbehaviour is likely a much bigger problem.

I suppose someone will point out that SuperDuper (or more classic backup programs) will do incremental backups.

Periodically, though a full backup is useful of sending something for offsite archiving/safekeeping. So if you rotate in a fresh backup disk for SuperDuper it is going to do a full copy anyway. However, can minimize email down time by doing an incremental ( it is likely to finish faster... and if you are waiting to go home while back finishes that is a bonus. )

Similar of mirror and then "pull the mirror" could be done for the exterior SuperDuper clone. Do SuperDuper clone and then when complete pull the a mirrored drive for offiste storage. So you could have mirrored primary and mirrored clone drives.

if your users leverage IMAP and leave most of their mail on the server this can be a large amount of data to backup/jugggle. if they download all their email to their machine then the internal drives may work out.

Time Machine is somewhat awkward for email archiving because not sure when TM will decide to dump stuff that is too old to claw back from space from the drive/volume. Typically there are hard requirements on how long you have to hold/archive mail.

[WiseMax]

It's a product with no target market.

Oh yes, there is.

The same people that buy Windows Home Server.

[calderone]

Oh yes, there is.

The same people that buy Windows Home Server.

Ha. Yeah right.

Granted I don't agree that it has no target market, but that surely isn't the target market.

[Eidorian]

Oh yes, there is.

The same people that buy Windows Home Server.You've taken a look at the Windows Home Server products right? :confused:

[WiseMax]

I think this is a good home server.

However, some issues exist and other need to be properly addressed.

First one is: There is no e-SATA port. A pity, there goes your fast on-line backup.

Second one is: With only a Firewire-800 port (ignore the slower USB ports, except for weak, occasional data traffic) you are limited. However, you may use any external hard-disk enclosure. There is even a 4-disk Promise RAID-5 array offered that works via Firewire-800. This is good, but remember that the 800 mbs port is a bottleneck!

I would not endorse the use of this server for business purposes - but it has a great place at home.

You only need to replace the original hard disks with 7,200 RPM ones and get yourself a good backup (if nothing else, at least the 2 TB Time capsule apparatus).

I was using a Linux-based solution for Home Server - just switched to Windows Home Server, which is kickass (streaming & everything).

If I had heard of this prior to my option, I might have given this Mini-server a try.

To me, it just needs faster disks (very easy to get) and a proper backup solution (needs careful thought, due to lack of e-SATA port)

.

[ronldjnvtx]

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?:mad:

[ronldjnvtx]

Still $100 to much, needs to be $500 they could sell so many more mac minis if that was the price I think over 500 is way to much without a monitor.

[Sambo110]

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?:mad:

Because they don't want to enter the "cheap" computer market. And they shouldn't. They want all their computers to be good, quality machines, not things made out of crappy parts that can't do much.

[calderone]

I think this is a good home server.

I would not endorse the use of this server for business purposes - but it has a great place at home.



Is the rest of your post supposed to be justification for this position? Because it is not at all convincing.

I would love to hear more about why you would not endorse this for a business. Do share.

[NT1440]

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?:mad:

Because they don't have too....

Is there something about this that people on this site don't seem to get?:confused:

[illweather]

QuickTime Streaming Server
QuickTime Broadcaster
Podcast Producer
Standard file serving (guess what, that includes media files)
No "wizard" needed
-- All features of MacOS X Server
You're talking to an IT Admin, yes I know how to set up a server.
And I have an existing mini running as a media server at home. Works great. This offering from Apple is even better, and a great deal.

Exactly, what the eff do these people mean when they say "media server"? A server can serve files (obviously media files included), why do you need a stupid wizard to share your media files?

And, as you stated OS X Server has (and has had) plenty of media services.

[mytdave]

Hi All,

I've actually just read through almost every single post from the past 9 pages, and it was quite interesting at times. My questions are as follows.

I am the sole IT admin for a small company. Currently everything is setup as peer to peer using an older 1TB Time Capsule as the DHCP class 3 server and backup via time machine. I have other components on the network such as 8port gigabit switch and a 8TB WD RAID5 NAS drive for the PC's etc. I'm currently wanting to upgrade us to a real Mac server and I've been looking at the MacPro with max storage and the RAID card to start doing internal backups and archive to an external for safekeeping too. My initial primary reason for wanting to upgrade to a "real" server is for inhouse email serving.

