Apple Updates Mac Mini and Adds Server Option

[ronldjnvtx]

Mac Mini

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?

 

[ronldjnvtx]

500

Still $100 to much, needs to be $500 they could sell so many more mac minis if that was the price

I think over 500 is way to much without a monitor.

 

[Sambo110]

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?

Because they don't want to enter the "cheap" computer market. And they shouldn't. They want all their computers to be good, quality machines, not things made out of crappy parts that can't do much.

 

[calderone]

I think this is a good home server.

I would not endorse the use of this server for business purposes - but it has a great place at home.

Is the rest of your post supposed to be justification for this position? Because it is not at all convincing.

I would love to hear more about why you would not endorse this for a business. Do share.

 

[NT1440]

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?

Because they don't have too....

Is there something about this that people on this site don't seem to get?

 

[illweather]

QuickTime Streaming Server
QuickTime Broadcaster
Podcast Producer
Standard file serving (guess what, that includes media files)
No "wizard" needed
-- All features of MacOS X Server
You're talking to an IT Admin, yes I know how to set up a server.
And I have an existing mini running as a media server at home. Works great. This offering from Apple is even better, and a great deal.

Exactly, what the eff do these people mean when they say "media server"? A server can serve files (obviously media files included), why do you need a stupid wizard to share your media files?

And, as you stated OS X Server has (and has had) plenty of media services.

 

[mytdave]

Hi All,

I've actually just read through almost every single post from the past 9 pages, and it was quite interesting at times. My questions are as follows.

I am the sole IT admin for a small company. Currently everything is setup as peer to peer using an older 1TB Time Capsule as the DHCP class 3 server and backup via time machine. I have other components on the network such as 8port gigabit switch and a 8TB WD RAID5 NAS drive for the PC's etc. I'm currently wanting to upgrade us to a real Mac server and I've been looking at the MacPro with max storage and the RAID card to start doing internal backups and archive to an external for safekeeping too. My initial primary reason for wanting to upgrade to a "real" server is for inhouse email serving.

My question is that if I get the MacMini server and it alone houses my emails for the company, what is the best way to keep these backed up and safe?? I know I can easily backup various files to an external etc., but I'm talking about more the day to day drive failure that could happen. If it's a Tuesday afternoon and the HD suddenly fails and our entire company can no longer email, what is the best solution for having this quickly fixed? Do I mirror the 2 500's in the Mini? Can I Time Machine the 10.6 SL server to an external and if it fails restore to backup on the 2nd 500?

Any help is greatly appreciated, and I enjoy reading everyone's posts

Pete

I set up a file server with an older Mac Pro. There are two internal 1TB drives in a mirrored array (great for redundancy/availability should a drive fail). Then externally I have a 1TB drive as a Time Machine backup. This is simple, smooth, and works great. Not only do you have a mirrored drive, but you have the incremental backup nature with the Time Machine disk, which gives you awesome simple restore capabilities.

This same setup with the Mac mini server (@ 500GB) would probably work great for you. If you don't want to use Time Machine for backup, you could use something like Carbon Copy Cloner which does incrementals too, although not quite as fine grained as Time Machine.

 

[calderone]

Exactly, what the eff do these people mean when they say "media server"? A server can serve files (obviously media files included), why do you need a stupid wizard to share your media files?

And, as you stated OS X Server has (and has had) plenty of media services.

That is exactly the problem. What is a media server? A specific feature set? Ease of setup for sharing media files?

Why do people need a wizard? Because if they think they need OS X Server to serve media they are missing what is on their machine right now! You can already share files in OS X client.

Yes it has media services, but not services that are geared toward a media server. Yes it can do those things, share files, etc. But it is not a media server OS, and what I mean by that is this: It is not an OS designed with the sole purpose of serving media files.

You would be a fool to buy OS X Server to serve media. Unless you needed QTSS or Podcast Producer.

 

[MacToddB]

Help me decide: Mini Server vs 4GB/320GB/DVD/MAMP & 1+ TB FW

Hi folks,

I am excited by the new options but also perplexed. Some background:

I need a Mac-based Apache + PHP web server, with lots of storage in a single file system.

The machine will be out of site, at a co-location facility. I don't need an optical drive.

But I also don't need all the features of OS X Server, I just need MAMP or MAMP Pro. (I worked for Sun Micro for 16+ years, so I don't need a GUI to administer the server.)

Is it wise to mirror the (2) 500GB drives in the mini server, using software RAID 1? Are there bus/bandwidth issues, i.e. it would seem that writing to two disks on the same bus could be a performance issue. I don't want to do RAID 0, so this means my largest file system is 500GB, minus OS X. I'd prefer a 1TB or even 2TB file system.

