Apple Considering Discontinuing More Server-Focused Products?

[KnightWRX]

Guys, Im sorry, but I have read so many non-sense comments here...

Also, they will discontinue Xserver, NOT mac OS X Server. There is no reasons to worry about such thing.

Maybe before pretending to be a black pot calling out the kettle about its color, you should read the title of this thread :

Apple Considering Discontinuing More Server-Focused Products?

We know the Xserve is a done deal, we've known for months, there's 2 huge threads about that already. What we are discussing here, the original topic, is the possibility of the Xserve only being the first server product to hit the chopping block.

 

[SamuraiArtGuy]

Honestly, I use Mac in creative professional environment. You most likely don't. Adobe has many great products that are vital to creative professionals. You clearly have no idea. Enough said.

As a fellow creative pro, I have a Love/Hate relationship with Adobe. We pretty much have to have their products, particularly Creative Suite, to be professionally relevant. And they've become a near-monopoly since they consumed Macromedia, mostly to get their hands on Flash.

I cringe over Flash, as you have to be both right and left-brained to both design in the damn thing and then get it to DO anything. ActionScript 3 is almost painfully nerdy for the visually oriented. And I am not a fan of the performance hit Flash inflicts on our Macs.

But all that said, I am not all that trilled that Apple antagonizes Adobe at OUR professional peril. If the mac Pro User market shrinks enough for lack of support from Apple, Adobe could just as easily pull the plug on the hassle and expense of further development of Mac OS versions of Creative Suite. And Apple does not seem all that interested in us lately.

But good luck doing page layout or serious prepress on an iPad anytime soon...

 

[Marcos Cerutti]

Unfortunately I think you've added to the non-sense. Yes, Xserve is no longer going to be sold after this month, but that's not what the thread is about (or at least what it originally was about). The rumor is not that Xserve is going away but about the discontinuing of the Xserve is a sign that other server-type products from Apple are on the chopping block.


Lethal

Hi there mate!
Why would you think server-type products would be discontinued?

Maybe before pretending to be a black pot calling out the kettle about its color, you should read the title of this thread :



We know the Xserve is a done deal, we've known for months, there's 2 huge threads about that already. What we are discussing here, the original topic, is the possibility of the Xserve only being the first server product to hit the chopping block.

I got it mate, but the point is, there is no reason, as they still need server side softwares. FNS for example is a key tool for managing the workflow in a big FC based studio. there is lots of big companies using FC...

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'd rather see them make the OpenDirectory, Mac Client management tools and whatnot available on Linux/Unix/Windows Server Platforms instead. OS X Server's tools are what is nice about the server platform, not the underlying OS.

That is actually a fantastic point. The easy to use underlying OS would really only be necessary on a server in a home or a small business of no more than say 50 clients, for which products like the Mac Pro Server and the Mac mini Server suit just fine. Otherwise, if you integrate the services that matter into the other OSes, you actually have a server OS that makes sense to sell in rack mounted configurations. I mean, it seems weird to see the Xserve go, but it only makes too much sense. As far as it being only the beginning of the end of their Server products? I'm skeptical. They might undergo a transformation that distances them from hardware like the Xserve, but I doubt they'll disappear altogether. Interesting topic of conversation though.

Guys, Im sorry, but I have read so many non-sense comments here...

First off, this is not a rumor, Xserver is going to die. period. just read @ apple.com

Second, for you guys talking about windows servers... I work in a environment with more than 9000 servers, almost 3000 are windows boxes(all others are Solaris, Red Hat, AIX and HP-UX), guys, you got no idea how crap and unstable they are, we never saw an server with an uptime longer than 4 weeks. Before arguing the company is bad, this is the top 5 IT oursourcing companies on the globe. Windows servers dont work for brutal workloads... Try run oracle on it...
1U hack mount servers are meant to be used in a hack, how many Xservers apple sales a month? 1% of macpros sales maybe. There is no reason to keep production of such really expensive hardware if few ppl buys it. Its business, sorry.

Also, they will discontinue Xserver, NOT mac OS X Server. There is no reasons to worry about such thing. they need server side products, regular Mac OS wouldn't have the tools right now to serve content like QT streaming or podcasts...

No panic folks, it all gonna be fine ;-)

If the rumor is to be believed, then the Xserve is the first of other Apple Server products going by the wayside. THAT'S what people are worried about.

