Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Active Storage Prepping Replacement for Apple's Xserve?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What a lame company. Their site can't handle the traffic. Seriously Apple?!
Their traffic probably increased x 10 since this article got posted, they probably weren't ready for that much interest.
The only way that this could be a "solution", would be if it were able to run OS X server. So maybe Apple will outsource, so to speak, their server hardware to this company, and allow OEM/licensed version of server to run on non apple hardware
If so, that would be amazing!
If so, that would be amazing!
Guys...keep in mind this may just be a repackaged Mac Pro, a la the old Marathon rackmount solutions.
That wouldn't require Apple's knowledge, blessing, or support. I'm not saying this is the case; just something to consider.
That wouldn't require Apple's knowledge, blessing, or support. I'm not saying this is the case; just something to consider.
While you're right, we can do a lot of this stuff through VMWare, we like using Mac OS X Server. However as far as I know, Apple doesn't allow you to run OS X Server in a VM on non-Apple hardware.
Mac OS X 10.6 Server permits virtualization. If the hardware isn't Apple and the OS is, it must be sitting on a HyperVisor of some sort.
For starters, Psystar went about it completely wrong. Second, they were by no means an enterprise-level company; the stuff they were churning out were little more than hackintoshes. Now it remains to be seen whether these guys will be able to step up to the plate the same way Apple did with the XServe, but (third) if you look at some of their products, I'd say they might be able to. And fourth, right in the article, the company was founded by a former Apple employee. Oh and Apple doesn't have a lawsuit in progress, pending, or complete against these guys either. Tada!
Last edited:
Mac OS X Server 10.6 (and 10.5) permit virtualization only on Apple-branded hardware. So no, it's not virtualization sitting on a hypervisor. If it's legal, it either has to be a non-Apple server product that is being rolled out with Apple's blessing (unlikely), or a repackaged Mac Pro in a rackmount case (more likely).
Don't get ahead of yourselves, here, guys. Apple has likely had no talks with ActiveStorage, and they're figuring out how to do it with Mac Pro innards...nothing more. I'm not saying this is the case, just that it's very likely that it's something like that.
It occurs to me that if Apple are indeed in effect outsourcing the design and sales of the Xserve hardware to another company (for whom the relatively small sales may be more worthwhile), they might treat this as a test run for a new business model for the future of the Mac Pro.
There has been a lot of speculation over the last year or so about whether Apple might be looking to drop the Mac Pro in the long term, to concentrate on consumer devices.
What if it were to develop a new business model where a trusted partner would take on the design, manufacture and sales of a minority product, that would be running the current Mac OS which Apple would be developing for the consumer Mac range?
There has been a lot of speculation over the last year or so about whether Apple might be looking to drop the Mac Pro in the long term, to concentrate on consumer devices.
What if it were to develop a new business model where a trusted partner would take on the design, manufacture and sales of a minority product, that would be running the current Mac OS which Apple would be developing for the consumer Mac range?
Interesting speculation, but it's not just the hardware that is at issue: it's the OS, too. And Enterprise Support. And a host of other things.
Apple is exiting these markets entirely, and there is no benefit to having a "trusted partner" take them over if it didn't make sense to keep.
Active's primary customers for their RAIDs are enterprise and media customers using them as alternative storage for Apple's Xsan which itself is just licensed StorNext software from Quantum.
This is just going to be a rackmount Linux server running StorNext which Apple Xsan clients can connect to.
This is just going to be a rackmount Linux server running StorNext which Apple Xsan clients can connect to.
And this, folks, is even more likely: Mac OS X Server may not be in the mix here at all.
And under the black cloth is...
*POOF*
Nothing... But a cartoon cloud wearing a stupid grin. Maybe even waving, if we're really lucky.
IDK, blade servers just seem so 2003.
Regardless, it would not surprise if it had something to do with N.C.
Much as I also wouldn't be surprised if I had no idea about what I'm talking about.
*POOF*
Nothing... But a cartoon cloud wearing a stupid grin. Maybe even waving, if we're really lucky.
IDK, blade servers just seem so 2003.
Regardless, it would not surprise if it had something to do with N.C.
Much as I also wouldn't be surprised if I had no idea about what I'm talking about.
What, in the same way Dell, IBM, HP support Windows in the enterprise instead of Microsoft?
if you want a cluster then you need a SAN. otherwise it's dirt cheap. something like $700 a server plus the management license
i'm not a vmware admin but it took me 2 hours to roll a server with the free version of esx server for internal testing. and it's very easy to administer.
for larger organizations it's not just a physical server cost savings but licensing as well. Oracle and others will rape you on licensing for DR sites. with vmware you license once and just ship your vmdk image files to your DR site and mount them if the need arises. and you don't need pages of documentation how to fail over apps. just change the IP's at your DR site. it's like trucking all your physical servers but a lot easier
Well, I just thought that these markets might only turn a relatively small profit and be regarded as more of a distraction from the money making products by Apple, but that they may wish to retain a foothold in these areas OS wise, and allow a smaller outfit of ex-employees to take the risk and possibly make a (to Apple) relatively small amount of profit.
My point is that the OS would be developed by Apple anyway for it's consumer Mac products, and that the responsibility of providing enterprise support etc. would shift to the new manufacturer of the hardware. Apple would get the benefit of maintaining a presence in various markets with it's software (creative professionals etc. who need to use Mac Pros as well as the server sort of market) without having to faff about with the hardware and support.
So whose hardware in Apple NC Data Center?
So whose hardware would Apple be running in their NC Data Center?
Whose hardware is Apple running their own site on?
If it's not their own, doesn't it make them vulnerable not just in security, but also as far as supply?
To what extent is Apple "self contained" = independent as far as the hardware they use to run Apple itself? Obviously Apple can't make everything themselves, but in this case, particularly with NC Data Center coming, I would think they'd want as much independence as possible?!
But then, Apple is no fools... They know what they are doing... Thus, it'd be silly to second-guess them, but curiousity would be understandable!
So whose hardware would Apple be running in their NC Data Center?
Whose hardware is Apple running their own site on?
If it's not their own, doesn't it make them vulnerable not just in security, but also as far as supply?
To what extent is Apple "self contained" = independent as far as the hardware they use to run Apple itself? Obviously Apple can't make everything themselves, but in this case, particularly with NC Data Center coming, I would think they'd want as much independence as possible?!
But then, Apple is no fools... They know what they are doing... Thus, it'd be silly to second-guess them, but curiousity would be understandable
!