For the $200 price difference, I can get 1TB or even 2TB external storage, which might be a better solution anyway from a reliability standpoint, depending on the enclosure. I'd certainly have more choices, re rpm, hotplug, etc. OS X Server is probably overkill. Space/footprint isn't a big issue.

I really wish there were a non-Server-licensed version of the server hardware. Is it legal to resell the OS X server license, and install Snow Leopard? I just want a Mac-based web server.

I'm leaning towards the $799 4GB/320GB/DVD traditional mini plus a Firewire enclosure with at least one 1TB disk. Any objections/recommendations before I pull the trigger? Firewire drive recommendations welcome, too.

 

[diamond.g]

So I take it the new Mini Server doesn't do SAS. 10k rpm 300gb 2.5" SAS drives are pretty cheap. Has Apples iSCSI support improved?

 

[AidenShaw]

Apples and Kiwi Fruit

Originally Posted by Eidorian
It's a product with no target market.

Oh yes, there is.

The same people that buy Windows Home Server.

I don't think so.

"Windows Home Server" isn't just "Windows Server" on a small box, like the Mini w/ OSX Server.

There's a lot of stuff (like automated backups, including waking systems from sleep for backups) in WHS that's specially for the simple home user.

Mini w/ OSX Server seems to be just that - a Mini with stock OSX Server installed.

Am I missing something? The target markets seem to be completely different. For example, Apple says

"Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server is designed to help you communicate, collaborate, and share information. It’s perfect for any small business or group — retail shops, doctor and law offices, classrooms, design studios — you name it."

"Add as many people as you want.

Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server lets you add an unlimited number of Mac and PC users without per-user licensing fees. So you can grow your business without growing your costs."

WHS says

"Your life has gone digital – it is time to simplify your life so you can easily access your files, photos, videos and music from any PC or TV in your home, or even while away from home. Windows Home Server was designed for households and home-based businesses that have more than one personal computer."

Not the same audience....

 

[wessto]

You can still use it with a tv

Well, there goes the idea of making it the Mac I hook up to the TV.

I bought a mini this summer and put SL server on it. I currently have loaded ilife and plex and use it hooked to my TV with no trouble. Works great. I use "share screen" from my other macs and that works great too. Love SL server ease of use. Sure I could have done a cheapo linux box and configured DNS, Apache, Mysql, etc. etc. like I have in the past, but I'm busy now and don't want to tweak with things. I plugged it in, turned on services and was up and running sooooo quickly. Love it.

 

[airplaneman]

It's a product with no target market.

The home server/small business market, maybe?

 

[mytdave]

I think this is a good home server.

However, some issues exist and other need to be properly addressed.

First one is: There is no e-SATA port. A pity, there goes your fast on-line backup.

Second one is: With only a Firewire-800 port (ignore the slower USB ports, except for weak, occasional data traffic) you are limited. However, you may use any external hard-disk enclosure. There is even a 4-disk Promise RAID-5 array offered that works via Firewire-800. This is good, but remember that the 800 mbs port is a bottleneck!

I would not endorse the use of this server for business purposes - but it has a great place at home.

You only need to replace the original hard disks with 7,200 RPM ones and get yourself a good backup (if nothing else, at least the 2 TB Time capsule apparatus).

I was using a Linux-based solution for Home Server - just switched to Windows Home Server, which is kickass (streaming & everything).

If I had heard of this prior to my option, I might have given this Mini-server a try.

To me, it just needs faster disks (very easy to get) and a proper backup solution (needs careful thought, due to lack of e-SATA port)

.

I agree Apple could make a higher performance mini server, with 7200rpm drives and eSATA, and maybe they will in a future model. But this one is a good first step. You'd be surprised how well a 2.5" 5400rpm drive can perform, and if you stripe the two drives, it will work pretty darn fast.

FW800 is more than adequate for an external backup device, and sufficient for medium performance external arrays. Unless you buy an expensive enterprise disk array with high speed controllers, you're not going to need massive bandwidth. Most of the inexpensive desktop RAID boxes have pretty marginal performance. You won't be getting much better than 90MB/s sustained transfer rates out of them anyway, with many of them performing at less than 40MB/s.

There are a few external RAID units, like the LaCie 4big Quadra that can do burst rates up to 230MB/s over eSATA, but this is not the majority of these type of devices.

This new mini server is perfect for home, adequate for small business needs, and also useful among certain smaller workgroups within medium/larger companies too. I think the ideal targets are anywhere you need a small size, low power, easily managed server.

 

[PVguy]

"To me, it just needs faster disks (very easy to get) and a proper backup solution (needs careful thought, due to lack of e-SATA port)"

Does it really need faster disks? The limiting factor is the network connection out, not the drives. What good does it do to have 3Gb/second drives when you have are sending the data across a 1 Gb/sec ethernet, or a 50 Mb/sec wireless connection?

