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

Apple Discontinues Xserve, Only Available Until January 31st

Well, Apple obviously admits that they have little business in large server rooms. I kind of agree that if you need lots of computing power, there's much better and cheaper ways to get it. I have never used OSX Server personally, but it seems like it's very easily manageable and scalable.

Now if you think about the people who need lots of raw processing (or storage) power, running OSX, chances are you're picturing tech oriented universities, video processing farms and alike. Both of these likely have plenty of space to stack up similarly powerful Mac Pros.

However the lack of redundant power, easy-to-access hard drives and the generally wasteful form factor make the Mac Pro a rather bad machine for an existing server room.

The Mac Mini server has lots of potential, but I believe that you need to be able to physically access the hard drives in a business environment.
 
MrCrowbar said:
The Mac Mini server has lots of potential, but I believe that you need to be able to physically access the hard drives in a business environment.
Click to expand...

That is true. And for that reason the mac mini is also a joke as home server.
(But in my eyes that is also the iMac as Computer -> HDD + Glossy)

+ ECC
 
calderone said:
Again, this doesn't answer the question of how this is done on a fresh box. Let me be more clear.

1. You pull a brand new machine out of the box
2. You put it in place and turn it on
3. Casper finds that machine and adds it to the management console
4. You are then able to force that machine to NetBoot for imaging

I want to know how they are doing number 4 on a fresh out of the box machine. Not how they are doing it after it is imaged.
Click to expand...

For the record -- I've never attempted a zero touch deployment. Let's make that very clear. I'll have to look into the documentation deeper and ask on the mailing list how one would do that.

If you're really interested in that aspect, I'd suggest visiting the JAMF Casper Mailing list, perusing the archives or even joining and asking there.

I switched our deployment mechanism from DeployStudio to JSS back in January (upper management decided they preferred to have a paid third party , so it's very possible that I'm missing something about the concept and if it is possible to do so, it's something I might want to consider in the future. At this point, though, I actually prefer the idea of a little bit of hands on work before first image (I scan all serial #'s and MAC addresses to build the imaging whitelist and control the naming scheme).

Anyhow -- I've hijacked enough here. In the meantime, I'm going to be focusing on getting JSS running properly on a Debian server. I know I'm going to be put on the spot come Monday morning about my plans for migration to non-Apple 1u servers...
 
MrCrowbar said:
Well, Apple obviously admits that they have little business in large server rooms. I kind of agree that if you need lots of computing power, there's much better and cheaper ways to get it. I have never used OSX Server personally, but it seems like it's very easily manageable and scalable.
Click to expand...

You'd think that but really osxs has been a low priority for Apple for quite a while. It's basically a consumer server system. If you use Apple's gui, it's pretty good for getting simple confurations up and going. However it's very finicky. If something stops working, it's a PITA. I've had issues with OpenDirectory, Kerberos, automounting fileshares, among others. I've maintained servers with 10.4 10.5 and 10.6. I've spent hours on the phone with Apple Enterprise support. Because of hidden operations done when using the gui, if something gets messed up, it can be very difficult to track down the problem. Try using the server if you have a DNS problem. It can be a nightmare. I've never been recommended to reinstall a Mac system so many times.

I'm thinking about switching to Ubuntu server for my needs. I've already got a couple running specific tasks as virtual machines. My colleague picked up an 8-way with quadcore AMDs (I.e. 32 cores) 3U server for $10K and it includes 3 years of support.

Crackpip
 
I know it’s a leap, but it’s moves like this that make me start to worry about how committed Apple is to its pro users. I was just planning building out a shared storage/asset management server system for my FCP-based video editing department at work. Sure, I can just buy another Mac Pro as a server, but it takes up a ton more space and lacks a lot of the “always on” niceties of the XServe.

With FCS lacking in major updates (Cocoa, 64-bit, GCD), no mention of further development of the QuickTime X framework to replace QT7 in 10.7... I just don’t know. Makes a man nervous.
 
killmoms said:
I know it’s a leap, but it’s moves like this that make me start to worry about how committed Apple is to its pro users.
Click to expand...

