Apple Discontinues Xserve, Only Available Until January 31st

[Rodimus Prime]

So Rodimous can you share any details about their setup? How do they handle 100 clients with each possibly using more than 100 mb/s of bandwidth? How many Xserves do they have? How many large RAID arrays? What's the work flow like?

Crackpip

Umm I think you are confusing data storage vs Processing power. Very difference set up there.
You are trying to get my to explain RAID arrays.
I am not an expert in that area. I just know of them and I have seen enough other set up that require some pretty heavy end back bone stuff to know it is pretty easy to do.
For internal lan networks is it not hard to get the speed required for those.
You can also buy the bandwithe you need if you are going over IP to some 3rd party.

You are really just seeming to be apple apologizes and not understanding.

 

[Hal Itosis]

After reading ALL of the posts with regard to this subject, this particular post is The One with regard to the relevancy of the subject at hand: once you've burned your bridge, you're never coming back, at least with regard to anything more than an iGadget.

Never coming "back" to what?
The huge server business for which Apple was world-renowned?

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

This is a long read but take a look at Philip Hodgett's speculation on the future of FCP (which includes discussing AV Foundation as the new underpinnings of QT).

Now you've just shown how much you don't know about this topic.

I can run 20,000 clients off of about 15 VMs for Exchange. However, a render farm for 10 simultanous projects of video editing is probably going to require about 50 times the processing capacity.

Apple and oranges really. Final Cut Server doesn't just serve small text files from a database like Exchange does (yes, even with attachments, a 8 MB file served off of Exchange's EDB backend is nothing).

All rendering and exporting done in the Final Cut Studio apps is only local w/the exception of Compressor which can be setup for network rendering but it seems to be flaky so it is often not used. Pretty much across the board NLE's (non-linear editors) aren't currently designed to take advantage of render farms like, say, 3D animation software.


Lethal

 

[lilo777]

Never coming "back" to what?
The huge server business for which Apple was world-renowned?

Some people had hopes that Apple might have some future in enterprise. Not anymore.

 

[drsmithy]

Since Apple permits OSX Server Edition to run in a Virtual Environment, there isn't much impact for large users of Xserve 1U's.

Apple only allows virtualising OSX on Apple's own hardware.

Which comes pretty close to defeating the purpose completely, especially now there won't be any appropriate hardware on the market to do it on.

In short, your "solution" isn't possible.

I never knew BSD sucked in a server environment.

Despite what a lot of people like to fantasise about, OSX and "BSD" (whichever one you might mean) are not identical, or even significantly similar.

Its almost like its not BSD, its OS X and just happens to share some components. I mean Windows XP and Server 2008 R2 are like the same thing right? OS X server shared a lot with bsd and unix but it does have its own quirks.

XP and Server 2008R2 have vastly more in common than OSX and any "BSD".

HP and Dell don't have any official roadmaps [...]

Absolutely they do. I get a presentation twice a year laying it out from Dell, HP, IBM and Cisco.

Included (at a minimum) is timelines for new models (including important capabilities like # of PCIe slots, RAM capacity, # of drives, CPU options, etc) model revisions/updates (changing of CPUs, RAM types, etc) and EOLs (it's typical to get a solid 6-12 months warning when that's going to happen so "last-minute" purchases can be easily rolled into budgets and project plans).

Incidentally, this covers laptops, desktops and servers (and we aren't even close to a large customer - only 100-odd physical boxes and a four hundred or so employees). It's generally NDAed, but you can find nearly all the information publicly within a few months anyway.

You're not an IT Admin are you? This move is a huge loss in credibility for Apple. Oh, and BTW, the XServe had the best price point in the industry for Xeon 1U servers.

No they didn't, except maybe for the first month or two after a hardware update (since other vendors drop prices as a product ages and Apple does not). A similarly configured Xserve costs anything from about one to several thousand dollars more than a similarly configured Dell R610 (or PE1950 or 1850 if going back further), and still only has a 1-year NBD warranty to boot. This has been true since they were first introduced.