 

[mytdave]

I don't think so.

"Windows Home Server" isn't just "Windows Server" on a small box, like the Mini w/ OSX Server.

There's a lot of stuff (like automated backups, including waking systems from sleep for backups) in WHS that's specially for the simple home user.

Mini w/ OSX Server seems to be just that - a Mini with stock OSX Server installed.

Am I missing something? The target markets seem to be completely different. For example, Apple says



WHS says



Not the same audience....

Not the same audience with those particular marketing points... Most computers can do far more than what is advertised at any given time. For example, the WHS can do most anything a regular desktop computer can do, not just serve "media." Likewise, the Mac mini server can serve all your media just fine as well as serving a small business workgroup.

The Mac mini server can serve up all your video, music, and photos every bit as well as the WHS server can. The added benefit of the Mac mini server though, is the included enterprise class server OS, in addition to the other benefits like the small size, excellent performance and connectivity for this type of device, and Mac reliability and ease of use.

It's going to take a while for folks to realize just how much capability is available in this product. In this respect, this simple combination of hardware and software has created a revolutionary product. You're getting many enterprise class features at an unheard of price, in an unbelievable form factor. It's pretty cool.

 

[wizard]

Yep been around a long time.

Why not?

After all, obscure companies like IBM, HP, Sun and so on use 2.5" SATA drives in many of their 1U rackmount servers.

Server grade 2.5" SATA drives have been around for about three years now. Now I don't know if that is what the mini is using but it is a possibility.

The only thing that bothers me about the Mini as a server idea is that it isn't exactly a highly serviceable machine. It would certainly work well for many server tasks and if those disks can be RAIDed even more tasks. The biggest problem is the limited space on those drives.



Nice hack by Apple!

 

[mytdave]

Hi folks,

I am excited by the new options but also perplexed. Some background:

I need a Mac-based Apache + PHP web server, with lots of storage in a single file system.

The machine will be out of site, at a co-location facility. I don't need an optical drive.

But I also don't need all the features of OS X Server, I just need MAMP or MAMP Pro. (I worked for Sun Micro for 16+ years, so I don't need a GUI to administer the server.)

Is it wise to mirror the (2) 500GB drives in the mini server, using software RAID 1? Are there bus/bandwidth issues, i.e. it would seem that writing to two disks on the same bus could be a performance issue. I don't want to do RAID 0, so this means my largest file system is 500GB, minus OS X. I'd prefer a 1TB or even 2TB file system.

For the $200 price difference, I can get 1TB or even 2TB external storage, which might be a better solution anyway from a reliability standpoint, depending on the enclosure. I'd certainly have more choices, re rpm, hotplug, etc. OS X Server is probably overkill. Space/footprint isn't a big issue.

I really wish there were a non-Server-licensed version of the server hardware. Is it legal to resell the OS X server license, and install Snow Leopard? I just want a Mac-based web server.

I'm leaning towards the $799 4GB/320GB/DVD traditional mini plus a Firewire enclosure with at least one 1TB disk. Any objections/recommendations before I pull the trigger? Firewire drive recommendations welcome, too.

Tough call. But if you're looking for a web server, you can't do much better than MacOS X Server. And now that you can have SL Server on a tiny little box with dual 500GB drives (1TB w/RAID 0 - but be sure to have a backup) for $1k... well, that would decide it for me!

No issues with bandwidth in either solution, even if you do RAID 1. The hardware components are all going to be faster than the internet connection at the colo. No problem.

 

[AidenShaw]

For example, the WHS can do most anything a regular desktop computer can do, not just serve "media."

I need to tell my media centre pc that - since the files are stored on my WHS....

Not to mention the Itunes media server included in the HP WHS....

The added benefit of the Mac mini server though, is the included enterprise class server OS, in addition to the other benefits like the small size, excellent performance and connectivity for this type of device, and Mac reliability and ease of use.

WHS is based on "Windows Server 2003" - so the "enterprise class server OS" label most certainly applies there as well.

...and the $500 HP server has replicated storage, hot swap drives, ...

If you're familiar with WHS, you'll wonder why anyone can compare slapping OSX server on a mini with WHS. Clearly Apple's positioning them for completely different scenarios.

 

[mytdave]

Server grade 2.5" SATA drives have been around for about three years now. Now I don't know if that is what the mini is using but it is a possibility.

The only thing that bothers me about the Mini as a server idea is that it isn't exactly a highly serviceable machine. It would certainly work well for many server tasks and if those disks can be RAIDed even more tasks. The biggest problem is the limited space on those drives.



