Apple Updates Mac Mini and Adds Server Option

[jaw04005]

Actually that IS what they're offering. What do you think Snow Leopard Server OS does? All of the things you just listed.

Hum, about those 2 points. That is precisely what OS X Server offers. iCal, Address Book, roaming profiles and centralized login. Those are services offered out of the box (amongst others).

Sure a lot of those features are built-in, but they’re not setup for a home environment. It’s too geeky right now. You would have manually configure those services via remote desktop or by plugging your Mac mini Server into a monitor, which home users aren’t going to do.

iTunes serving is done by iTunes. Unlike some other platforms, there is no need to write a completely different app for something the existing app is designed to do. That's just a waste of development resources and complicates something that doesn't need complicating. Same for iPhoto.

It is very clunky to run full-blown iTunes to do I what I listed. You again have to remote desktop into your server to do basic tasks like change your Apple TV sync preferences, change ratings, etc. Home users aren’t going to do that.

Those features are already offered by other products. Backups of all your Macs is handled by Time Capsule. Why duplicate the functionality and waste the drive space on the Mac Mini Server for backups?

OS X Server actually already offers Time Machine server that does those tasks, but again it’s not setup to be run in a home environment and you need to manually configure it get it working on all your Macs.

Back to my Mac is obviously a Mobile Me feature. While it would be nice to have on a local scale, don't expect Apple to give it to you. Either set it up yourself using the included Web Serving capabilities and 3rd party Web apps or just subscribe.

Back to My Mac is also an AirPort Extreme and OS X feature. I’m not looking to get out of paying for MobileMe, but let’s be realistic — you’re not going to sync your entire iTunes or picture library to MobileMe. However, if a Web page was generated locally — you could access it via Back to My Mac (or Bonjour Wide-area network which is the underlying technology behind it).

Apple actually offers remote GUI administration. Running iTunes from there is feasible on OS X server, so it can be done. So who cares if it's done from System Preferences or the iTunes GUI ? You have to VNC in anyway to set it up.

Home users care. There’s no way a regular user is going to remote desktop into a home server box to administer it. Microsoft knew that. That’s why they created Windows Home Server. Everything can be setup and configured without plugging a monitor into the server or using remote desktop.

It’s simple to use. If Apple is going to compete in this space, that’s what they’re going to have to do. And knowing Apple they could probably make it even simpler and better than Windows Home Server.

You act like Apple creating a server-side assistant, client console app and iTunes media server geared toward home use would destroy the mighty OS X Server.

It would probably boost its sales. What they’re offering now only appeals to small businesses and geeky enthusiasts.

 

[KnightWRX]

Sure a lot of those features are built-in, but they’re not setup for a home environment. It’s too geeky right now. You would have manually configure those services via remote desktop or by plugging your Mac mini Server into a monitor, which home users aren’t going to do.

It is very clunky to run full-blown iTunes to do I what I listed. You again have to remote desktop into your server to do basic tasks like change your Apple TV sync preferences, change ratings, etc. Home users aren’t going to do that.

But somehow, these home users are configuring routers, wireless APs, NAS and other home appliances.

Please. You're asking more of Apple than the rest. Of course the server isn't going to ship with the users created and the roaming profiles set up.

There's a difference between "The feature isn't offered" and "The feature doesn't work out of the box without some configuration". You were saying the former. It's the latter that is true.

Some of your points are indeed covered by OS X Server, and in no way more complicated than on other appliances sold to the same home users. Stop being a tool.

You act like Apple creating a server-side assistant, client console app and iTunes media server geared toward home use would destroy the mighty OS X Server.

It would probably boost its sales. What they’re offering now only appeals to small businesses and geeky enthusiasts.

No, I don't care if they do make some kind of Web interface like all the other products. What I'm saying is you're being disingenious in believing that VNC is not good enough and basically means "The product doesn't offer X feature because I can't configure it from within a browser GUI".

VNCing in and typing in the IP in a browser is as disingenious and hard for the user, hence why the TC and AEBS use airport utility which auto-discovers the device. However, people still manage to configure their linksys routers and their WHS. They can configure this OS X Server with the server configuration assistants just as easily.

 

[peterman]

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.

