Sidebar Sidebar
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?

rumornot said:
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:)!
Click to expand...


IBM and Sun/Oracle

do you seriously think Apple runs their company and finances on the kiddie database they sell?
 
rumornot said:
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:)!
Click to expand...

Apple's hardware and software is not enterprise grade and they use other companies who make better products in that space to fulfill their own needs. Perfect example of this is mobileme. For the email servers they use Sun (now Oracle) message servers even though Apple has their own mail server in OS X server. Just look at the raw header from any MobileMe email you've received or sent, and you will see this line "(Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21
2010)) with ESMTPSA"

Apple uses other companies hardware and software in their data centers because Apple is good at making phones, mp3 players, laptops, tablets, and desktop computers.

They do not make great enterprise servers and storage solutions (and they don't need to since they can just buy from another company what they need).
 
iZac said:
Is there any way in the world this could be a non-Apple product, licensed / authorised to use OS X server?
Click to expand...

That would be huge news


Erwin-Br said:
Why would Apple approve this and reject Psystar? (Wow, I actually had to look up their name from Google. Seems like ages ago!)
Click to expand...

I guess the big difference is that this company talked to Apple first and than put the product out - and of course this is server product and not end user desktop. Psystar was just hacking up the OS, ignoring licensing and trying to make money with their illegal products - don't think they ever tried to get permission from Apple for those hacks.
 
Last edited:
alent1234 said:
IBM and Sun/Oracle

do you seriously think Apple runs their company and finances on the kiddie database they sell?
Click to expand...

Apple HQ is almost all Apple hardware, where ever possible. The NC data center had(has?) job posting for Solaris Admins.
 
logandzwon said:
Apple HQ is almost all Apple hardware. The NC data center had(has?) job posting for Solaris Admins.
Click to expand...

there is a huge difference between running imac's and mbp's as clients and a few xserves in a lab and running a data center to support mobileme, retail operations, itunes and everything else apple has to run

apple would go bankrupt buying up xserves from foxconn to run their datacenter since you need a lot more of them than hp/dell/ibm/oracle servers to run the same workload
 
O and A said:
I bet this is whats in the apple data center.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, it's not. Apple doesn't generally even run Mac OS X Server for its enterprise services...it's mostly enterprise OSes and enterprise hardware: Solaris (Sun) and AIX (IBM).

See here for details.

• Apple says that its “data center environment consists of MacOS X, IBM/AIX, Linux and SUN/Solaris systems.”
• The Maiden facility will have a “heavy emphasis” on high availability technologies, including IBM’s HACMP and HAGEO solutions for high-availability clusters, Veritas Cluster Server, and Oracle’s DataGuard and Real Application Clusters.
• Job candidates are also asked to be familiar with storage systems using IBM, NetApp and Data Domain, and data warehousing systems from Teradata.
• Networking positions require a familiarity with Brocade and Qlogic switches.
Click to expand...

This is typical datacenter big iron. There is no "new secret server" in Apple's NC datacenter or elsewhere.
 
Something I've thought:

The XServe was never a consumer product, like I mean, the base, general consumer... Consumers use desktops, laptops, iPods, iPhones, iPads, and routers. The only thing that Apple makes that's not in that category (besides software and peripherals) is the Xserve.

I always thought it was weird that Apple sold a server product. It just doesn't fit in with everything else they made. I think that it makes perfect sense that Active Storage, a company founded by past Apple employees, will be a subsidiary, if you will.

The way that Scion is a division of Toyota. Toyota makes cars, Toyota was always their own thing. Now, under Scion, they can make an entire different line of cars, which don't necessarily get associated with Toyota. The way GM's Pontiac brand almost always took cars and rebranded them from other divisions. Pontiac is its own thing, and does its own thing, yet GM oversees it.

I think this makes perfect sense for Apple - should this be the actual case. Apple can continue making the Xserve, or at least oversee its production. Apple can control it, and Active Storage can sell it - Apple still essentially makes the Xserve, but is no longer associated with it.

* Plus, for all those non-tech-savvy people that don't read MacRumors, they don't think twice. Apple made the Xserve, discontinued it, and now a totally separate company is picking up with a "new" product.

* * Even more, if Active Storage focuses primarily on the Xserve, this one product will get a lot more attention as the head of their lineup, as opposed to the end of the lineup that it was at Apple.
 
Erwin-Br said:
Why would Apple approve this and reject Psystar? (Wow, I actually had to look up their name from Google. Seems like ages ago!)
Click to expand...

Because Psystar made crap (i.e. their stuff was crap) without obtaining a license and without being supervised by Apple, and while insisting no license was necessary and without paying Apple.

Of course, even if Psystar had offered to obtain and pay for a license, Apple still would have rejected them, because Psystar was not bringing anything useful to the table and was merely competing with Apple in more or less the same space.
 