Unfortunately I think you've added to the non-sense. Yes, Xserve is no longer going to be sold after this month, but that's not what the thread is about (or at least what it originally was about). The rumor is not that Xserve is going away but about the discontinuing of the Xserve is a sign that other server-type products from Apple are on the chopping block.


Lethal

Exactly. Though I'd wager, that even that is unlikely.

 

[rdrr]

Novell still exists (obviously Pinkwhatshername should have gone to http://www.novell.com). They bought SuSE, not the other way around. They just sold the company to a venture capital firm and sold some patents to Microsoft but they remain around for the foreseeable future.



Apple has a deal with VMWare to allow virtualization of OS X Server. The caveat is that it has to be on Apple branded hardware, so essentially, that was the Xserve.

So OS X Server already runs perfectly on top of VMWare, they're a license change away from getting their foot in the door of all the ESX/ESXi deployments out there. But after 3 months of having cancelled the Xserve, I doubt the confidence is there. They basically killed any good will they had in the entreprise server space with that boneheaded move.

That is their short sighted view. No way would I buy a 1U apple server to install ESX on it. It wouldn't be worth the effort. 1Us still take up well 1U and have all the cabling as any other machine. Compared to an IBM BladeCenter, 9U's, 14 blades, and not nearly the cabling requirements.

Apple has to allow the OS to be virtualized on any other company's hardware, or they might as well kill OSX server.

 

[MSFTdude]

I would first like to get some things off my chest before I either get flamed or otherwise put down.

I'm a hardware and software geek. I like to play with computers running Windows and Linux, Apple computer and devices alike, and anything in between from Nintendo consoles to Playstation and much, much more.

And surprise surprise, I work for Microsoft, and more specifically in their consulting services (let the flames begin). The following is only my opinion, not that of my employer.

Now, I can understand that a large number of technology websites have their fair share of trolls or otherwise ill informed participants, but I felt a need to answer the following quote because something simply doesn't sound right.

And before I go into it, I would like to add that I have no experience in the Apple Server products, but I have seen and used a great number of Linux server installations which should be able to replace any server related product from Apple if I'm not mistaken?

Second, for you guys talking about windows servers... I work in a environment with more than 9000 servers, almost 3000 are windows boxes(all others are Solaris, Red Hat, AIX and HP-UX), guys, you got no idea how crap and unstable they are, we never saw an server with an uptime longer than 4 weeks.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you, and I would even urge you and your company to contact Microsoft support services (which, if you've got 3000 server licenses and possibly many more app licenses on top), should result in swift and very often, free support thanks to the rather good support service we have (this is my opinion having worked in non-Microsoft jobs, as well as in my current Microsoft role).

Anyway, I've worked in companies where we have had several hundreds or thousands of servers running Microsoft operating systems and applications, and they worked as expected. And in my current job, I provide consulting services for companies with several hundred, to sometimes tens of thousands of servers running Microsoft based operating systems.

In my previous sysadmin job, I had servers which remained un-rebooted for anywhere from 6 months to over 12 months. And now I visit customers with servers ranging up to 5 digit numbers (and beyond!) and when I run toolkits that analyse the general health of the environment, I regularly find systems that have not experienced a reboot in over a year. And many of these systems run applications from Exchange, to SQL, Sharepoint and even Oracle databases.

Of course, a system which hasn't been rebooted in over a year does not have the latest patches. And everyone knows that Microsoft operating systems are also most prone to being "attacked". So a system which has been up for over a year is a mixed blessing as it's nice to see a system that still runs a year later, but which unfortunately sends a darker cloud within my mind as due patch installations have not taken place (that many times require a reboot).

Therefore, if your company has to regularly reboot their servers just to keep them running (and this is non-withstanding a typical patching reboot), then I seriously recommend you to contact PSS and find out what it is that your company is doing wrong.

Anyway, this message was written on my Mac Mini running Windows 7. I'm looking at upgrading to a newer Mac Mini as my current one is the older (taller) model with a slower 2.26 Ghz processer and I get performance values of 5.9, 5.5, 5.3, 5.5 and 5.3. Anyone got a newer Mac Mini and could share the performance indicators with their Win7 installation?

Cheers all and keep enjoying electronic devices, I know I am, and it doesn't really matter where they come from, as long as I'm happy using them and they do their job

 

[AidenShaw]

there is lots of big companies using FC...

Soon the verb will be in the past tense - "there were lots of big companies using FC".

