Active Storage Announces 'ActiveSAN' Replacement for Xserve

[MacRumors]

Late last week, we noted that Active Storage appeared set to introduce a replacement for Apple's Xserve, which is being discontinued as of today. The company followed through today with its introduction of ActiveSAN, a new metadata controller appliance to fill the void left by Xserve's departure.

"On the day that Apple has formally stopped selling Xserve, we have exciting news. Until now, Apple's Xserve was the Metadata Controller of choice for most Xsan installations, providing enterprise form factor and capabilities," said Alex Grossman, CEO of Active Storage, Inc.

"Xsan users in high-pressure industries require datacenter-level quality products to manage their Metadata, but also demand the ease of use and setup of Xsan," continued Grossman. "Previously, that meant one thing: Xsan on an Xserve. But all that changes today - with ActiveSAN."

ActiveSAN is a 1U rackmountable controller based on Linux and the Quantum StorNext SAN file system. Active Storage also offers an integrated Mac OS X user interface to make setup and maintenance a fast and simple process.

ActiveSAN runs on a quad-core Xeon processor with 8 GB of 1066MHz DDR3 memory while offering mirrored hot-swappable 1 TB drives, a dual port 8Gb Fibre Channel card, and dual hot-swappable power supplies.

Full details on pricing and configuration options for ActiveSAN are yet to be announced, and Active Storage plans to demo the new hardware at NAB 2011 in early April with product availability set to follow soon after.

Article Link: Active Storage Announces 'ActiveSAN' Replacement for Xserve

 

[theheadguy]

Apple's shifting priorities opens the door for others. Looks like the product has a nice UI as well.

 

[ranReloaded]

I don't understand... Is this what everyone here was dreaming of, or is it what they were most likely expecting?

 

[bakerzdosen]

I don't understand... Is this what everyone here was dreaming of, or is it what they were most likely expecting?

If it doesn't run OSX Server (legally), I'm not sure what the draw is.

 

[daveschroeder]

No, everyone thought this was going to be some kind of magic partnership with Mac OS X Server running on third party hardware.

As I and others said in the original story, it's nothing more than an Xsan Metadata Controller replacement running on Linux.

 

[Sedulous]

Did Apple license OS X to an outside manufacturer?

 

[daveschroeder]

Did Apple license OS X to an outside manufacturer?

No.

 

[joskewarez]

"we are very excited about that.."
hmmm, where dit i hear that stupid sentence before

 

[fswmacguy]

It has a Mac OS X-style interface, however it does not run Mac OS X.

While it doesn't run Mac OS X Server, it looks like a fantastic continuation of Apple's now closed off XServe product. Glad to see someone stepping in and offering such a product. However, I fear that the ten or eleven XServe customers may be disappointed to know that this doesn't run Mac OS X out of the box.

 

[Abacab]

OS X SERVER Software install?

My question is can you install Snow Leopard Server on this?
Or can you use a Mac Mini server as a head?

 

[daveschroeder]

My question is can you install Snow Leopard Server on this?
Or can you use a Mac Mini server as a head?

You can't, and no. It runs Linux.

 

[SkippyThorson]

Very cool. I knew it would fill the gap, but this was quite possibly the most interesting non-Apple announcement in quite a while. I thought Apple would have more of a hand in this, but I think this will do just fine as a replacement.

 

[daveschroeder]

Very cool. I knew it would fill the gap, but this was quite possibly the most interesting non-Apple announcement in quite a while. I thought Apple would have more of a hand in this, but I think this will do just fine as a replacement.

...if the ONLY thing you need is an Xsan Metadata Controller. We don't use Xsan at all, so this is useless to us (and many, many others) as an Xserve "replacement". For its target market, it's great indeed.

 

[Abacab]

Why can't ?

If Prystar made their own server, what would stop this from being hacked?

 

[daveschroeder]

If Prystar made their own server, what would stop this from being hacked?

Nothing stops it from being "hacked", but many organizations want a LEGAL way to run Mac OS X Server in a supported configuration in enterprise environments. Hacking something to run Mac OS X Server is NOT an option.

And it was "Psystar".

 

[kas23]

This is strange. Apple pointed its server customers in these people's direction. Why wouldn't they just license out OS X server to them? I suppose if they licensed-out OS X sever, they would have to keep making updates for it and supporting it. I guess Apple really just wants to wash their hands of the server business altogether.