There's never been any compelling reason to buy an Xserve unless you needed it for a very specific purpose - ie: you needed OS X server or had one of the handful of corner cases where the G5 was a significantly faster CPU.

 

[Carniphage]

Surely the right solution at this point is for Apple to licence OS X Server to a hardware vendor?

This would keep customers happy, while allowing Apple to gracefully withdraw from the server hardware business.

C.

 

[drsmithy]

A racked Mac Pro is in many context a better consolidation box than a XServe would be.

No it's not. The only thing a Mac Pro has over a typical 1U server is more expansion slots, and even those are largely irrelevant with properly integrated designs (RAID on motherboard, dual 10Gb CNAs on motherboard, etc).

Does anyone here truly think that Apple can compete in this space with razor thin margins just to gain a few market share points in the "Others" category in a shrinking market?

The intelligent people here are concerned less with whether Apple is selling an Xserve and more with the fact they won't have any suitable OS X server option at all.

It blows my mind - and speaks loud and clear about Apple's attitude to businesses - that this announcement did not come hand-in-hand with a modification to OS X Server's licensing to allow running it on the common Hypervisors (vSphere, Hyper-V, Xen) on non-Apple hardware. If it had, pretty much all the genuine concerns here would be nullified an the announcement unquestionably seen as a net positive, probably acting as a huge enabler for greater penetration of OS X Server and Macs into the Enterprise market, whereas now Apple's reputation will be all but destroyed in this market segment.

I must admit I'm having trouble fathoming the mindset behind this. Discontinuing the Xserve is one thing, and probably quite reasonable. Basically telling the Enterprise market to bugger off is another thing entirely, especially when such a simple and obvious alternative (virtualisation) exists.

 

[jmggs]

Are any tools to manage Mac Clients with Linux or Windows?
Open directory, user applications, Logins, ical etc...?

 

[crackpip]

Umm I think you are confusing data storage vs Processing power. Very difference set up there.
You are trying to get my to explain RAID arrays.
I am not an expert in that area. I just know of them and I have seen enough other set up that require some pretty heavy end back bone stuff to know it is pretty easy to do.
For internal lan networks is it not hard to get the speed required for those.
You can also buy the bandwithe you need if you are going over IP to some 3rd party.

You are really just seeming to be apple apologizes and not understanding.

I don't need you to explain RAID arrays, I know enough about them. I also know, first-hand, that actual computational power can be easily constrained by limitations in data access. I just wanted some details on an actual setup in use by a major production house. So if you don't know the details about a real-world setup, just say so. It certainly seems that you don't.

Based on what I've seen in other forums and Lethelwolfe's post, I'm starting to suspect that a large centralized system may not be what is used in actual houses. Instead smaller groups may have their own separate resources with access to a large storage array for archiving and transferring projects between groups.

Lethalwolfe, would you mind discussing the workflow and setup used in a sizable production house for live action video? Is it more centralized or more distributed? Do you think the loss of XServes is a big deal? Do you know of any large deployments of XServes?

Are any tools to manage Mac Clients with Linux or Windows?
Open directory, user applications, Logins, ical etc...?

Yes, for the things you mentioned there are better tools out there.

crackpip

 

[PhoneI]

After reading ALL of the posts with regard to this subject, this particular post is The One with regard to the relevancy of the subject at hand: once you've burned your bridge, you're never coming back, at least with regard to anything more than an iGadget.

Sales of Windows 7 prove otherwise (after the Vista disaster).

 

[iShater]

Reading this news has certainly been a shock to me. Add it to the Java decision earlier, and I am left scratching my head on whether apple cares about anything other than iLife, and pro AV stuff.

The X-serve, whether making money or not, presented an extension to the platform that basically told anybody interested in going OSX for an entire enterprise "we have you covered on all fronts". That is no longer the case.

A Mac Pro server might work well for a small business that just has a server in the corner, but that is all.

Sad, just sad.

Sales of Windows 7 prove otherwise (after the Vista disaster).

Doubt it can be seen the same way. People were not happy with Vista and Microsoft responded by making a better OS, in this case Apple just dropped the product line.