Do you think if I striped the 2 500's into a 1TB in the miniserver and then Time Machine that to a 1TB, if I need to ever restore from backup will that still work?

 

[deconstruct60]

That is EXACTLY my point. Don't you think people who buy this server now might like USB3 or Light Peak?

I'm sure some of those people would like 6 cores, 16 GB , cheaper than current rotating disks SSD drives, and a 5W less power draw too. USB 3.0 and Light Peak are not deployed right now. Neither are 6 core CPU packages.

I'm also sure that normal mini users would like USB3.0 and/or Light Peak too. Apple is not going to spend tons of money building some huge derivative of the mini just for the micro server market. When the more generic mini gets the new features, this server will get these updates also. If there are some future features you want your computer to have then just wait and buy later.

ExpressCard and/or PCI slots did not exist in the mini. Never were targeted for the mini. Never going to be on a mini.

The constraints are the core capabilities that the generic mini has. The server leverages having space for two SATA devices in a more server oriented way by using it for two hard drives. That's the constraints you are under.

No way there is enough volume here to justify building yet another machines just to be a server. Bluntly, this just smells like yet another backdoor into the "Apple needs to build a mini tower machine" dead end that goes around and around here forever.

But they can't get it in the future, because the mac mini has no network expansion.

Then don't buy it. Buy a MacPro or an XServe. If is it so greatly business critical that you have some justification to pay for it. Additionally don't see PCI-Express ports on entry level routers and hubs either. When newer faster networking comes around you toss the old ones and get new ones. Same thing with a mini server. It is a limited focus, entry level server.


Minis are relatively cheap compared with the alternatives. It is actually may be more cost effective to just buy another one in the future when the new features come.

The fact is that it does have network expansion. It is just limited to 100Mbps Ethernet.

And just because Apple dropped it from the 15" macbook pro doesn't mean that expresscard is dead. That's silly.

Just claiming it is silly doesn't make it true either. It is a dead end. I'm sure the same vendors to continue to slap VGA and PS/2 ports on their computers will continue to put it on, but as USB 3.0 and Light Peak deploy ExpressCard/34 will dissapear. It is a kludge that has outlined its usefulness. ( and frankly if more designers weren't putting ancient ports on their laptops probably would have died off sooner since would be able to be put a reasonable number of USB sockets on the laptop. )

I only mentioned expresscard because it is currently the best way to expand your high-speed connectors in a small form-factor computer.

You care to point to any other popular low end servers with Express card slots? Again, seems as though yet track into the "Apple needs to build a mini tower" twilight zone.

USB dongles are too slow, and PCI express is too large.

Expresscard is USB and PCI-express. It is a hodgepodge. The majority of deployed ExpressCard devices are USB ones. That's one as aspect to its "death" [ on the mini there are large number of USB ports .. so one more adds little value to plug in yet another one with ha non-standard connector. ].

The primary place where ExpressCard/PCI has been popular is on laptops not server or desktops. That has capped the number of cards of that type.

For 10 or 100Mbps Ethernet you have any proof that USB is too slow?
[ Gee here it is 480Mbps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Peripheral
And better here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_2.0_bandwidth
]

If light peak or something else beats expresscard in the future, then so be it,

You are grossly missing the point. You are extremely likely not going to get a new mini box with new engineering for another year or so. It will be in the future when that happens and results in a box being delivered to the market. Aguring about what Apple coulda woulda shoulda done with current mini if you were in charge is akin to talking about the alternative universe where your aunt is male and is your uncle. Nice theoretic argument, but not sure what it has to do with the timeline were are actually in.

In the future, USB 3.0 and Light Peak are going to have more long term options than Express Card. If trying to "future proof" the mini against huge bandwidth problems you'd line up with those, not Express Card.

 

[MacToddB]

What I don't understand is why they put in such a big graphic card. It's a server, rather use an old Graphiccard and make it 100$ cheaper. And what I also don't like is that the server mini still has this huge power converter as an external box which is almost as big as the computer itself. Remove the headphone, the audio-line-in, 2 USB and one of the display ports and try to fit the electrics in the box. If necessary, make the computer larger, it still will be mini. Right now it is a plain Mini with server capabilities, what I would like is a plain server which is mini.