My question is that if I get the MacMini server and it alone houses my emails for the company, what is the best way to keep these backed up and safe?? I know I can easily backup various files to an external etc., but I'm talking about more the day to day drive failure that could happen. If it's a Tuesday afternoon and the HD suddenly fails and our entire company can no longer email, what is the best solution for having this quickly fixed? Do I mirror the 2 500's in the Mini? Can I Time Machine the 10.6 SL server to an external and if it fails restore to backup on the 2nd 500?

Any help is greatly appreciated, and I enjoy reading everyone's posts :)

Pete

I set up a file server with an older Mac Pro. There are two internal 1TB drives in a mirrored array (great for redundancy/availability should a drive fail). Then externally I have a 1TB drive as a Time Machine backup. This is simple, smooth, and works great. Not only do you have a mirrored drive, but you have the incremental backup nature with the Time Machine disk, which gives you awesome simple restore capabilities.

This same setup with the Mac mini server (@ 500GB) would probably work great for you. If you don't want to use Time Machine for backup, you could use something like Carbon Copy Cloner which does incrementals too, although not quite as fine grained as Time Machine.

[calderone]

Exactly, what the eff do these people mean when they say "media server"? A server can serve files (obviously media files included), why do you need a stupid wizard to share your media files?

And, as you stated OS X Server has (and has had) plenty of media services.

That is exactly the problem. What is a media server? A specific feature set? Ease of setup for sharing media files?

Why do people need a wizard? Because if they think they need OS X Server to serve media they are missing what is on their machine right now! You can already share files in OS X client.

Yes it has media services, but not services that are geared toward a media server. Yes it can do those things, share files, etc. But it is not a media server OS, and what I mean by that is this: It is not an OS designed with the sole purpose of serving media files.

You would be a fool to buy OS X Server to serve media. Unless you needed QTSS or Podcast Producer.

[MacToddB]

Hi folks,

I am excited by the new options but also perplexed. Some background:

I need a Mac-based Apache + PHP web server, with lots of storage in a single file system.

The machine will be out of site, at a co-location facility. I don't need an optical drive.

But I also don't need all the features of OS X Server, I just need MAMP or MAMP Pro. (I worked for Sun Micro for 16+ years, so I don't need a GUI to administer the server.)

Is it wise to mirror the (2) 500GB drives in the mini server, using software RAID 1? Are there bus/bandwidth issues, i.e. it would seem that writing to two disks on the same bus could be a performance issue. I don't want to do RAID 0, so this means my largest file system is 500GB, minus OS X. I'd prefer a 1TB or even 2TB file system.

For the $200 price difference, I can get 1TB or even 2TB external storage, which might be a better solution anyway from a reliability standpoint, depending on the enclosure. I'd certainly have more choices, re rpm, hotplug, etc. OS X Server is probably overkill. Space/footprint isn't a big issue.

I really wish there were a non-Server-licensed version of the server hardware. Is it legal to resell the OS X server license, and install Snow Leopard? I just want a Mac-based web server.

I'm leaning towards the $799 4GB/320GB/DVD traditional mini plus a Firewire enclosure with at least one 1TB disk. Any objections/recommendations before I pull the trigger? Firewire drive recommendations welcome, too.

[diamond.g]

So I take it the new Mini Server doesn't do SAS. 10k rpm 300gb 2.5" SAS drives are pretty cheap. Has Apples iSCSI support improved?

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Eidorian
It's a product with no target market.

Oh yes, there is.

The same people that buy Windows Home Server.

I don't think so.

"Windows Home Server" isn't just "Windows Server" on a small box, like the Mini w/ OSX Server.

There's a lot of stuff (like automated backups, including waking systems from sleep for backups) in WHS that's specially for the simple home user.

Mini w/ OSX Server seems to be just that - a Mini with stock OSX Server installed.

Am I missing something? The target markets seem to be completely different. For example, Apple says

"Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server is designed to help you communicate, collaborate, and share information. It’s perfect for any small business or group — retail shops, doctor and law offices, classrooms, design studios — you name it."