 

[tosehee]

This makes perfect sense.

I have spent 15 years in IT, and never once, not even when my shop was entirely Mac, did we try to implement Mac servers. The support for enterprise just isn't there. Windows and Linux servers allow connectivity from the Mac user just fine.

Secondly, the future will see a significant push towards private cloud environments with virtualization leading the way. Companies will pay colo and hosting facilities for dynamic VM environments which will reduce their overhead from a power/real estate/staffing perspective and will allow them to be as agile as their business requires them. Apple's server offerings would never fit this mix. Let them focus on amazing desktop offerings, and the mobile space, and leave the server mix to those platforms that embrace the SaaS methodology that everyone will be moving to post haste.

Agree 100% with this.

 

[baleensavage]

While it's hardly surprising, this news is disappointing. There is a very specific type of client that the XServe was targeted at and those people are not going to "settle" for a Mac Pro. As for it not selling well, that is completely and entirely Apple's fault. Poor marketing, lack of updates to at the least keep it on par with the Mac Pro and expensive price point, left the XServe seeming like a "side project" and not a serious venture. It's a real shame too, because it is all about form factor. As much as Apple likes their stylish metal boxes, the business world doesn't care one bit about stylish. They want function over form. Having a rack-mount form factor is essential for certain enterprise situations. If Apple had at least made a half-decent effort to get a foothold in the enterprise market, it could have been a real benefit for them. It's the same logic behind Apple not having a mid-range tower. For many businesses an all-in-one like the iMac won't cut it and the Mac Mini is not powerful/upgradable enough.

 

[ggg05a]

I think Apple needs to release a 1U rack which holds 6 - 9 minis, prewired with PSUs and Cat 6e.

Personally, I'd rather have 9 Minis > 1 Xserve.

 

[fxtech]

I think Apple needs to release a 1U rack which holds 6 - 9 minis, prewired with PSUs and Cat 6e.

Personally, I'd rather have 9 Minis > 1 Xserve.

Good luck swapping the drives out when they fail.

 

[ggg05a]

Without a doubt it would be more of a PITA than the current xServe 1U chassis . . . however

If you are looking for a 1U Rackmount server based application with excessive amounts of redundancy I can think of nothing better than a ton of minis in a 1U rackmount form factor. Sure, its not as convenient to swap out drives, but it would be EXCESSIVELY easy and convenient to swap out whole minis. Have a contingent of a few extra minis lying around, and when a drive fails, image one of the extra minis with what you need, swap it out, and then take an extra hour out of your day to swap a dead drive on the mini, and it becomes a contingent computer.

Just an idea, but Apple could sell one of these things for a couple hundred bucks, or buy 6 minis get a 1U rackmount for them free, etc. and still cater to the server community.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple cares about pro applications?

...I am left scratching my head on whether apple cares about anything other than iLife, and pro AV stuff.

I'm sorry - but what evidence is there that Apple cares about the "pro AV stuff"? (e.g. the lack of Final Cut updates, active opposition to BD support, the implications of the XServe cancellation for Final Cut Server,...)

 

[yadmonkey]

Without a doubt it would be more of a PITA than the current xServe 1U chassis . . . however

If you are looking for a 1U Rackmount server based application with excessive amounts of redundancy I can think of nothing better than a ton of minis in a 1U rackmount form factor. Sure, its not as convenient to swap out drives, but it would be EXCESSIVELY easy and convenient to swap out whole minis. Have a contingent of a few extra minis lying around, and when a drive fails, image one of the extra minis with what you need, swap it out, and then take an extra hour out of your day to swap a dead drive on the mini, and it becomes a contingent computer.

Just an idea, but Apple could sell one of these things for a couple hundred bucks, or buy 6 minis get a 1U rackmount for them free, etc. and still cater to the server community.

Just my 2 cents.

Still not a good option for those of us who are trying to keep a business running. To me, the hot-swappable hard drive (and redundant power supply) is not about ease of swapping the hard drive, but keeping the server up and running and not losing man hours while fiddling with this stuff.