I was a Product Manager for Sun Microsystems (don't blame me, it was the good old days, 1988-1993) and I can relate to what they did. Apple didn't want to change motherboards, packaging, etc. any more than they had to... the only noticeable change being no slot in the faceplate for an optical disc. This allows Apple to leverage the economies of scale of the traditional Mac Mini but for a server which will sell 1/10th of the units... perhaps even fewer. Changes, even removing technology (audio, display, graphics) would actually increase the total cost of producing/maintaining the machine, and it's meant to be a supplemental product not a new product line.

While I too would have liked some design changes (faster, hotplug, larger disks), ANY changes would have increased the cost because it changes the manufacturing process, service, spare parts, documentation, etc. They took a workstation and made it a server with minimal engineering and it's good enough for 80% of the target market. In their view, the Xserve has enterprise features (hot-plug disks, increased RAM, redundant power supplies, etc.) that the high end of the market needs. I can live with the compromises and plan to buy a mini server asap.

 

[deconstruct60]

What I don't understand is why they put in such a big graphic card. It's a server, rather use an old Graphiccard and make it 100$ cheaper.

There is no graphics card in the computer. The 9400 is a combo Northbridge/Graphics chip. It also is the memory controller among other things. If you take it out you'd wouldn't have a functioning computer anymore. Power wise it is a bit wasteful to have a memory controller on both the graphics chip and for the main memory. Integrated graphics make even more sense on a server than a consumer box. If the 9400 graphics subcomponent can idle and shutdown when not being used that's would be even better.

A minor tweak to the 9400 is being thrown at netbooks. Doubt you'd shave $100 off the price by going with something even more older, plus you loose the throughput of the associated Northbridge.

Right now it is a plain Mini with server capabilities, what I would like is a plain server which is mini.

Make no mistake. This is a consumer computer that is being slightly customized for server duty ( since substantive number of people were doing that anyway).

I think, this server mini is designed only for a very small market. But as it has the name "Server" on it, maybe some companies or groups will buy it.

People were already doing this. With external drives to get some redundancy in many cases, but deployed nonetheless. The two drives eliminates the data dangling on the outside ( which is better than the power supply if have to choose between the two. It is about as easy to unplug something from the wall as it is from the back of the mini. If it burns out how much easier could it be to replace (versus something internal) ?).

 

[deconstruct60]

It is highly unlikely Apple put server grade hard drives in this mini server.

Why? Apple puts server grade hard disk in Time Capsules which cost $100s less. Apple buys server grade disks. It would not be a huge logistical problem to divert a subset of those into the production line for the "mini server".

Apple covers these boxes with Applecare. If people beat on a drives (like many severs do) and the drives crap out before Applecare expires the freebie fix is on Apple. Same issue with the Time Capsules. Lots of users using the hard drives higher than "usual folks do" also covered under Applecare (when used with a covered computer.) Higher failure rate will lead to money out of Apple's pocket. What is their motivation for doing that?

They are SATA server grade disk, not SAS server disks. Means SATA disk that has be rated for higher than 'normal' usage. (even more easier when spinningat 5400 rather the upper extreme end of the rotational speed range) The incremental increase in cost is not that huge (relative to overall system costs). Even easier cost to absorb if the R&D for your server is approximately $0.00 (because it is already paid for since just reusing practically everything and it is more of a software differential.)

 

[tonysony]

Mac Mini Server

Could you tell us a little more about your newly configured Mac Mini Server setup? I am particularly interested in the media server abilities of your intallation. I think as a web server the mini has all of the familiar bases covered but I am thinking of setting one up in our home for both media and web.

Thanks in advance.

Tony

Just two weeks ago I was configuring a Mac Mini with 4GB memory and 320 GB harddrive plus Mac OS X server on the New Zealand Apple Online Store. The total price was around

NZD 3,000.00

I thought 'No, that's a little bit too much money'. Now you get the combo for

NZD 1,750.00

And you can even add the external 4 TB Raid Storage system for a total of

NZD 3,100.00

I would call this is a significant improvement.

 

[bigstevemac]

Not an entirely original idea

I was very interested to see that Apple were incorporating OS X Server into the Mac mini. I was particularly interested since I blogged about this very idea about a year ago!

http://www.threelionstech.com/blog/index.php/32

 

[bigstevemac]

The cost of the server license? Otherwise what market is it targeting? Mini servers aren't an Apple invention.