"Add as many people as you want.

Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server lets you add an unlimited number of Mac and PC users without per-user licensing fees. So you can grow your business without growing your costs."

WHS says

"Your life has gone digital – it is time to simplify your life so you can easily access your files, photos, videos and music from any PC or TV in your home, or even while away from home. Windows Home Server was designed for households and home-based businesses that have more than one personal computer."

Not the same audience....

[wessto]

Well, there goes the idea of making it the Mac I hook up to the TV. ;)

I bought a mini this summer and put SL server on it. I currently have loaded ilife and plex and use it hooked to my TV with no trouble. Works great. I use "share screen" from my other macs and that works great too. Love SL server ease of use. Sure I could have done a cheapo linux box and configured DNS, Apache, Mysql, etc. etc. like I have in the past, but I'm busy now and don't want to tweak with things. I plugged it in, turned on services and was up and running sooooo quickly. Love it.

[airplaneman]

It's a product with no target market.

The home server/small business market, maybe?

[mytdave]

I think this is a good home server.

However, some issues exist and other need to be properly addressed.

First one is: There is no e-SATA port. A pity, there goes your fast on-line backup.

Second one is: With only a Firewire-800 port (ignore the slower USB ports, except for weak, occasional data traffic) you are limited. However, you may use any external hard-disk enclosure. There is even a 4-disk Promise RAID-5 array offered that works via Firewire-800. This is good, but remember that the 800 mbs port is a bottleneck!

I would not endorse the use of this server for business purposes - but it has a great place at home.

You only need to replace the original hard disks with 7,200 RPM ones and get yourself a good backup (if nothing else, at least the 2 TB Time capsule apparatus).

I was using a Linux-based solution for Home Server - just switched to Windows Home Server, which is kickass (streaming & everything).

If I had heard of this prior to my option, I might have given this Mini-server a try.

To me, it just needs faster disks (very easy to get) and a proper backup solution (needs careful thought, due to lack of e-SATA port)

.

I agree Apple could make a higher performance mini server, with 7200rpm drives and eSATA, and maybe they will in a future model. But this one is a good first step. You'd be surprised how well a 2.5" 5400rpm drive can perform, and if you stripe the two drives, it will work pretty darn fast.

FW800 is more than adequate for an external backup device, and sufficient for medium performance external arrays. Unless you buy an expensive enterprise disk array with high speed controllers, you're not going to need massive bandwidth. Most of the inexpensive desktop RAID boxes have pretty marginal performance. You won't be getting much better than 90MB/s sustained transfer rates out of them anyway, with many of them performing at less than 40MB/s.

There are a few external RAID units, like the LaCie 4big Quadra that can do burst rates up to 230MB/s over eSATA, but this is not the majority of these type of devices.

This new mini server is perfect for home, adequate for small business needs, and also useful among certain smaller workgroups within medium/larger companies too. I think the ideal targets are anywhere you need a small size, low power, easily managed server.

[PVguy]

"To me, it just needs faster disks (very easy to get) and a proper backup solution (needs careful thought, due to lack of e-SATA port)"

Does it really need faster disks? The limiting factor is the network connection out, not the drives. What good does it do to have 3Gb/second drives when you have are sending the data across a 1 Gb/sec ethernet, or a 50 Mb/sec wireless connection?

[mytdave]

I don't think so.

"Windows Home Server" isn't just "Windows Server" on a small box, like the Mini w/ OSX Server.

There's a lot of stuff (like automated backups, including waking systems from sleep for backups) in WHS that's specially for the simple home user.

Mini w/ OSX Server seems to be just that - a Mini with stock OSX Server installed.

Am I missing something? The target markets seem to be completely different. For example, Apple says



WHS says



Not the same audience....

Not the same audience with those particular marketing points... Most computers can do far more than what is advertised at any given time. For example, the WHS can do most anything a regular desktop computer can do, not just serve "media." Likewise, the Mac mini server can serve all your media just fine as well as serving a small business workgroup.