That extra hour you mention is 8 man hours for us - one for each artist/editor who is not working for that time. Probably longer too, as small companies like this don't tend to employ a full time IT department. So that one hour assumes that the IT contractor they hire is immediately available to get on the issue.

Then there's performance. Mac Mini means no fiber channel and it means that you're operating on a 2.5" hard drive.

 

[drsmithy]

OSX and Linux just have different front end. And that is what is genius with OSX. Apple took a 50 year stable/secure OS and put their front end on i. Microsoft should do the same.

They did. The hired the guy who designed VMS and he built Windows NT.

If I have a hardware problem with my Sun server, I can call them and they have to get me a replacement part within 4 hours. If I find a software bug, they have to fix it. I cant have these demands on Linux, even if Linux software support often is better then big companies.

Absolutely you can. Both SuSe and Red Hat will do this.

 

[drsmithy]

Sales of Windows 7 prove otherwise (after the Vista disaster).

Vista was only a 'disaster' in the eyes of the anti-Microsoft brigade. Despite the mountains upon mountains of FUD surrounding it, it sold solidly and provided the transition period necessary for hardware and software vendors to mend some of their ways.

Pretty much all the "problems" with Vista were due to third parties and completely outside of Microsoft's control. 7 was so much "better" because by the time it was released, all those third parties had finally gotten their ***** together and managed to update their products.

Vista was a sacrificial lamb, much like the early versions of OS X were while Apple waited for hardware capabilities to catch up to their ambition.

 

[Hal Itosis]

Vista was only a 'disaster' in the eyes of the anti-Microsoft brigade. Despite the mountains upon mountains of FUD surrounding it, it sold solidly and provided the transition period necessary for hardware and software vendors to mend some of their ways.

Pretty much all the "problems" with Vista were due to third parties and completely outside of Microsoft's control. 7 was so much "better" because by the time it was released, all those third parties had finally gotten their ***** together and managed to update their products.

Vista was a sacrificial lamb, much like the early versions of OS X were while Apple waited for hardware capabilities to catch up to their ambition.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeee. [!]

 

[AidenShaw]

Wheeeeeeeeeeeee. [!]

I have no argument with this .

 

[thogs_cave]

Did anyone actually buy these? I haven't heard of anyone using them.

I've bought a number of them, we use them for video and audio processing, as well as general-purpose servers. It will be tough to replace them with Pros, as they take up a lot more rack space.

I'm sad.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

At first I was puzzled by the decision to cancel the server hardware, but upon more thought I realize Apple is investing in a huge data center in North Carolina. This isn't just for MobileMe customers.

My sense is Jobs & Co see enterprise storage moving from local computer rooms to the cloud, to data centers. If that's so, why spend billions designing and supporting small form factor, proprietary hardware just for data centers? Buy'em from IBM, HP etc.

Yes, I have heard this also. I can't figure out how if someone can't deal with a rack full of Xserves and Xserve RAID's and an admin, they can manage and pay for an OC-192 into "the cloud" (the bandwidth of a small FC array or 10 or so FW800's on individual systems). "The cloud" is going to be very network intensive.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Vista was only a 'disaster' in the eyes of the anti-Microsoft brigade. Despite the mountains upon mountains of FUD surrounding it, it sold solidly and provided the transition period necessary for hardware and software vendors to mend some of their ways.

Pretty much all the "problems" with Vista were due to third parties and completely outside of Microsoft's control. 7 was so much "better" because by the time it was released, all those third parties had finally gotten their ***** together and managed to update their products.

Yes, 64-bit Vista was, and is, OK, too, despite all the FUD. I won't say some of it wasn't MS's fault, though -- MS had always allowed crappy old third party drivers in the past, so, a lot of third-party vendors just didn't get it that they would actually have to release new drivers, heaven forbid. The new push for quality left a lot of old junk out in the cold. Same with old games and old shrink-wrapped software -- a lot of the old garbage wouldn't install or run under Vista.

The negative publicity obviously helped Apple a lot in those years, but, now that the majority of systems have turned over to Vista/Windows-7, Apple is not going to get that big boost for free.