Nice hack by Apple!

It is highly unlikely Apple put server grade hard drives in this mini server. But that's okay. It is not a high availability enterprise server, it is a casual use home/small business workgroup server, which should work just fine in those environments.

500GB (RAID 1) to 1TB (RAID 0) is a ton of space, unless you intend to serve up your entire DVD collection. It's more than adequate for a file server.

I do wish Apple would give up on the obnoxious plastic fingers that hold the mini together, and just hold it together with 8 countersunk screws on the bottom. Screws are not bad.

 

[wizard]

You would be better off with the server model and an external CD drive.

Hooking a Mac mini up to a TV rocks! That's what I did. If you're going to connected one to a TV, I would suggest the regular model, not the server model. You are going to want the DVD drive so you can slip in a rented movie or things like that.

I disagree; a CD drive ought to sit on one of the low speed ports. Better to keep the magnetic drives on SATA.

HDTVs have many inputs. The most common now is "HDMI". Many also have RGB, DVI, and VGA inputs in addition to or instead of HDMI. I prefer DVI myself, but HDMI is, well, similar in signaling (except w/audio), and just a different connector.

Apple is moving all of their computers to the new DisplayPort standard (and there are very very good reasons for doing so). Just get yourself a mini display port to HDMI adapter, and you're good to go. Here's one:

Adapters are nice but built in makes more sense. You are right though the connector and port standard should not stop you hooking things up.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311&seq=1&format=2

I'm still not convinced that a Mini is a suitable media server. It doesn't make sense to buy the machine and immediately replace the hardrives for more storage. It isn't what I consider to be good economics.

Unless of course one of those drives fits in a MBP.


Dave

 

[AidenShaw]

500GB (RAID 1) to 1TB (RAID 0) is a ton of space, unless you intend to serve up your entire DVD collection. It's more than adequate for a file server.

I'll tell that to my WHS with 9 TB of disk that's 70% full... (6 TB internal, and 3 TB in an eSATA external JBOD)

My CD collection alone is over 500 GB.

I can't look at the "mini Server" as anything more than a lame, failed attempt to copy WHS. But, unfortunately, "Cupertino's photocopiers" ran out of toner and had a paper-jam trying to copy WHS.

 

[LEStudios]

I still think Apple is the best but they are still to high. Why don't they make a home computer with monitor for under 500?

This Apple not HP. If you want HP Wal-mart has plenty for you.

 

[LEStudios]

I agree Apple could make a higher performance mini server, with 7200rpm drives and eSATA, and maybe they will in a future model. But this one is a good first step. You'd be surprised how well a 2.5" 5400rpm drive can perform, and if you stripe the two drives, it will work pretty darn fast.

FW800 is more than adequate for an external backup device, and sufficient for medium performance external arrays. Unless you buy an expensive enterprise disk array with high speed controllers, you're not going to need massive bandwidth. Most of the inexpensive desktop RAID boxes have pretty marginal performance. You won't be getting much better than 90MB/s sustained transfer rates out of them anyway, with many of them performing at less than 40MB/s.

There are a few external RAID units, like the LaCie 4big Quadra that can do burst rates up to 230MB/s over eSATA, but this is not the majority of these type of devices.

This new mini server is perfect for home, adequate for small business needs, and also useful among certain smaller workgroups within medium/larger companies too. I think the ideal targets are anywhere you need a small size, low power, easily managed server.

Yeah but you can reformat it to Mac OS X Snow Leopard and do whatever it's you Mac mini!

 

[jaw04005]

Am I missing something? The target markets seem to be completely different.

The target market appears fairly clear now. Mac Mini Server is targeted at small businesses. However, when you have Phil Schiller out there promoting it as a “home server” it clouds their strategy.

When I first read the Business Week article, I immediately thought they were targeting enthusiasts who wanted a Mac version of Windows Home Server.

Here’s my feature list for a Mac-based “home server.”

The server would:

• Perform backups of all my Macs daily automatically
• Serve out iTunes media without running full-blown iTunes (think iTunes server for OS X Server, a system preferences’ service that automatically perform “home sharing” tasks like copying over ratings, new purchases, etc with all my client machines and serve my Apple TV)
• Serve out a main iPhoto library to client Macs and automatically copy new photos from those iPhoto libraries to the server
• Automatically create a “Back to My Mac” Web site where you can access your files including music, video and pictures via the Web
• Monitor disk space and push software updates out to all my Macs
• Enable roaming profiles, so anyone in my household could log-in on each Mac and have all their settings, etc.
• Maintain a main iCal and Address Book that would be accessible on every household Mac

and package all this into one tight, easy-to-use OS X-based package.

But that’s not what Apple’s offering currently.