The future is very clear - "If you need an Apple that you can't hold in your hand - it's time to switch back to Windows".

Apple has to allow the OS to be virtualized on any other company's hardware, or they might as well kill OSX server.

Apple has effectively killed Apple OSX server. If you eliminate the only (low end) server that ran Apple OSX Server - you've killed it unless you announce VMware ESX support in the same breath.

(However, I disagree that Apple had to support "any other company's hardware" for their ESX supported systems. They could support a small set of 3rd party systems - for example ProLiant DL360/DL380/DL580 systems.)

 

[pondosinatra]

At one point maybe. Anything Symantec touches it ruins. Case in point, Altiris.

So true. Backup Exec Server Recovery (BESR) used to be a great and simple product, but now it's bloated beyond all recognition as you're now forced to also install Altiris client in order to run it.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

So true. Backup Exec Server Recovery (BESR) used to be a great and simple product, but now it's bloated beyond all recognition as you're now forced to also install Altiris client in order to run it.

Then configure either the NS or DS

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Apple has effectively killed Apple OSX server. If you eliminate the only (low end) server that ran Apple OSX Server - you've killed it unless you announce VMware ESX support in the same breath.

Apple has effectively done nothing of the sort. The sky is not falling. Everything is ok:

Apple will continue to take orders for current Xserve models through January 31, 2011. These systems will have Apple’s full standard one-year warranty. The AppleCare Premium Service and Support program for Xserve is available as an option at time of order to extend complimentary technical support and hardware service coverage to three years from the Xserve date of purchase.

---------------

A dedicated-server version of Mac mini was first introduced in October 2009 and was well received. Combining a small form factor with a dual-core processor, 4GB of RAM, and two 500GB hard drives, along with the Mac OS X Server ease of use,3 Mac mini has been praised by customers of all types and sizes. Mac mini immediately became Apple’s most popular server platform by far.
The June 2010 update of Mac mini improves its server configuration with an all-new enclosure with easy memory access, a built-in power supply, a thinner profile that fits into a 1U space, a faster dual-core processor, faster 7200-rpm hard drives, and DDR3 RAM support up to 8GB. For small/medium business (SMB) and workgroups up to 50 users, a single Mac mini running Snow Leopard Server can typically handle an entire workgroup’s server needs. Workgroups with a larger number of users can consider breaking up server services across multiple Mac mini servers.
While not a rack-optimized form factor, the thinner aluminum profile of the Mac mini
fits in a 1U space. Two Mac mini systems can sit side by side on a shelf in a 1U. Several different kinds of rackmount brackets are available from third-party vendors.

Apple is saying, repeatedly, that the most popular use of Mac OS X server is not serving up hot warez in goldman-sachs or multinational firms using only mac products (if such a beast even exists) , but rather small/medium educational, workgroup and office environments. OMG I know I know, the mac mini doesn't have LOM, redundant power supplies, quad hot swappable drive bays and PCI express slots but the xserve simply didn't sell. The Mac mini as well as the Mac Pro w/ server image IS selling, and that's the bottom line. Doesn't matter to whom it's being sold to, but it's moving and it's moving well, well enough for Apple to give a damn atleast. Apple is taping out of a market that they never had any foothold in to begin with. I've seen 2 XServes that were racked and i'll be the first to say that they were the sexiest peices of kit in the entire rack (probably in the entire data center) but their roles were limited and could be replaced easily by other solutions.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple has effectively done nothing of the sort. The sky is not falling. Everything is ok

OK for the "home server" market, definitely not OK for anything but a small workgroup which doesn't depend on the server.

 

[calaverasgrande]

I actually have seen Xserves in the wild. There were also some Macminis in the same rack now that I think about it.
The reason that it is silly (IMHO)to axe the xserve is that there is power in having a complete solution from soup to nuts. Dell and HP get this. They offer many products that cant compete on a feature level with Cisco or IBM but which round out their line nicely.

You simply cant have an entire company "in the cloud". I have worked at places that tried this. It severely sucks when nobody can get into Jira to find out what they are supposed to be working on because the link is down or more often because frickin Jira is down! (and let me just say Jira's support is abysmal!). Ditto for Office live or office purple or whatever they call it now. Google apps is neato for startups that dont want to have to setup an exchange server and all that, but 100+ seats on google apps, I dont see it.
Cloud computing is an interesting adjunct to native apps, it shouldn't replace them. One good example: If you do web development and occasionally need to batch some jpegs into gifs, using an online image tool is dandy. If you do graphic design it would be stupid to base your workflow entirely around that online tool.