Apple is not committed to its pro users. Apple might give you a six month heads up but there are no guarantees. There are no road maps, no dialogue, and no long time strategy announcements (that you can trust).

The reason for this is that Apple get a lot of free publicity from staying secretive and the company has a lot of freedom to change strategy on a dime if it gives them an advantage in the consumer market.

If you base the infrastructure of your company on a significant long term investment in Apple hardware, chances are it will bite you. This really shouldn't come as a surprise by now.
 
This is shocking news. Dropping enterprise customers like this generally unheard of. Apple's success has come about from dedicated users and I would suggest that you don't get much more dedicated than installing apple servers in your business.

I think many are underestimating the trickle down effect that occurs from the enterprise level.
 
gkarris said:
Meh, Apple makes most of its money on Mobile Devices....

Wouldn't surprise me if the iMac is next (just use a MacBook), followed by the Mini (just use an AppleTV with apps)...
Click to expand...

That's a bit extreme...

Apple is pursuing what they know they can do best, as they always have done.
They won't drop iMacs or Mac Pros, they are part of their legacy, but Xserve you have to admit that hadn't a bright future anyways, and they decide to focus on the rest of their products.

Apple hasn't been among big enterprises that's why they made the MacMini server in the first place, and now they tag along with the MacPro.

I understand that some pro users have been left with a bitter taste, but that how was going anyways.

PS: doesn't OS X server works always have been working on VMs? You can still have other - cheaper and/or better - hardware, but still have your OS X experience, isn't it?
 
Xserve Sacrificed so Apple Can Succeed in Enterprise

Apple has been making tremendous gains in Enterprise and Government markets. They have been far outpacing the PC market:

https://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/23/mac-government-and-enterprise-sales-leap-in-2q-2010/

With the success of the Mac, iPhone, and iPad and more businesses and enterprises looking to deploy them, why would Apple abandon this opportunity as well as existing Enterprise/Government/Pro Video/Science/Academic/Education customers?

I don't think they are, and the XServe end of life probably indicates that Apple is now ready for a serious push into the Enterprise market.

Two of the largest factors that have been holding them back, IMHO are 1) hardware prices and 2) support.

In order to compete on cost, Apple would have to get into the commodity server hardware business, and that would eat into their margins and profits. That's why they got out of the storage business and dropped the XServe RAID, so why not do the same thing they did with Promise and switch to an Apple Certified Server hardware partner or partners?

On the support side, Apple's support for XServe, while good, has not kept up with the competition. Why not concentrate on supporting just the Enterprise software (OS X Server, XSan, XGrid) and leave the rest to their certified hardware partners? They're going to have their hands full supporting all of those iPhones, iPads, and Macs.

Killing XServe will allow Apple to free up limited resources at Apple and focus instead on higher margin areas. Partnering up with one or more Apple Certified Server hardware partners, just as they did on the storage side, would keep Apple from wasting resources in a commodity server hardware market, and their existing Enterprise/Government/Pro Video/Science/Medical/Academic customers would not be abandoned.

Who will it be, and when will they announce it? Unisys?

During Apple's earnings conference call last week, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook noted that while Apple is not looking to offer business-specific hardware, the company is stepping up its efforts in enterprise sales in an attempt to bring more business and their volume purchases on board. Cook noted that Apple has seen great momentum in areas where employees are involved in the purchasing decisions, but that the company is building additional corporate-focused capacity to address the broader market.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bgav said:
Who will it be, and when will they announce it? Unisys?
Click to expand...

Even if they do announce it at this point, they failed. You don't leave enterprise customers hanging and don't EOL products on a Friday without anouncing a migration path.

Seriously, they really burned some bridges on this one.
 
sonicbaz said:
This is shocking news. Dropping enterprise customers like this generally unheard of. Apple's success has come about from dedicated users and I would suggest that you don't get much more dedicated than installing apple servers in your business.