The Mac mini server can serve up all your video, music, and photos every bit as well as the WHS server can. The added benefit of the Mac mini server though, is the included enterprise class server OS, in addition to the other benefits like the small size, excellent performance and connectivity for this type of device, and Mac reliability and ease of use.

It's going to take a while for folks to realize just how much capability is available in this product. In this respect, this simple combination of hardware and software has created a revolutionary product. You're getting many enterprise class features at an unheard of price, in an unbelievable form factor. It's pretty cool.

[wizard]

Why not?

After all, obscure companies like IBM, HP, Sun and so on use 2.5" SATA drives in many of their 1U rackmount servers.

Server grade 2.5" SATA drives have been around for about three years now. Now I don't know if that is what the mini is using but it is a possibility.

The only thing that bothers me about the Mini as a server idea is that it isn't exactly a highly serviceable machine. It would certainly work well for many server tasks and if those disks can be RAIDed even more tasks. The biggest problem is the limited space on those drives.



Nice hack by Apple!

[mytdave]

Hi folks,

I am excited by the new options but also perplexed. Some background:

I need a Mac-based Apache + PHP web server, with lots of storage in a single file system.

The machine will be out of site, at a co-location facility. I don't need an optical drive.

But I also don't need all the features of OS X Server, I just need MAMP or MAMP Pro. (I worked for Sun Micro for 16+ years, so I don't need a GUI to administer the server.)

Is it wise to mirror the (2) 500GB drives in the mini server, using software RAID 1? Are there bus/bandwidth issues, i.e. it would seem that writing to two disks on the same bus could be a performance issue. I don't want to do RAID 0, so this means my largest file system is 500GB, minus OS X. I'd prefer a 1TB or even 2TB file system.

For the $200 price difference, I can get 1TB or even 2TB external storage, which might be a better solution anyway from a reliability standpoint, depending on the enclosure. I'd certainly have more choices, re rpm, hotplug, etc. OS X Server is probably overkill. Space/footprint isn't a big issue.

I really wish there were a non-Server-licensed version of the server hardware. Is it legal to resell the OS X server license, and install Snow Leopard? I just want a Mac-based web server.

I'm leaning towards the $799 4GB/320GB/DVD traditional mini plus a Firewire enclosure with at least one 1TB disk. Any objections/recommendations before I pull the trigger? Firewire drive recommendations welcome, too.

Tough call. But if you're looking for a web server, you can't do much better than MacOS X Server. And now that you can have SL Server on a tiny little box with dual 500GB drives (1TB w/RAID 0 - but be sure to have a backup) for $1k... well, that would decide it for me!

No issues with bandwidth in either solution, even if you do RAID 1. The hardware components are all going to be faster than the internet connection at the colo. No problem.

[AidenShaw]

For example, the WHS can do most anything a regular desktop computer can do, not just serve "media."

I need to tell my media centre pc that - since the files are stored on my WHS....

Not to mention the Itunes media server included in the HP WHS....



The added benefit of the Mac mini server though, is the included enterprise class server OS, in addition to the other benefits like the small size, excellent performance and connectivity for this type of device, and Mac reliability and ease of use.

WHS is based on "Windows Server 2003" - so the "enterprise class server OS" label most certainly applies there as well. ;)

...and the $500 HP server has replicated storage, hot swap drives, ...

If you're familiar with WHS, you'll wonder why anyone can compare slapping OSX server on a mini with WHS. Clearly Apple's positioning them for completely different scenarios.

[mytdave]

Server grade 2.5" SATA drives have been around for about three years now. Now I don't know if that is what the mini is using but it is a possibility.

The only thing that bothers me about the Mini as a server idea is that it isn't exactly a highly serviceable machine. It would certainly work well for many server tasks and if those disks can be RAIDed even more tasks. The biggest problem is the limited space on those drives.



Nice hack by Apple!

It is highly unlikely Apple put server grade hard drives in this mini server. But that's okay. It is not a high availability enterprise server, it is a casual use home/small business workgroup server, which should work just fine in those environments.

500GB (RAID 1) to 1TB (RAID 0) is a ton of space, unless you intend to serve up your entire DVD collection. It's more than adequate for a file server.

