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

Active Storage Announces 'ActiveSAN' Replacement for Xserve

bdkennedy1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The writing is on the wall. We, like many other institutions, are laying plans to transition away from Mac OS X Server, because absent a definitive statement from Apple, the direction away from the server space is clear (any one-word emails from Steve Jobs on the immediate future of Mac OS X Server notwithstanding).
 
daveschroeder said:
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:
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that it requires OSX Server to keep on going - but Apple are continuing with the Mac Pro as Mini as server configurations, so nothing changes there.

If Apple insist on specific hardware requirements then drivers issues aren't an issue.

Apart from speculation, there isn't much evidence that OSX Server is going to be ditched anytime soon. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if OSX7 will be the last server edition.. but that is neither or nor there.


Chaos123x said:
The next Mac Pro will be rackmountable.
Click to expand...

How? Aren't rackable units specific sizes?
 
Chaos123x said:
The next Mac Pro will be rackmountable.
Click to expand...

1. Baseless speculation.

2. Even if it were, a system that is not designed from the ground up to be enterprise server hardware (dual power supplies, reasonable size and form factor, LOM, and a host of other items) is not a solution.
 
Metadata controller?

So does that term only apply to a device meant to control an Xsan installation?
Or are we now supposed to call a server a 'metadata controller' instead?
I mean, it will work as a server too, right?
 
It is not an Xserve replacement. It's a replacement for ONE USE of Xserve.
 
Stella said:
Yes, I know that it requires OSX Server to keep on going - but Apple are continuing with the Mac Pro as Mini as server configurations, so nothing changes there.

If Apple insist on specific hardware requirements then drivers issues aren't an issue.

Apart from speculation, there isn't much evidence that OSX Server is going to be ditched anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Sure...we can't know it's gone until one day it's just -- gone. Like other Apple enterprise products, such as WebObjects, Xserve RAID, and Xserve. Those of us who have been longtime Apple customers and made huge investments in Apple server products are well aware of the history here. Mac OS X Server is being deemphasized, and I would be surprised to see Mac OS X Server continue as a product beyond Lion (and frankly, there has been nothing official said about Lion Server -- all previous future versions of Mac OS X have had companion splash pages for Mac OS X Server; not so for Lion).

The Mac Pro and Mac mini servers are a laughable "solution" for enterprise customers. If Mac OS X Server continued as a product, Mac Pro/Mac mini for departmental/SOHO-type and speciality needs and Mac OS X Server supported in enterprise virtualization environments would be a reasonable split. But I don't see the latter happening, either, and it's clear the direction Apple is heading: consumer, consumer, consumer (with some products that folks in enterprises happen to like very much). As Steve Jobs himself has said several times, Apple is not an enterprise company.
 
Let's face it: Apple didn't want to licence out OS X Server, because in the end they probably want to slowly phase it out....

iOS 5 Server Edition, anyone?? ;)
 
korgri said:
So does that term only apply to a device meant to control an Xsan installation?
Or are we now supposed to call a server a 'metadata controller' instead?
I mean, it will work as a server too, right?
Click to expand...

The only Mac OS X Server/Xserve function this replaces is that of an Xsan Metadata Controller (MDC). This was one of many, many functions of Mac OS X Server. People whose primary or only use of Mac OS X Server was as an Xsan MDC will probably be pretty happy. For everyone else, this is useless.

I would imagine that since it's just a Linux server, it could also do other things, but the issue is that for its purpose, it's also probably intended to be dedicated to that one task. So yeah, it's a "server", but a special-purpose server designed to be an Xsan MDC replacement. Make sense?
 
daveschroeder said:
The writing is on the wall. We, like many other institutions, are laying plans to transition away from Mac OS X Server, because absent a definitive statement from Apple, the direction away from the server space is clear (any one-word emails from Steve Jobs on the immediate future of Mac OS X Server notwithstanding).
Click to expand...

Curious to know what some of those plans entail. Windows with Extreme Z-IP? Centrify for Management? Linux solutions?

Right now for me it depends on the client on what transition solution to implement.
 
rackmount Mac Pro

Chaos123x said:
The next Mac Pro will be rackmountable.
Click to expand...

It is now, you can stick two of 'em on a rack shelf next to each other.

Or you could take the guts out of the cheese grater case, build some
sideways cockamamie thing out of an Erector set and cardboard,
and whammo, 4U rackmountable mac pro.
 
