Apple Releases New 'Server' Configuration of Mac Pro to Replace Xserve

[kingtj]

Totally untrue....

The "cloud" thing may turn into an epic failure, really.... The businesses I know who are trying to dabble in "cloud computing" are all telling me it's really not working out 100% for them.

For one thing, you've got the loss of control. If there's some kind of outage, you can do absolutely nothing until the company serving your stuff fixes it. Amazon EC2 and Google have both had several notable outages already, and they're just getting started with all of this stuff in the "big picture". When they have exponentially more customers using them, let's see what their total up-time is.

Furthermore, this shift pushes people ever closer to the concept of paying for subscriptions to keep using their software. When you run your own servers, you can choose to buy an application once and use it for YEARS after that. Won't cost you another penny unless YOU choose to upgrade it to a new version or different product. When you're using someone else's hosted apps? You're stuck in a business model where they make you keep paying a steady stream of money to them, or you get cut off.

I see many up-sides to the "cloud" thing too. Don't get me wrong. It's not all bad. It provides people with off-site storage for their data that solves questions about "disaster recovery", for example. (EG. If our building burns down tomorrow, how do we get the computer system back up and running with all of our data?)

I just think it's something to use selectively, and not to rely on as the "new way to do your business computing".

any small business with an owner who has brains will go to the cloud. cheaper to use Amazon EC2

 

[Macsterguy]

Man, this really stinks. I really liked the look of multiple rack-mounted Xserves. There's nothing quite like the look of a nice, full rack.

...

nice rack... you just cracked me up...

 

[locust76]

Maybe the DC in North Carolina will offer MobileXserve cloud service??? Think about it?

Not even the most die-hard Xserve admins would be insane enough to put their entire server farm in the cloud.

 

[alent1234]

So other than the fact that this is 12U server instead of 1U..

Can someone make ONE point that would warrant purchasing an Xserve instead of a Mac Pro?

Just one.

( this might take a while, looking at the performance/dollar ratio, I don't think there is a single point)

it's a 12U machine that can have only 2 hard drives. HP sells 1U servers that take 8 hard drives and 2U servers that can hold 16. I think Dell might be even more dense.

and while we're at it, the Mac Pro maxes out at only 32GB RAM. HP's 1U servers max out at 192GB. and HP has a 5U server that can take up to 1TB of RAM

and Apple even wants $3400 for the 32GB RAM upgrade. it's less than $1500 for our HP servers

 

[cmaier]

Missing :

- Hot swap, redundant power supplies
- compact form factor with racking option
- power efficiency
- Hot swap drives from dedicated bays that don't require pulling the server.

Yep, not quite a replacement.

Not even close. Why would anyone use a mac pro costing $3k as a server instead of buying a nearly identical box running linux for a third the price? (and gaining power efficiency and better form factor in doing so). Mac OS X is a huge productivity gain on the desktop, but the server OS isn't a benefit over the competition, at least in most markets. And, certainly, if you need a rack a box won't do.

Well I guess that means apple isn't about ready to drop OSX server any time soon.

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps they'll merge the server features into the base OS, instead. I hope so, because otherwise I fear we'll soon learn that there is no Lion Server.

 

[KnightWRX]

So other than the fact that this is 12U server instead of 1U..

Can someone make ONE point that would warrant purchasing an Xserve instead of a Mac Pro?

Just one.

( this might take a while, looking at the performance/dollar ratio, I don't think there is a single point)

Uh ? Many have already been posted. Just the fact of lacking dual redundant PSUs is huge. Serial console for remote, headless management, including during POST and boot, hot swap drive bays for the onboard storage, power efficiency...

Etc...

Ignoring the posts that have already highlighted the deficiencies about the Mac Pro as a replacement to an X serve doesn't mean they don't exist.

Not even close. Why would anyone use a mac pro costing $3k as a server instead of buying a nearly identical box running linux for a third the price? (and gaining power efficiency and better form factor in doing so). Mac OS X is a huge productivity gain on the desktop, but the server OS isn't a benefit over the competition, at least in most markets. And, certainly, if you need a rack a box won't do.

Actually, I can see the benefits of running OS X Server for Mac shops. Update Server alone is huge, AFP with Spotlight support, OpenDirectory for SSO, etc..

As for Final Cut shops, FCS was a great product that runs on OS X Server.

