Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mainstay

macrumors 6502
Feb 14, 2011
272
0
BC
Maybe I'm missing the point. It sounds like everything you're doing could just as easily be done with a stand-alone Windows 7 Pro box, could it not? I don't see what OS X Server gives you other than a host to run the VM.

We needed to overcome the 10 user limit of Windows XP Professional and the 20 user limit of Windows 7 Professional (they currently have 15 PC's + 3 virtual PC's so although Win7 would work, it would JUST work... providing no room for expansion). And we wanted to do it at a reasonable price.

I also wanted to provide VPN capabilities, which one can setup on a mac server in seconds (vs. the hours I spent fighting with Cisco units over the years).

(edit: not all that unexpected, got an email just now: "Our US salesperson wishes to log on remotely (lives in the USA) to our server. Can we talk about putting in a remote access connection to our files?" With the VPN in place this is a simple matter of adding his account... what could have been a whole discussion has turned into a simple matter of adding an account in 30 seconds.)

I also anticipate this company utilizing Mac's more in the future and wanted to have the ability to have OD control in the future.

And last, I also wanted to have a nice, familiar, interface in which to run offsite backup software, to monitor the health of the system etc.

Would a linux server have done all of this (sans Simply)? Perhaps. But I am not familiar with them and don't want to learn at the possible expense of my clients (and then ultimately my reputation).
 
Last edited:

Randomyachtie

macrumors newbie
Jun 12, 2011
3
0
Mixed Environment

I run a network which is primarily based on Macs.
3 imacs
4 macbooks
1 mac mini
1 mac mini server

There are also a small number of XP machines connected to the server via samba & open directory. So far so good...

Of course the problem comes when I need to add windows7 machines to the network. Will Lion allow me to connect windows7 machines to my shares, and act as domain controller for their login?
 

InfoTime

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 17, 2002
500
261
Infotime, what did you decide to do?
Haven't decided anything yet. Don't have any customers who need anything right now. If they did I'd probably go with another Windows Home Server.

When Lion ships I'll probably experiment with the server features and see what I think.
 

jtara

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2009
2,008
536
There's a recent story out in the tech press (sorry, forgot where) comparing Apple's and Facebook's datacenters. Interesting to see what Apple uses in their own data center. They don't necessarily eat their own dog food. Looks like mostly Linux variants. (The big difference between Apple and FaceBook? FaceBook actually builds (or has built for them) their own hardware, which they've open-sourced. Apple uses big-name boxes. Again, not their own. Think HP, etc.)

I like CrashPlan for backups, because it runs on Windows, Linux, and OSX.
 

Hareti

macrumors newbie
Jun 28, 2011
9
4
Not just a samba issue

I think this is a Samba question, not a Mac OS X Sever question. Samba works the same on Linux as on Mac OS X. Not to tell you to go away but Samba has a very active email list

Snow Leopard Server doesn't support Windows 7, and its version of Samba is an Apple customised one which hasn't been updated to handle the improved security :( Yes you could update Samba separately, but then lose some of the integration with a nice out the box system.

I have multiple Mac's and a single Windows 7 box, and have to admin the profiles for that separately. Really hoping Lion fixes this.
 

wsk

macrumors newbie
Aug 15, 2011
16
1
Lion and Windows PC

I have been reading this thread with interest and this is my first post on this forum although I read MacRumors almost every day.

I have a mixed environment in my home network. I currently have two windows servers, 2003 and 2008 which both run flawlessly. I have a couple of windows pcs, vista and 7, and two macbook pros.

This weekend I purchased a mac mini server with Lion and after spending hours...5 Saturday night by myself and no its not just easy out of the box and 2 hours on sunday morning with Apple tech support, I was unable to get any of the windows pcs to see the server on my network.

In researching online, I have read that Apple changed the way windows pcs connect to the server via smb.

I would really like to get this working on my network because if I can't I will be returning it within the next 14 days and sticking with my windows servers.

What about running the WHS software on the Mac hardware? Just a thought.

Your comments and expertise are appreciated.
 

Mattie Num Nums

macrumors 68030
Mar 5, 2009
2,834
0
USA
Mac servers are niche they don't belong in a mostly windows environment unless they have a purpose (ie: media streaming, XSAN, hosting AFP services, or OD/AD golden triangle integration.) Other than that its going to be more trouble than it is worth. I work in a mixed environment that is 75% PC 25% windows and even then things still get contentious.

SMBX is SMB 2.0 compatible.
 

tymiles

macrumors newbie
Sep 12, 2007
7
0
VERY Hard to believe or not secure at all!