I do wish Apple would give up on the obnoxious plastic fingers that hold the mini together, and just hold it together with 8 countersunk screws on the bottom. Screws are not bad.

[wizard]

Hooking a Mac mini up to a TV rocks! That's what I did. If you're going to connected one to a TV, I would suggest the regular model, not the server model. You are going to want the DVD drive so you can slip in a rented movie or things like that.

I disagree; a CD drive ought to sit on one of the low speed ports. Better to keep the magnetic drives on SATA.


HDTVs have many inputs. The most common now is "HDMI". Many also have RGB, DVI, and VGA inputs in addition to or instead of HDMI. I prefer DVI myself, but HDMI is, well, similar in signaling (except w/audio), and just a different connector.

Apple is moving all of their computers to the new DisplayPort standard (and there are very very good reasons for doing so). Just get yourself a mini display port to HDMI adapter, and you're good to go. Here's one:

Adapters are nice but built in makes more sense. You are right though the connector and port standard should not stop you hooking things up.


http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311&seq=1&format=2

I'm still not convinced that a Mini is a suitable media server. It doesn't make sense to buy the machine and immediately replace the hardrives for more storage. It isn't what I consider to be good economics.

Unless of course one of those drives fits in a MBP.


Dave

[AidenShaw]

500GB (RAID 1) to 1TB (RAID 0) is a ton of space, unless you intend to serve up your entire DVD collection. It's more than adequate for a file server.

I'll tell that to my WHS with 9 TB of disk that's 70% full... (6 TB internal, and 3 TB in an eSATA external JBOD)

My CD collection alone is over 500 GB.

I can't look at the "mini Server" as anything more than a lame, failed attempt to copy WHS. But, unfortunately, "Cupertino's photocopiers" ran out of toner and had a paper-jam trying to copy WHS.

[LEStudios]

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?:mad:

This Apple not HP. If you want HP Wal-mart has plenty for you. :D

[LEStudios]

I agree Apple could make a higher performance mini server, with 7200rpm drives and eSATA, and maybe they will in a future model. But this one is a good first step. You'd be surprised how well a 2.5" 5400rpm drive can perform, and if you stripe the two drives, it will work pretty darn fast.

FW800 is more than adequate for an external backup device, and sufficient for medium performance external arrays. Unless you buy an expensive enterprise disk array with high speed controllers, you're not going to need massive bandwidth. Most of the inexpensive desktop RAID boxes have pretty marginal performance. You won't be getting much better than 90MB/s sustained transfer rates out of them anyway, with many of them performing at less than 40MB/s.

There are a few external RAID units, like the LaCie 4big Quadra that can do burst rates up to 230MB/s over eSATA, but this is not the majority of these type of devices.

This new mini server is perfect for home, adequate for small business needs, and also useful among certain smaller workgroups within medium/larger companies too. I think the ideal targets are anywhere you need a small size, low power, easily managed server.

Yeah but you can reformat it to Mac OS X Snow Leopard and do whatever it's you Mac mini! :rolleyes:

[jaw04005]

Am I missing something? The target markets seem to be completely different.

The target market appears fairly clear now. Mac Mini Server is targeted at small businesses. However, when you have Phil Schiller out there promoting it as a “home server” it clouds their strategy.

When I first read the Business Week article, I immediately thought they were targeting enthusiasts who wanted a Mac version of Windows Home Server.

Here’s my feature list for a Mac-based “home server.”

The server would:

• Perform backups of all my Macs daily automatically
• Serve out iTunes media without running full-blown iTunes (think iTunes server for OS X Server, a system preferences’ service that automatically perform “home sharing” tasks like copying over ratings, new purchases, etc with all my client machines and serve my Apple TV)
• Serve out a main iPhoto library to client Macs and automatically copy new photos from those iPhoto libraries to the server
• Automatically create a “Back to My Mac” Web site where you can access your files including music, video and pictures via the Web
• Monitor disk space and push software updates out to all my Macs
• Enable roaming profiles, so anyone in my household could log-in on each Mac and have all their settings, etc.
• Maintain a main iCal and Address Book that would be accessible on every household Mac

and package all this into one tight, easy-to-use OS X-based package.

But that’s not what Apple’s offering currently.