I've said it before, I think Apple should throw more weight into their server division. They should have more hardware options. More server builds. MS server 2008 has all kinds of different versions to suit different environments. Imagine if Apple took this a step further to make the server a BTO item that can be preloaded with a workgroup mail and authentication server, or a webhost, or FCS etc.
Sadly it seems like Apples server offerings have always been tailored only for small workgroups. Even back in the powerpc days.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

OK for the "home server" market, definitely not OK for anything but a small workgroup which doesn't depend on the server.

And since apple is positioning the Mac Mini as a small workgroup server then I guess all is well. And just because it's a small workgroup doesn't mean they can't rely on a mini/mac pro for critical functions such as user management and the like. If they really want redundancy than a second mini will do very nicely and is easily configurable in a backup role.

 

[fermat-au]

Big mistake. I teach at a high school, my lab is all Mac. All of our student accounts are network accounts on the Xserve using LDAP. I also use it as a Netboot to image my entire lab. I have had countless students beg their parents to buy them a Mac after using them in my class. If the server goes away, my Mac lab goes away. If I can't manage the student accounts/clients it is of no use. It also means my video production class moves from Final Cut. Apple loses customers. STUPID, short term thinking. Where is the famous Apple vision?

Many people have similar stories. As I wrote the another thread when Apple announced the discontinuation of the Xserve. Mac servers are often used to support Mac desktops. Even if a school (or other organisation) only buys one or two serves they support 100s of desktops. I also teach in a high school so understand that you need a central serve for network accounts. This is an area that Microsoft excels in, as you would expect being a business computer company.

I think that Mac community is slowly coming to terms with the fact that Apple is no longer the computer company of 10+ years ago they are a consumer electronics company that still makes some stand alone/home/small business computers.

 

[KnightWRX]

And since apple is positioning the Mac Mini as a small workgroup server then I guess all is well. And just because it's a small workgroup doesn't mean they can't rely on a mini/mac pro for critical functions such as user management and the like. If they really want redundancy than a second mini will do very nicely and is easily configurable in a backup role.

The thing is, small workgroups usually don't require a server OS of the grade OS X Server offers. This thing is for enterprise businesses/education that want to manage large Mac installations or for FC installations.

The Mac Mini is not a solution. No redundant power supplies, a hard drive failure requires swapping out the whole box (putty knife to a server ? If you want to get fired yeah...), single Ethernet interface, etc.. etc..

Even the Mac Pro doesn't cut it in the data center these days. Seriously, you're trying to defend a position you don't understand. Come back here after having a few years in a data center under your belt.

Oh, and I like how you bolded that the Xserve bought today just before discontinuation is only going to have a 1 year warranty. Wow. First, businesses want service contracts. Long service contracts. 1 year doesn't cut it. On-site, 4 hour repair, for as long as the machine is in production, which might be between 4 to 5 years in some cases please.

 

[BrotherBeagle]

I'd rather see them make the OpenDirectory, Mac Client management tools and whatnot available on Linux/Unix/Windows Server Platforms instead. OS X Server's tools are what is nice about the server platform, not the underlying OS.

Why?

If you're in an AD environment, extend AD. Apple's Password service is a bit of voodoo and if you're authenticating against AD it's unnecessary (and you're not relying on OD's kerberos tickets anyhow).

If you're not already invested in a mixed MS environment, OpenLDAP happily exists (and originated) elsewhere. You won't get Apple's interface; but, with some work, Webmin/Usermin can take a lot of the weight for a quick interface and you'll find most of what you need readily available via your distro's package manager without much stress.

If you rely on OS X Server, you're best to begin your migration path now. I love Apple's products, but Apple cannot be trusted in an enterprise setting (actually, that's not true -- Apple has no interest in enterprise, so I suppose you can trust them... they don't want your business, they make lots of money without it).

If there is a 10.7 server (if, if, if...) it'll only buy you time. Industry changes, if you're a sys/network admin -- your job is to change along with it.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

WOW.

Did you even read my first post?

The thing is, small workgroups usually don't require a server OS of the grade OS X Server offers. This thing is for enterprise businesses/education that want to manage large Mac installations or for FC installations.