Let's face it, there was a market there. Was it big ? Let's hope not because otherwise a lot of people are being left out in the cold.

 

[cohibadad]

We've installed hundreds of Xserve's. The Mac Pro Server is NOT a suitable replacement for any of our applications. I can show you pictures of rows of 40U racks filled top to bottom with Xserve's.

For those who think Xserve's aren't popular, obviously never set foot into a into a broadcast or post facilty. Try editing uncompressed 1080p HD video on the cloud!

Bingo. I'm puzzled by this move by Apple. Towers are simply not replacements for rack mount servers and unless Apple is planning to completely get out of the Video editing field they seem to have left a gaping hole. I doubt Apple was losing money on Xserves. When they pulled their Xserve RAIDs it was more understandable but this is strange without offering a decent replacement for enterprise.

 

[Abacab]

Apple Enterprise ?

I run an all Mac Office 3 Xserves, 2 Promise Vtrak Raids & 2 SuperMicro NAS's.
Apple has always lacked in the enterprise department and it's quite frustrating.
Don't get me wrong, their support is there if you paid for it, but there are absolutely to suggestions for solutions. It's like here is the equipment your on your own..
I may have to buy another Xserver to keep around for a spare.
This would be a good time for Apple to turn their server market over to a third party like Prystar or OWC.

 

[alent1234]

The "cloud" thing may turn into an epic failure, really.... The businesses I know who are trying to dabble in "cloud computing" are all telling me it's really not working out 100% for them.

For one thing, you've got the loss of control. If there's some kind of outage, you can do absolutely nothing until the company serving your stuff fixes it. Amazon EC2 and Google have both had several notable outages already, and they're just getting started with all of this stuff in the "big picture". When they have exponentially more customers using them, let's see what their total up-time is.

Furthermore, this shift pushes people ever closer to the concept of paying for subscriptions to keep using their software. When you run your own servers, you can choose to buy an application once and use it for YEARS after that. Won't cost you another penny unless YOU choose to upgrade it to a new version or different product. When you're using someone else's hosted apps? You're stuck in a business model where they make you keep paying a steady stream of money to them, or you get cut off.

I see many up-sides to the "cloud" thing too. Don't get me wrong. It's not all bad. It provides people with off-site storage for their data that solves questions about "disaster recovery", for example. (EG. If our building burns down tomorrow, how do we get the computer system back up and running with all of our data?)

I just think it's something to use selectively, and not to rely on as the "new way to do your business computing".

five 9's costs a lot of money so that even large companies don't do it to all their systems. it's a lot more than using Solaris or another ^nix compared to Windows.

for a small business buying hardware on-site doesn't mean no outages. and it's easier since there is less cash outlay when starting a new business like a doctor's office

 

[kingtj]

re:XServe RAID

Yeah... I actually thought the XServe RAID was odd to discontinue like they did, until I saw they were marketing the Promise V-Trak as the alternative. We have a V-Trak here in our Windows server environment, and it's a pretty nice unit. Kind of picky about which SCSI controller card it gets attached to, and runs horrible under Windows 2000 Server -- but flawless under 2003 Server and I'm sure any version newer than that, too.

It's kind of early to say for sure what Apple's plans are, though. A recent rumor suggested a big overhaul is coming for Final Cut Pro though, which tells me they're not interested in exiting that field at all. This may just be a way for Apple to buy some time while they develop a replacement rack-mountable setup. The Mac Pro case hasn't been redesigned in YEARS, so the next revision might be set up to be more appropriate to flip on its side, remove detachable "handles" on top and bottom, and place in a rack?

Bingo. I'm puzzled by this move by Apple. Towers are simply not replacements for rack mount servers and unless Apple is planning to completely get out of the Video editing field they seem to have left a gaping hole. I doubt Apple was losing money on Xserves. When they pulled their Xserve RAIDs it was more understandable but this is strange without offering a decent replacement for enterprise.

 

[the vj]

The Xserver was way too expensive..

I always like the rack version but too expensive, and the Mac Pro is way to bulky as a server, a huge waste of space and you will need to cut the handles to fit it into a rack.

 

[newfoundglory]

It would require a case/internal redesign, but I would imagine it would be possible to get everything from the XServe on the Mac Pro (except the 1U of course) which kinda defeats the object anyway.

2 PSU's at the back and move hard drive access to the front with hot-swap.

We do have several (rack-mounted) XServe machines at work, and i'm here scratching my head thinking what I might do when we replace them.

