A Pile of Minis in a box?

[Reality4711]

Not having the technical knowledge of almost everyone; here is a question.

I have seen MMs being used in data centres etc. Presumably all linked in some way or other.

Well, can I do the same (simply-obviously) but as a way of producing a multiunit single computer of ever increasing capability.

Start with one and add 1,2,3,4 etc as more power is required?

A sort of daisy chaining.
I could end up with something something roughly the physical size of my MP but with oooooddles of more stuff in it.

Thoughts?

 

[F-Train]

Not sure if this is the kind of thing you mean. Render Farm: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_farm

Apple Compressor can share work between Macs.

 

[Reality4711]

F-Train TVM.

Read most of that stuff and it is really aimed at Video Creation Yes?

Is there any thing to be gained in general computer use from putting computers together or is it just a massive GPU configuration?

For example, since my de-flowering as a computing Photographer (pre PS) the software has always tested the hardware and doing has always been harder than having the idea .

So could you use multi minis to take a jump ahead of these damned demanding software writers; Serif,Adobe and any CAD prog.. by making a domestic version of a farm from eg Minis to provides 'way more' power than is being found in our BTO choices today.

As soon as a processor CPU/GPU is envisioned the software gets more complex (heavy) just to slow it down again - when it is 'speed' that is really the goal. I have yet to upgrade any software and find it works FASTER!

It allows more to be done but not what I do now at a faster rate.

The frustration is that I have my own goals and limits and just as they both seem to be getting serviced some damned fool thinks they can do better.

Over the top! Sorry.

Still is there a point at which I can stop upgrading my software and have the hardware easily able to handle it and me??

This looks like one of my 'Sunday Rants' sorry.

 

[pl1984]

Generally speaking, no. The only thing that will increase in step with adding more and more Mini's will be your power consumption. SGI used to sell a system, the Origin, which functioned very similar to what you are inquiring about.

There are specialized cases where a cluster of computers add more computing power. F-Train gave a prime example of a more "mainstream" use for such a configuration. But for generalized computing such a solution doesn't have much practical use.
[doublepost=1548941104][/doublepost]

Still is there a point at which I can stop upgrading my software and have the hardware easily able to handle it and me??

Unless there's a good reason to don't upgrade your software

 

[Reality4711]

Generally speaking, no. The only thing that will increase in step with adding more and more Mini's will be your power consumption. SGI used to sell a system, the Origin, which functioned very similar to what you are inquiring about.

There are specialized cases where a cluster of computers add more computing power. F-Train gave a prime example of a more "mainstream" use for such a configuration. But for generalized computing such a solution doesn't have much practical use.
[doublepost=1548941104][/doublepost]
Unless there's a good reason to don't upgrade your software

Gotcha.

I suppose the sweet spot is at the end of an OS cycle like 'Snow Leopard' with whatever the BTO top line that is available.

All things need to coincide - £,software&hardware. Then of course you have to stay away from the websites telling of how things are 'so' much better in the 'new'!

Unfortunate that that include MacRumours etc. Bless them need the advertising to exist.

I wonder whether todays hardware would be the answer if you could pair it with older/simpler software? The dreaded MS might have the advantage there. Just could not (for sanities sake) go down that route. Too many PC out the window before finding Apple to go back.

 

[Hessel89]

You technically could. Lots of professional audio apps (Logic Pro X, Native Instruments Kontakt, Ableton) provide ways to use more than one PC for processing power. However, for most people it's more convenient and cost effective to get one a completely spec'd out PC instead of ''noding'' lots together. for 2 spec'd out Mac Mini's you can get an iMac Pro for example.

 

[pl1984]

All things need to coincide - £,software&hardware. Then of course you have to stay away from the websites telling of how things are 'so' much better in the 'new'!

I cringe when I log on to a web site and it tells me it's new and improved. Rarely has a web site update improved my ability to perform a task compared to the one it replaced. All it does is make me, usually at an inconvenient time (who logs into a web site just to play around with it?), learn how to do what I already knew how to do. Perhaps the improvements are in areas I don't use.

Unfortunate that that include MacRumours etc. Bless them need the advertising to exist.

MR has been pretty consistent for me. Anything specific? I do have to say that fully using the site requires a modern browser.