Nonsense! We had a Windows NT Server at work back in the 1990's that we used for 5 years running 24/7 that never even needed to be rebooted. I maintained it, if I can use that word since I had to do absolutely nothing the whole time we had it. I had a Dell desktop that I converted to a server and used with no reboots except for patches for 8 years. And the Windows servers at my current job have been just as reliable as my Mac mini server at home (which has had its share of services crashing and requiring restarting).

If Windows servers were as bad as you claim then they wouldn't have the market share that they do.

That's BS. So what you are saying is with your NT server you didn't patch it for 5 years? In reality you know it was being rebooted almost once a month for patches. Even to this day Windows servers have to be rebooted almost once a month for patches. So there is no way you can say that your Windows server ran for 5 years without a reboot or 8 years without a reboot unless you never patch. You can't even say you went a year without a reboot.

On my Linux servers on the other hand I can go a year with patching and all without a reboot and never break a sweat. That is why for real internet related tasks and data related tasks people are using Linux and UNIX not Windows. 300 million websites and counting on Apache on Unix, Linux to 73 million on Windows. Yeah. Android, IOS killing. Almost all Super computers on Unix and Linux.

And Windows servers are as popular as they are cause they integrate best with Windows clients. Not because they make great servers.
 

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
re: Windows server reliability

Umm, yeah... my thoughts too!
I used to work in corporate I.T. for a firm running Windows NT Server 3.51, when I started there -- and upgrading to NT 4.0 and eventually to Windows 2000 Server by the time I quit.

I can tell you for a FACT the Windows NT servers, both 3.51 and 4.0, were almost never reliable enough to just leave them running for several months, much less YEARS, without a reboot. We had 6 or 7 servers in the server room and honestly, the ONLY one I could pretty reliably leave up for months without a reboot was a Dell workstation we re-purposed as a simple print server under NT 4.0. It literally did *nothing* except accept network print jobs from clients for several HP networked laser printers. Even then, you'd inevitably decide to reboot the thing after long enough, just because people would start reporting strange behavior, like print jobs taking an awfully long time to come out of a particular printer. A reboot usually seemed to square it away again.

Even the much praised Novell Netware servers of that day were commonly understood to benefit greatly from a reboot at least once a year or so, to reclaim memory that was lost due to "leaks". (Small bugs in parts of the product or add-on modules to it would sometimes allocate some RAM that they didn't release again when finished with it. Over time, this would cause problems with available system resources.)

Windows 2000 marked a very big improvement, though. I'd say with it, assuming you weren't hosting applications on it that liked to misbehave? You really could run one of those for months at a time with no reboot. Like Novell though, reaching the 1 year mark would be pushing it. And as you said too -- at that time, Windows updates were coming out fast and furious enough, you'd reboot FAR more regularly anyway, just trying to be a responsible sysadmin and keep up with all of it.


That's BS. So what you are saying is with your NT server you didn't patch it for 5 years? In reality you know it was being rebooted almost once a month for patches. Even to this day Windows servers have to be rebooted almost once a month for patches. So there is no way you can say that your Windows server ran for 5 years without a reboot or 8 years without a reboot unless you never patch. You can't even say you went a year without a reboot.

On my Linux servers on the other hand I can go a year with patching and all without a reboot and never break a sweat. That is why for real internet related tasks and data related tasks people are using Linux and UNIX not Windows. 300 million websites and counting on Apache on Unix, Linux to 73 million on Windows. Yeah. Android, IOS killing. Almost all Super computers on Unix and Linux.

And Windows servers are as popular as they are cause they integrate best with Windows clients. Not because they make great servers.
 

Waragainstsleep

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2003
598
211
UK
And Windows servers are as popular as they are cause they integrate best with Windows clients. Not because they make great servers.

Another big factor in the popularity of Windows servers is that the people hired to choose what servers a company buys are usually Windows certified.

I didn't have any trouble whatsoever connecting Windows clients to a Lion Server, if you just want file sharing, there is nothing wrong with using a Mac Server and of course you can then use Time Machine to back your server up.

If you want directory services, its no longer a simple matter and should probably be avoided, but file sharing should be fine and email is simple enough too.
 

garybUK

Guest
Jun 3, 2002
1,466
3
That's BS. So what you are saying is with your NT server you didn't patch it for 5 years? In reality you know it was being rebooted almost once a month for patches. Even to this day Windows servers have to be rebooted almost once a month for patches. So there is no way you can say that your Windows server ran for 5 years without a reboot or 8 years without a reboot unless you never patch. You can't even say you went a year without a reboot.