I think many are underestimating the trickle down effect that occurs from the enterprise level.
Click to expand...

You overestimate the role of enterprise computing in the Mac's resurgence. It's not a trickle down effect; it's a trickle up effect. As more people adopted the Mac at home, there was more pressure from workers to allow Mac's in the office. Plus there were high profile malware outbreaks leading to re-evaluation of the wintel monoculture. It certainly wasn't because of Apple's compelling options for the enterprise. They just don't have decent enough support nor decent enough admin software.

crackpip
 
KnightWRX said:
Even if they do announce it at this point, they failed. You don't leave enterprise customers hanging and don't EOL products on a Friday without anouncing a migration path.

Seriously, they really burned some bridges on this one.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is Apple chose Unisys after Unisys lost several LARGE accounts.
 
crackpip said:
You overestimate the role of enterprise computing in the Mac's resurgence. It's not a trickle down effect; it's a trickle up effect. As more people adopted the Mac at home, there was more pressure from workers to allow Mac's in the office. Plus there were high profile malware outbreaks leading to re-evaluation of the wintel monoculture. It certainly wasn't because of Apple's compelling options for the enterprise. They just don't have decent enough support nor decent enough admin software.

crackpip
Click to expand...

but it complete kills make in the business environment. Pulling a stunt like this took them from being a minor player to truly irrelevant. Apple fried what ever trust it had with that group. You do not pull a server product like that with no replacement planned or announced. Why would any one trust Apple after this. No business can afford to trust Apple and more than likely those that are going to suffer are paying the price for trusting them.
 
maybe they put some cheap linux racks on their new cloud center and finally realized that it would be the best step to take also for their clients :)
 
Rodimus Prime said:
but it complete kills make in the business environment. Pulling a stunt like this took them from being a minor player to truly irrelevant. Apple fried what ever trust it had with that group. You do not pull a server product like that with no replacement planned or announced. Why would any one trust Apple after this. No business can afford to trust Apple and more than likely those that are going to suffer are paying the price for trusting them.
Click to expand...

This is nothing new for Apple and their attitude toward enterprise. Enterprise people have never trusted Apple anyway even after Mac OS X was released. In terms of gaining enterprise share, IT has always been the enemy. Truly, I think this will turn out to be a non-issue. People are upset now, Buying plans will have to be changed-- including my own, I had an XServe purchase budgeted for next year.

Any company large enough that they can't use a Mac Pro in place of an XServe will have the technical expertise to use other systems (which they most certainly already have) to provide the needed services. For servers you could always get better quality and support for less money elsewhere.

There was never anything that compelling about OSXS or an XServe for enterprise use. Gains made in the enterprise have been due to workers requesting Mac clients and IT houses being able to include them in their existing infrastructure.

Now education, they may have some issues with this, but again, if they're dependent on OSXS, they can almost certainly drop in a Mac Pro instead.

crackpip
 
crackpip said:
Any company large enough that they can't use a Mac Pro in place of an XServe will have the technical expertise to use other systems (which they most certainly already have) to provide the needed services. For servers you could always get better quality and support for less money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Too bad that you need OS X Server to manage many of the services Apple deployments require, not to mention video editing shops that live and breathe with Final Cut Server.

If they wanted to get out of the hardware business, the proper move would have been announcing a migration path off their hardware while retaining their software. This would either be a 3rd party hardware vendor to replace the Xserve as an authorized OS X server platform (like IBM did when they gave the right to Lenovo to keep the Thinkpad brand after building them for so long for IBM) or announcing an extended deal with the likes of VMWare to permit OS X server to run on top of vSphere on any hardware platform out there.

Heck, such a move could've bolstered their enterprise penetration. Keep your own hardware and virtualization infrastructure, and now you get this option as an extra to just deploy as a VM.