If small workgroups don't require OS X Server then why is the Mac mini...wait , i'll post it again :

A dedicated-server version of Mac mini was first introduced in October 2009 and was well received. Combining a small form factor with a dual-core processor, 4GB of RAM, and two 500GB hard drives, along with the Mac OS X Server ease of use,3 Mac mini has been praised by customers of all types and sizes. Mac mini immediately became Apple’s most popular server platform by far.

The Mac Mini is not a solution. No redundant power supplies, a hard drive failure requires swapping out the whole box (putty knife to a server ? If you want to get fired yeah...), single Ethernet interface, etc.. etc..

//sigh.

Apple is saying, repeatedly, that the most popular use of Mac OS X server is not serving up hot warez in goldman-sachs or multinational firms using only mac products (if such a beast even exists) , but rather small/medium educational, workgroup and office environments. OMG I know I know, the mac mini doesn't have LOM, redundant power supplies, quad hot swappable drive bays and PCI express slots but the xserve simply didn't sell. The Mac mini as well as the Mac Pro w/ server image IS selling, and that's the bottom line. Doesn't matter to whom it's being sold to, but it's moving and it's moving well, well enough for Apple to give a damn atleast. Apple is taping out of a market that they never had any foothold in to begin with. I've seen 2 XServes that were racked and i'll be the first to say that they were the sexiest peices of kit in the entire rack (probably in the entire data center) but their roles were limited and could be replaced easily by other solutions.

Even the Mac Pro doesn't cut it in the data center these days. Seriously, you're trying to defend a position you don't understand. Come back here after having a few years in a data center under your belt.

Don't put words in my mouth.

What position am I trying to defend? This has nothing to do with the XServe. I i've used and like the product and, in my mind, it has it's place, but thats not what the conversation is about. I'm responding to the posters comments that 'OS X server' is 'effectively dead' to which I pointed out that the 1U hardware was the only thing going away, and that the server tools were being adopted at a much higher clip on the Mac Pro and Mac Mini. NEVER did I say that the Mac Pro/Mini was a suitable replacement in a data center environment. Oh and thanks for telling me how experienced I am .

Oh, and I like how you bolded that the Xserve bought today just before discontinuation is only going to have a 1 year warranty. Wow. First, businesses want service contracts. Long service contracts. 1 year doesn't cut it. On-site, 4 hour repair, for as long as the machine is in production, which might be between 4 to 5 years in some cases please.

That was brought up to say that OS X Server will more than likely be around for some time (atleast 1-3 years considering the contracts) and, again, since it IS selling on the cheaper hardware, it has potential to be around for alot longer. If you've got a problem with the included SLA then bring it up with Apple. Why the hell are you telling me? LoL get a different product or something I dunno.

And hey, WRX, i've seen you around and I know you're cool and all. I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion with you and anyone on these boards, but I won't tolerate attacks.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

WOW.

Did you even read my first post?



If small workgroups don't require OS X Server then why is the Mac mini...wait , i'll post it again :

I would like to point out that saying that the mac Mini server is the best selling Apple server is like saying a netbook is the best selling laptop. Does that means that the netbook is a replacement for the laptop no.
What mac mini server is so popular server wise is it is cheap and not server grade. Home users buy it. Hell I would be tempted to buy it over a mac mini not because I want a server but because compared to mac mini I get better specs for less money. I can easily buy a USB DVD drive with the savings.

Just figured I would point that out and tell you that the argument you are using is not a good one.

 

[KnightWRX]

WOW.

Did you even read my first post? Reading comprehension ftl :/



If small workgroups don't require OS X Server then why is the Mac mini...wait , i'll post it again :

The Mac Mini was a great home/SOHO server before a server edition existed, without the benefit of Mac OS X Server. The fact that Apple wasn't considering that its Mini was being used as a server before doesn't mean crap.

It's not server grade hardware and the Mac Mini server is overkill as far as OS functions go for companies that would put up with its hardware limitations.

I comprehended your post just fine. I see from your new post that you still have no grasp of data center logistics and thus should not dare to start justifying these paltry offerings. Let Apple do its own marketing.

 

[yellow]

If there is a 10.7 server (if, if, if...) it'll only buy you time. Industry changes, if you're a sys/network admin -- your job is to change along with it.

You paint a pretty doom and gloom picture here.

There will definitely be a Mac OS X Server released continually into the future. While the hardware might not be there in 1U designs anymore, with Parallels releasing Server for Mac, so it's still possible to run VMs of Mac OS X Server. I just really don't see Apple totally abandoning OD, SUS, AFP, NetBoot/Restore, etc anytime soon.