On my Linux servers on the other hand I can go a year with patching and all without a reboot and never break a sweat. That is why for real internet related tasks and data related tasks people are using Linux and UNIX not Windows. 300 million websites and counting on Apache on Unix, Linux to 73 million on Windows. Yeah. Android, IOS killing. Almost all Super computers on Unix and Linux.

And Windows servers are as popular as they are cause they integrate best with Windows clients. Not because they make great servers.

Windows NT 4.0 had no automatic update machanism, it was mainly in the form of Service Packs and individually downloadable patches, I have seen a NT 4.0 Mail server run for around 2 years without a reboot, and it was on a proper Compaq DL server.
 

talmy

macrumors 601
Oct 26, 2009
4,726
332
Oregon
Put things into proper time context. There simply were not frequent patches made to OSes back then because the OS vendors were lax on security and the security threats were (probably) not as strong.

We had a Compaq Windows NT 3.51 server back in the 90's that ran over four years (the length of the project it was bought for) without ever being patched or rebooted. On a UPS of course!

Reboots for patches should be considered a good thing. It's reboots because of crashes that are the problem!
 

bartzilla

macrumors 6502a
Aug 11, 2008
540
0
That's BS. So what you are saying is with your NT server you didn't patch it for 5 years? In reality you know it was being rebooted almost once a month for patches. Even to this day Windows servers have to be rebooted almost once a month for patches. So there is no way you can say that your Windows server ran for 5 years without a reboot or 8 years without a reboot unless you never patch. You can't even say you went a year without a reboot.

Well actually, yes you can say that. I know plenty of people who have done it in the past. Now whether or not that's a good thing these days, on any OS, is another thing.

On my Linux servers on the other hand I can go a year with patching and all without a reboot and never break a sweat. That is why for real internet related tasks and data related tasks people are using Linux and UNIX not Windows. 300 million websites and counting on Apache on Unix, Linux to 73 million on Windows. Yeah. Android, IOS killing. Almost all Super computers on Unix and Linux.

And Windows servers are as popular as they are cause they integrate best with Windows clients. Not because they make great servers.

Congratulations, you're an OS bigot trying to start a 'Linux roolz, windows droolz' argument on a Mac forum. Your parents must be very proud.
 

jbellrmr

macrumors newbie
Jan 17, 2009
7
0
Fort Collins, CO
Lion Server in mixed client environment

So here's what I've found out. Lion Server looks like a decent candidate for a small business server to handle file serving in a mixed Windows and Mac environment (among all the choices). Setup is fairly painless (see http://www.wegotserved.com) especially if you do not need remote web access.

The big deal is Windows client backups to Lion Server (LS). TimeMachine only works for Macs on the network so we must find an alternative. If LS is configured for SMB services to handle both Windows and Mac clients, then Windows Backup should be able to be set on each Win client to save the backups to a network drive, whether that drive is in the Mac running Server or a drive attached to the LS machine.

With Windows Vista, I do know that the Home Basic version does not allow saving backups to a network drive (its greyed out), but Win 7 professional does and after I upgrade our church computers to Win 7 Pro on the new site license, I think we will be fine.

Why LS after all? I love my MBP (15") and I'd like to try LS now in view of the future conversion of our church office from Win to Mac (my idea). So bark at me and tell me no way, but also think of better ways to make this work in the mixed environment.

Thanks,

Jeff
 

mainstay

macrumors 6502
Feb 14, 2011
272
0
BC
A SIMPLE Windows backup utility (and free) is called Cobian: http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm

You can set it to backup c:\Users\Username\*.* >> \\server\folder for nightly backups of the users information.

It's free, easy to configure, and rarely have I seen it fail (usually due to a user mucking with it).

I would not use Windows Backup.


Or... better yet, get your Windows users to store all of their data on the server directly. That way you don't have to worry about client backups.

You can tell them, the server is for church business, and any data you store locally will not be backed up. A simple company policy that radically reduces your IT overhead.
 

jbellrmr

macrumors newbie
Jan 17, 2009
7
0
Fort Collins, CO
A SIMPLE Windows backup utility (and free) is called Cobian: http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm

You can set it to backup c:\Users\Username\*.* >> \\server\folder for nightly backups of the users information.

It's free, easy to configure, and rarely have I seen it fail (usually due to a user mucking with it).

I would not use Windows Backup.


Or... better yet, get your Windows users to store all of their data on the server directly. That way you don't have to worry about client backups.

You can tell them, the server is for church business, and any data you store locally will not be backed up. A simple company policy that radically reduces your IT overhead.

Thanks for the tips Mainstay, I like 'em and will use that backup strategy on the server by setting all the Win client home directories on LS. Great plan and policy...Jeff
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.