 

[Stella]

I don't see why Apple just doesn't license out OSX for server use, so a select manufacturers can make OSX servers.

Apple have nothing to lose since they've given up on the server market.

The licenses can have a list of requirements to safe guard 'user experience' et al that Apple like.

 

[daveschroeder]

This is strange. Apple pointed its server customers in these people's direction. Why wouldn't they just license out OS X server to them? I suppose if they licensed-out OS X sever, they would have to keep making updates for it and supporting it. I guess Apple really just wants to wash their hands of the server business altogether.

No they didn't. This product is a replacement for ONE function of Mac OS X Server: an Xsan Metadata Controller. We are a (very) large Apple site and were not directed to Active Storage.

And yes, you're right: Apple is slowly exiting the server/pro product space.

 

[AriX]

Was really hoping this would be a solution to replace the Xserve. It's not. This is only useful for those who rely on Xsan, as opposed to any of the other features of Mac OS X Server. I really thought Apple was going to do something drastic, like license OS X Server, but I guess not. Can't wait to see the OS, though, sounds like it's an Apple-sanctioned Mac UI-over-Linux, which is quite interesting.

 

[daveschroeder]

I don't see why Apple just doesn't license out OSX for server use, so a select manufacturers can make OSX servers.

Apple have nothing to lose since they've given up on the server market.

The licenses can have a list of requirements to safe guard 'user experience' et al that Apple like.

You do realize what you're saying here, don't you?

Ignoring for a moment the massive driver/support issues, even if it was select few server manufacturers, it requires Apple to keep developing and supporting Mac OS X Server as a server product. That, too, will likely be going away someday.

That, and if Apple did want to allow Mac OS X Server to run in enterprise environments, licensing it to run on third-party hardware is not required. All that's needed is a license change to allow it to run in existing non-Apple enterprise virtualization environments:

http://AppleOpenLetter.org

Was really hoping this would be a solution to replace the Xserve. It's not. This is only useful for those who rely on Xsan, as opposed to any of the other features of Mac OS X Server. I really thought Apple was going to do something drastic, like license OS X Server, but I guess not. Can't wait to see the OS, though, sounds like it's an Apple-sanctioned Mac UI-over-Linux, which is quite interesting.

It is NOT Apple-sanctioned, and it's not a "UI-over-linux". It's got some Mac OS X admin tools, sure...but it's just a turnkey Xsan MDC replacement running on Linux...nothing more.

 

[Luman]

Very cool. I knew it would fill the gap, but this was quite possibly the most interesting non-Apple announcement in quite a while. I thought Apple would have more of a hand in this, but I think this will do just fine as a replacement.

If by "fill the gap" you mean fill one role, yeah. If by "fill the gap" you mean AFP, iChat, Calendaring, Mail, MySQL, NetBoot, NFS, Push Notifications, Software Update, and Apache (you know, just to name a few) then um... no.

 

[bdkennedy1]

How is this a replacement when it doesn't run OS X? I wish Apple would make a statement about the direction they are going with OS X Server. We have switched everything to Macs here and depend on iChat, Address Book, & Push servers and there's no way in hell I'm switching everything back over to Windows.

 

[AriX]

It is NOT Apple-sanctioned, and it's not a "UI-over-linux". It's got some Mac OS X admin tools, sure...but it's just a turnkey Xsan MDC replacement running on Linux...nothing more.

I guess you're right. The way the article is written makes it sound like it is an OS X interface on the machine, but when you watch the video, it is clearly just some tools that can be used from a Mac workstation.

I said Apple-sanctioned because according to a previous MacRumors article, Apple is planning on pointing potential Xserve customers to Active Storage.

 

[daveschroeder]

I said Apple-sanctioned because according to a previous MacRumors article, Apple is planning on pointing potential Xserve customers to Active Storage.

That article was just speculation, and the only customers they can point in that direction are Xsan customers. And if there is any pointing, it's likely to be informal; when Xsan customers ask "what are we supposed to do now?" Apple can direct them to this product. That doesn't mean it's "sanctioned", just that it's a product out there that fills a need. I suppose this is an issue of semantics, but I don't see that as "sanctioned". Active Storage did this on its own without Apple's knowledge, approval, support, or blessing (because they didn't need it).

 

[Chaos123x]

The next Mac Pro will be rackmountable.