Don't begin to panic yet.

 

[KnightWRX]

You paint a pretty doom and gloom picture here.

There will definitely be a Mac OS X Server released continually into the future. While the hardware might not be there in 1U designs anymore, with Parallels releasing Server for Mac, so it's still possible to run VMs of Mac OS X Server. I just really don't see Apple totally abandoning OD, SUS, AFP, NetBoot/Restore, etc anytime soon.

Don't begin to panic yet.

Run VMs of Mac OS X Server... on what hardware ?

Apple already has a deal with VMware to enable virtualization of OS X Server. We can already run OS X server in a VM. However, that doesn't change the fact that it needs to run on top of Apple branded hardware (ie, the Xserve).

There is no more server grade Apple branded hardware.

As for the poster you're replying to, his comment made no sense. If someone was a OS X Server admin and only that, that guy was already pretty much incompetent. Good systems administrators know the basics of how a system works and can adapt easily to any system out there. Unix is Unix, hardware is hardware. It all works the same, give or take a few implementation details. If you have the basics down, the rest you can pick up as you go.

Same for programming. If you're a programmer, it doesn't matter what the "language du jour" is. You know conditional statements, you know looping, you know variable typing, you know pointers, you know objects. The syntax you can pick up.

 

[yellow]

Run VMs of Mac OS X Server... on what hardware ?

In the future? Why not a Mac Pro?

If someone was a OS X Server admin and only that, that guy was already pretty much incompetent. Good systems administrators know the basics of how a system works and can adapt easily to any system out there. Unix is Unix, hardware is hardware. It all works the same, give or take a few implementation details. If you have the basics down, the rest you can pick up as you go.

As an OS X Server admin, I thank you for ******** on my skills and knowledge.

 

[AidenShaw]

Same for programming. If you're a programmer, it doesn't matter what the "language du jour" is. You know conditional statements, you know looping, you know variable typing, you know pointers, you know objects. The syntax you can pick up.

Excellent - but you shouldn't have let our secret out of the bag....

In the future? Why not a Mac Pro?

Redundant power supplies?
Hot swap disks?
24x7 support?

Things that you get with a rack-mount Proliant that costs much less than an Xserve or Mac Pro.

 

[fluffels]

I'm surprised at how many people there are chiming in and missing the point completely.

There's more than one industry where OS X Server is important. Yes, most (if not all) tasks it accomplishes can be taken up by other operating systems and/or hardware, but that's not entirely the point.

Mac OS X Server and its associated hardware - the Xserve primarily - may be a small market for Apple, but that really doesn't mean it's not important.

Changes to the EULA to allow for virtualization such as with ESX, in parallel with the current offerings (the Mac mini Server and Mac Pro Server) will make it easier for companies which require the server product to cope, but it won't solve all the problems. Some (you'd be surprised at how many) require proper server equipment.

I mean a 19" rack-mountable box that isn't 3U in height. Something powerful, with dual PSUs, LOM and PCI slots.

There's no way in hell anyone in their right mind would run Xsan controllers in a virtualised environment, it's just a world apart from the 'good idea'.

...and that brings me to my fear - Xsan could well be discontinued, because without proper server room solutions, it's quite useless. Yeah, you can use Mac Pros, but you don't want three or four of them sitting in one corner taking up all that space if you could possibly have one a few slim Xserves in a rack.

Of course one can use Stornext controllers (it's virtually the same product, indeed Xsan is a fork of Stornext itself), but there's another problem there: cost. A Stornext client can cost 3-4x that of an Xsan license.

Apple have posted a KB article on how to join a Stornext SAN with Xsan, but the problem is there are useful features in Xsan that are left unsupported. You delve in to other problems that become more time consuming to support, and you end up with your IT costs rising because of all this extra software that's in no way as easy to support. Xsan isn't 'simple', but it's a darn sight better than Stornext!


Overall I think that it's a bad thing. Discontinuing the Xserve - and possibly other server products - is just going to cause issues for many organisations.

:sadface:

 

[KnightWRX]

As an OS X Server admin, I thank you for ******** on my skills and knowledge.

If really all you know is how to "admin" OSX Server, you're not an administrator. In the industry we call guys like you that need pre-written procedures for particular system Operators. Any Unix admin can work with OSX Server without any issue, along with tons of other systems.