Apple Sold about 40k XServes per year... chicken scratch for a company of their size.

It makes sense that if they are not going to support that anymore that they would at least offer a referral to a solution by an outside company that plays nice with Apple's software.

This is that solution.
 
cmaier said:
Because Psystar made crap (i.e. their stuff was crap) without obtaining a license and without being supervised by Apple, and while insisting no license was necessary and without paying Apple.

Of course, even if Psystar had offered to obtain and pay for a license, Apple still would have rejected them, because Psystar was not bringing anything useful to the table and was merely competing with Apple in more or less the same space.
Click to expand...

This assumes Apple "approved" anything. It likely hasn't. This is very likely something that doesn't need Apple's "approval" in any form. So the initial question is based on a false premise.
 
daveschroeder said:
This assumes Apple "approved" anything. It likely hasn't. This is very likely something that doesn't need Apple's "approval" in any form. So the initial question is based on a false premise.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.

If, however, Apple did license these guys it wouldn't surprise me too much because:

1) past dealings with them
2) not a space Apple wants to be in
3) having SOMEONE in that space is still beneficial to Apple
4) they are likely able to keep close tabs on them and monitor the license and keep the quality level up (a requirement when you license, as it turns out - naked licenses that aren't policed are invalid)
 
If thats the case I hope Apple open sources Final Cut Server. It would be a shame to loose it. I would love to see it ported to FreeBSD.

letterexchange said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I think this is going to turn out to be better than what Apple offered! If true, they can focus on different configurations rather than a simple 1U server. Something like 2u, 3u, etc with more PCI slot capabilities, CPUs and more. Let's hope!
 
Kenrik said:
Apple Sold about 40k XServes per year... chicken scratch for a company of their size.
Click to expand...

Yes but think of it this way, One XServe can serve hundreds of macs. There's at least a chance that companies who want to buy a Mac network will be put off if there is no Rackmounted option. While the loss of 40k XServe sales a year will not matter a bit to Apple, the potential loss of sales to the Mac line because of the lack of a server option may worry them. So the best of both worlds for them would be to have a third party make server hardware. That way they can rake in the money from network administrators buying bulks of Macs to go with a rack mounted server, but they don't have to make that rack mounted server. Plus they still get a licensing fee from Mac OS X Server :) Win win :)
 
daveschroeder said:
This assumes Apple "approved" anything. It likely hasn't. This is very likely something that doesn't need Apple's "approval" in any form. So the initial question is based on a false premise.
Click to expand...
It seems that you are the main person here making assumptions. You are assuming that this is not possible and even assuming that it might be a repackaged mac pro when there is no evidence either way.

Why don't you wait along with the rest of us until Monday and put your assumptions to rest?

Here are the known facts:
1. The company was formed in 2008 out of former employees of Apple's XSan project.
2. Something is being announced and is being billed as "Not an alternative, a solution".

What could that possibly be? There are already alternative SAN solutions to X-San on the market and there are a lot of Unix/Linux solutions that offer network file systems which are compatible with OS X on the market already. With the discontinuation of the XServe, companies are looking for a solution to their future XServe needs and moving to a linux server would be an "alternative" rather than a solution.
 
alent1234 said:
you can buy 1 HP 2U server with vmware and it will easily handle all this

the power savings alone are probably a killer ROI
Click to expand...


Wonder what happens when someone puts all of their eggs in a 2U HP and the mainboard goes down. Hmm. Nothing like losing all of your critical systems at once for at least 4 hours...
 
aristotle said:
It seems that you are the main person here making assumptions. You are assuming that this is not possible and even assuming that it might be a repackaged mac pro when there is no evidence either way.

Why don't you wait along with the rest of us until Monday and put your assumptions to rest?

Here are the known facts:
1. The company was formed in 2008 out of former employees of Apple's XSan project.
2. Something is being announced and is being billed as "Not an alternative, a solution".

What could that possibly be? There are already alternative SAN solutions to X-San on the market and there are a lot of Unix/Linux solutions that offer network file systems which are compatible with OS X on the market already. With the discontinuation of the XServe, companies are looking for a solution to their future XServe needs and moving to a linux server would be an "alternative" rather than a solution.
Click to expand...

Agreed. and to re-iterate the facts here, this isn't just any old ex apple employee, this is an ex director of apple server and storage.Wouldn't be unreasonable to say he knows the market and understands it, also understands 'apples' way more than HP or IBM ever would.
 
rdlink said:
Wonder what happens when someone puts all of their eggs in a 2U HP and the mainboard goes down. Hmm. Nothing like losing all of your critical systems at once for at least 4 hours...
Click to expand...

Is your point that HP mainboards go down more frequently than most? Because, otherwise, the same is true of ANY computer, which is why for mission critical systems you always have redundancy.
 
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