They dropped the ball big time. If that was part of their strategy, I want to know what they are aiming for with this.
 
KnightWRX said:
Too bad that you need OS X Server to manage many of the services Apple deployments require, not to mention video editing shops that live and breathe with Final Cut Server.
Click to expand...

What OSXS only services are required for an OSX deployment that are so mission critical they can't be run on a Mac Pro or a Mac Mini? Because really, what we're talking about is the form factor of the server and the hot-swappable power supplies.

Running OSXS as a virtual machine on non-Apple hardware would a decent thing for Apple to do. I don't expect Apple to do it, but it would be nice of them.

crackpip
 
seriously, some responses to this is hilarious as its is CLEARLY obvious they have no clue about storage, servers, data farms, etc. any suggestion that a mac mini or some other ridculous suggestion clearly illustrates their ignorance

suggesting a mac pro as a server is the same as suggesting some one has had a case of the mondays. i have noticed lagunasol is noticeably absent from this thread

KnightWRX said:
You have never worked in a data center. Seriously. Suggesting a Mac Pro will get you fired. How do you even swap out a drive without having to shutdown the damn thing and take it out of the rack ?

The Mac Pro is fail and doesn't scale for enterprise applications. It may be fine if all you need is one, but as soon as you scale beyond about 5, it's just not feasible.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is a pure apologist.
Click to expand...
 
Sigh

What's become of Apple? Every year it seems the professional users are left further and further behind while the stores fill with soccer Mom's and urban hipsters drooling over the latest iToy. Now the retirement of Xserve and suggesting already present systems that are NOT replacements for servers.
 
xIGmanIx said:
seriously, some responses to this is hilarious as its is CLEARLY obvious they have no clue about storage, servers, data farms, etc.

suggesting a mac pro as a server is the same as suggesting some one has had a case of the mondays. i have noticed lagunasol is noticeably absent from this thread
Click to expand...

Who uses XServes in storage, data/render farms, etc? Pixar never did. It doesn't seem that Apple themselves used them very often. Nobody knowledgable is suggesting a Mac Pro farm is a good solution for highly demanding applications (although the Virginia Tech cluster started out that way but they didn't use OSXS). However, who actually thought that an XServe farm with OSXS would be a cost-effective solution?

crackpip
 
Seriously, Apple should partner with HP or DELL (blasphemy, I know...) for Data Center-grade rack mountable servers.

Pick a configuration and either support OS X Server on the raw "iron", or through one of the virtualization platforms that supports OS X Server.

Let HP or DELL's Enterprise support group handle the hardware / storage integration, and ensure each generation of hardware support the selected hypervisor (VMWare or what ever).

It's only a clause in the Apple license agreement that prevents you from having a whole cluster of high performance OS X Server instances running in your private cloud. With out XServe, Apple needs a viable option for the data center. (A 12U high, non-redundant power/non-hotswappable drive Mac Pro is not it...)
 
KnightWRX said:
Even if they do announce it at this point, they failed. You don't leave enterprise customers hanging and don't EOL products on a Friday without anouncing a migration path.

Seriously, they really burned some bridges on this one.
Click to expand...

I agree with you totally on that point.
 
crackpip said:
Who uses XServes in storage, data/render farms, etc? Pixar never did. It doesn't seem that Apple themselves used them very often. Nobody knowledgable is suggesting a Mac Pro farm is a good solution for highly demanding applications (although the Virginia Tech cluster started out that way but they didn't use OSXS). However, who actually thought that an XServe farm with OSXS would be a cost-effective solution?

crackpip
Click to expand...

Have you ever even worked with servers or seen rank servers up and running.

MacMini zero redundancy (no go automatically) add in very little horse power and ineffective use of space.. Mac pro are a waste of space and power. Very little redundancy to them.
They would need multile Mac Pro acting as a server in any large scale deployment so waste of a lot of space and power.

It is pretty clear you do not know what you are talking about. KnightX works in the field understand this stuff.
 
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