I wonder whether todays hardware would be the answer if you could pair it with older/simpler software? The dreaded MS might have the advantage there. Just could not (for sanities sake) go down that route. Too many PC out the window before finding Apple to go back.

This is definitely a strength of Windows over macOS. Though it's my opinion macOS isn't the problem but rather developers who immediately jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon thus abandoning older platforms well before they reach a point of being unusable due to capability.

 

[Spectrum]

Gotcha.

I suppose the sweet spot is at the end of an OS cycle like 'Snow Leopard' with whatever the BTO top line that is available.

All things need to coincide - £,software&hardware. Then of course you have to stay away from the websites telling of how things are 'so' much better in the 'new'!

Unfortunate that that include MacRumours etc. Bless them need the advertising to exist.

I wonder whether todays hardware would be the answer if you could pair it with older/simpler software? The dreaded MS might have the advantage there. Just could not (for sanities sake) go down that route. Too many PC out the window before finding Apple to go back.

For 6 years, I ran Snow Leopard on a 2011 quad i7 Mac mini. Only finally upgrading to ElCap when Dropbox dropped support.
I now run SL server in a virtual machine on a 2018 i7 mini and it is blazingly fast. Using file sharing to access all local files (synced via Dropbox on the Mojave host) which enables me to run old PPC software via Rosetta.

 

[pl1984]

For 6 years, I ran Snow Leopard on a 2011 quad i7 Mac mini. Only finally upgrading to ElCap when Dropbox dropped support.
I now run SL server in a virtual machine on a 2018 i7 mini and it is blazingly fast. Using file sharing to access all local files (synced via Dropbox on the Mojave host) which enables me to run old PPC software via Rosetta.

Whenever something like this occurs I would recommend heading over to the PPC forum as the participants there are very good at finding solutions to keep older versions of software working after a vendor has officially dropped support.

 

[Spectrum]

Whenever something like this occurs I would recommend heading over to the PPC forum as the participants there are very good at finding solutions to keep older versions of software working after a vendor has officially dropped support.

Maybe...but is there a way to bypass the need for Rosetta? At the time, the only solution I could find was running SL as a VM. It works incredibly well actually!

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Maybe...but is there a way to bypass the need for Rosetta? At the time, the only solution I could find was running SL as a VM. It works incredibly well actually!

Doesn't take much to mimic the performance of a computer that old VM is a good solution. if you could run Leopard or Tiger in a VM that might work even better, but I think SL Server is the oldest version "Officially" supported for VM use so that works.

 

[pl1984]

Maybe...but is there a way to bypass the need for Rosetta? At the time, the only solution I could find was running SL as a VM. It works incredibly well actually!

I would pose this question in that forum.

 

[Hessel89]

I now run SL server in a virtual machine on a 2018 i7 mini and it is blazingly fast. Using file sharing to access all local files (synced via Dropbox on the Mojave host) which enables me to run old PPC software via Rosetta.

The last OS that didn't have to carry the burden of iCloud. I remember when I went from Leopard to Snow Leopard on my 17 inch MBP. That felt blazing fast, I can only imagine how fast and light it must feel on a 2018 machine!

 

[Spectrum]

The last OS that didn't have to carry the burden of iCloud. I remember when I went from Leopard to Snow Leopard on my 17 inch MBP. That felt blazing fast, I can only imagine how fast and light it must feel on a 2018 machine!

In terms of the macOS, the only thing that really got better after SL, is the ability to resize windows from any corner! I honestly can't say I know of any other feature that I use in Mojave that didn't exist before.

 

[Reality4711]

Is there a way then to run the last SL on a 2018 MM?

Sorry of course VM has been mentioned - but I mean just SL OS on the machine.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Is there a way then to run the last SL on a 2018 MM?

Sorry of course VM has been mentioned - but I mean just SL OS on the machine.

Nope. At least nothing official - if there's a hack, I haven't heard about it.

 

[Spectrum]

Nope. At least nothing official - if there's a hack, I haven't heard about it.

That would be one hell of a hack, unfortunately. The last mini to support SL was the 2011, but even that required a hack to steal some of the kexts from the 2011 MBPro gen. Officially, the 2011 mini only supports Lion and up.

The main problem with trying to use SL as your main OS in a VM is lack of security patches and incompatibility with latest software versions, including basic internet browser functionality. I wouldn't recommend it. But it works for the occasional program.