Perhaps we go down the route of authenticating Mac clients directly with Active Directory and deploy AFP across Windows/Linux boxes - then just use something like a Mac mini to push out client updates with Mac OS X Server.

I can understand the XServe getting the axe, but this Mac Pro "replacement" concept is a joke. Do Apple not have clue?

But, i guess it depends on your application - maybe more people use Mac OS X Server as a small office server, rather than full blown enterprise.

 

[G4er?]

the MacPro is both a workstation and a server,

Chevy Chase on SNL:

Hey, hey, hey, calm down, you two. New Shimmer is both a floor wax and a dessert topping!

 

[Don Kosak]

The only way this is going to work out positively for Mac OS X Server is to allow OS X Server to run virtualized on non-Apple hardware.

Data Centers need standard rack mountable systems that have hot swappable drives and power supplies. The Mac Pro isn't a viable substitute.

If Apple pushes this, we'll end up with most shops migrating core services to Linux (or MS Windows Server Edition), with a token Mac Pro or two to run legacy services.

If the license allows OS X Server to run virtualized on commodity hardware, I believe we'd see A LOT more OS X Server shops.

The question is, how dedicated is Apple to supporting OS X Server? It's a very different business than selling Movies, Music, Books and Apps to consumers.

 

[kntgsp]

Good move for Apple. I have never seen an XServe, nor do I know ANYONE who has ever bought one. That could not have been a money maker for them.

Maybe because you've never been in a server room.

I've never seen anyone with a 17" MBP at work or in coffee shops here, clearly Apple needs to stop making those.

 

[thtate]

Good move for Apple. I have never seen an XServe, nor do I know ANYONE who has ever bought one. That could not have been a money maker for them.

The Xserve has been out since 2002! they were making money on them at $3000 a pop! And everyone says they've never seen one my company use 10 Xserve's! They were making money they just lost focus with consumer products which they are making a butt load on.

 

[buckers]

I've only seen iPads on display in stores and don't know ANYONE who has ever bought one. Do you want Apple to stop making those?

Agreed and barely anyone I know has an iPhone either.

 

[rlmccormick]

no because XServes are so bad that it's going to be too expensive for even Apple to use them

That's an interesting statement. I wonder what Apple will be using in their data center? It would be quite interesting if we found out they decided to go with non-Apple hardware.

 

[ColdZero]

Oh yea, single power supplies, no lom and 12u of rack space for 2 servers, totally a replacement.

 

[maflynn]

Not even close. Why would anyone use a mac pro costing $3k as a server instead of buying a nearly identical box running linux for a third the price?

That's what I'm thinking. Paying a premium for a server but are not really getting any server like features (aside from the OS).

 

[pmz]

I should clarify that I don't necessarily think macs are anyone's best option when it comes to servers. They just exist for those who want them.

From what's available, the Xserve was not the best choice. This new Mac Pro is a better choice for obvious financial reasons, but not compared to other server options.

So, it's a still a choice, just with one less option. Overall, not a good thing for customers.

 

[kryca]

Wonderful, a small step for Apple, a giant leap towards total irrelevancy in corporate environments.

But as long as its coloful and touchable...

 

[acslater017]

Surprising, i thought mounting racks would've sold well. my tower isnt a PITA when it's mounting racks

It's all relative. I'm sure it was somewhat successful, or they wouldn't have continued it for 8 years. But you have to ask yourself, if you were Apple, would you rather dedicate some Shenzhen assembly line to selling 5 XServes or 50 iPads?

Sure, the Mac Mini and Pro are not replacements, but the business calculus just doesn't work out (apparently). My theory, anyway

 

[maflynn]

It's the larger installed based that have big Mac Deployments that want centralized management of their clients that would want something like OS X Server.

Yes, but those larger enterprise organizations don't want a bastardized MacPro that's not rack mounted, no hot swap bays. So from my perspective the people who would opt for this are those that don't/won't go for a rack mount solution, i.e., smaller businesses.

 

[alent1234]

That's an interesting statement. I wonder what Apple will be using in their data center? It would be quite interesting if we found out they decided to go with non-Apple hardware.

the job postings said AIX and solaris, which means they are probably going to use IBM servers with a maybe a mix of HP and Sparc machines. most likely blades or a few 5U boxes running vmware hooked into SAN's.