I guess it is good for those running XSan and can't get a Xserve to manage it anymore (or find a used one). But not like this is going to make anyone adopt XSan who isn't already using it in one form or another. That would be a big mistake. XSan is on the chopping block next IMO.
 
asencif said:
Curious to know what some of those plans entail. Windows with Extreme Z-IP? Centrify for Management? Linux solutions?

Right now for me it depends on the client on what transition solution to implement.
Click to expand...

It's a laundry list of solutions depending on the need. Our AppleShare file service customers will honestly probably be mostly transitioning to SMB, and thankfully we don't do any OD (though before the announcement, we were planning standing up an OD environment parallel to our AD and OpenLDAP environments -- glad we didn't do that!). Some tasks (like Podcast Producer) have no current replacement. Most Mac OS X Server customers will either transition to Linux, or pull their Mac OS X Server systems in-house to run on Mac Pros or Mac minis (which we don't support in our datacenter).

It's sad, because we felt Mac OS X Server filled a lot of roles that provided great solutions for Apple client products, but it's probably better to know sooner than later.
 
Ok. I'm going to give you guys all a really quick crash course of enterprise server environments.

Typically, in an enterprise environment, you want the majority of data to be specific to your company to be stored on a SAN rather than the server or servers that you are connecting to. Most of the time the servers themselves have most of their mission critical storage needs (databases, etc) stored on the SAN.

This device appears to be an easy to use replacement for existing Apple X-San hardware. It will provide companies with a large storage capacity for video/audio or databases.

Typically, you would see this scenario:

Client mac -> OS X Server -> SAN

What this means is that the machine running OS X server does not need to have redundant power supplies or dual anything. It just acts as a gateway.

For redundancy, you can have multiple servers running with load balancing or failover.
 
"ActiveSAN is unlike anything else available."

True. "Everything else" that WAS available had like 30 other things they could do as was a SERVER platform, not just a XSAN interface.

This is more like calling someone an ass-quarter.
 
Last edited:
This is NOT an Xserve replacement. You can't run Final Cut Server on it or other Mac OS X only server software! At least they could have gone with FreeBSD over Linux for managing the SAN that would have brought ZFS to the table.
 
How about an explanation ......!!

You guys are making my ears bleed! How about one of you brainiacs explain what the hell a Xsan Metadata Controller is. I've administrated a Linux server for many years so I have some familiarity with the basic setup and operation of a Linux box. (and yes, I'm being lazy here)
 
Thats exactly the problem. The Mac Pro takes up too much space, introduces new cooling issues, is difficult to service (lacks hot swappable parts), provides NO lights out management etc...

Its not a viable server platform.

Apple needs to either port/open source its server end software (Final Cut Server etc...) to FreeBSD, introduce a new Xserve or make a deal with Oracle to put Mac OS X on their Sun Fire servers.

OperatorAce said:
without quite the server class stuff.
Click to expand...
 
am i the only one who feels kind of "disappointed".
i mean it sure is a goos server and so on but this is an alternative and not a solution
 
Maybe Apple should just port its server tools to Linux (and/or BSD)? They clearly are not interested (nor really competitive or successful in the server hardware market). They have an interest in there being servers in the market that serve Mac OS X clients well.
If you need to administer or simply use servers/workstations remotely, you do not care how the hardware looks, nor whether you can run the OS X GUI or even other commercial OS X apps on them. You want nice remote admin tools. Of course it is nice if you can test some server-side applications on your local Mac and then have them run exactly the same on the server but other than that, I do not really care what OS my *nix server/workstation is running.
 
daveschroeder said:
The writing is on the wall. We, like many other institutions, are laying plans to transition away from Mac OS X Server, because absent a definitive statement from Apple, the direction away from the server space is clear (any one-word emails from Steve Jobs on the immediate future of Mac OS X Server notwithstanding).
Click to expand...

It would seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the absence of clarity, you can't afford to be optimistic. When installations decide to hedge their bets, the more likely they have to leave to do so.
 
Magrathea said:
You guys are making my ears bleed! How about one of you brainiacs explain what the hell a Xsan Metadata Controller is. I've administrated a Linux server for many years so I have some familiarity with the basic setup and operation of a Linux box. (and yes, I'm being lazy here)
Click to expand...

+1
I realize that this was not a server replacement, and as I read through Active Storage's web site, I'm still confused about what a MDC is, but it definitely is not a server. This product IS a solution for metadata control. No one advertised this as being a server. That was all guesswork here.

Active Storage's main purpose for being, according to what I read, is not servers but rather, surprise surprise, optimized storage solutions for a niche market. Those with a need for this will know if it is good for them. Those of us without can appreciate a Mac-compatible product, even if we will never use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back