No, it's not an Apple invention. It's mine:

http://www.threelionstech.com/blog/index.php/32

 

[pmjoe]

Do you think if I striped the 2 500's into a 1TB in the miniserver and then Time Machine that to a 1TB, if I need to ever restore from backup will that still work?

I think there was some discussion earlier in the thread that there is no guarantee that backup software like Time Machine (or most backup software for that matter, someone mentioned SuperDuper earlier too) will get all the files for certain server software/services backed up in a consistent state.

Kind of hard to explain without a lengthy explanation, but imagine a database that stores its data in 2 files, A & B, which need to be kept in a consistent state (because they reference each other). When things are changing in the DB, the files get written out every second or so. If, say Time Machine, happens to back up A before the DB does a write but doesn't get to B until after the DB does a write ... and then the system fails before it can get back to backup A again, the DB is hosed.

Typical user document files should be fine though.

If you're concerned about the RAID striping, I don't think that should be an issue (other than I hope you have a good reason for doing it). It'll just look like a 1TB drive. Maybe some kind of backup program that does a low/hardware level copy might have a problem with it.

 

[MacToddB]

No, it's not an Apple invention. It's mine:

http://www.threelionstech.com/blog/index.php/32

So on Jan 22, 2009 you invented the Mac Mini Server...

About Macminicolo.net
Macminicolo.net, a Las Vegas colocation company, has been hosting Mac minis since their introduction in January 2005. They have become the leaders in this niche market and are known for their personal service. They currently host hundreds of Mac minis for satisfied customers located in 26 different countries around the world.

 

[Phlac]

mac mini with os x server - 10 years later, apple answers sun's cobalt servers.

 

[Eidorian]

So on Jan 22, 2009 you invented the Mac Mini Server...

About Macminicolo.net
Macminicolo.net, a Las Vegas colocation company, has been hosting Mac minis since their introduction in January 2005. They have become the leaders in this niche market and are known for their personal service. They currently host hundreds of Mac minis for satisfied customers located in 26 different countries around the world.

I was referring to the minicolo as well...

 

[LEStudios]

So on Jan 22, 2009 you invented the Mac Mini Server...

About Macminicolo.net
Macminicolo.net, a Las Vegas colocation company, has been hosting Mac minis since their introduction in January 2005. They have become the leaders in this niche market and are known for their personal service. They currently host hundreds of Mac minis for satisfied customers located in 26 different countries around the world.

These people should be first in line to get the Mac mini Snow Leopard Server!

 

[christian_k]

If you really need a second Ethernet port why not just use Apples own USB-ETH adapter?
Yes, it is not as fast as the integrated port, but it is fast enough for any common type of internet connection including fast cable access or VDSL.

If you really have an internet uplink with 100s of megabits per second or need a server / gateway to connect multiple very fast local networks you are going to use something else anyway.

Christian

 

[kgregc1]

Can a mini SL server run standard applications as well as act as a server, or is it strictly just for server purposes.

 

[space1nvaders]

Can a mini SL server run standard applications as well as act as a server, or is it strictly just for server purposes.

Yes - Snow Leopard Server just had added programs for managing a network and providing services like email, DNS, DHCP, etc. They are just programs added to standard Leopard. They also don't include things like iLife (I think).

 

[MacToddB]

Yes - Snow Leopard Server just had added programs for managing a network and providing services like email, DNS, DHCP, etc. They are just programs added to standard Leopard. They also don't include things like iLife (I think).

I believe you are correct re iLife. Also, I read that it doesn't do FrontRow, but that's probably because there's no IR receiver (usually found next to the slot for the optical disc), so perhaps it could be accommodated by an RF remote, keyboard commands (command-escape), or a USB-based IR receiver.

 

[dyn]

The fact is that it does have network expansion. It is just limited to 100Mbps Ethernet.

It's not limited to 100 Mbps, it can use the full 1 Gbps speed from the nic in the mini. You can use vlans on OS X and OS X Server and it's very easy to do so. The only thing you'll need is a switch supporting vlans (and those are not too costly anymore nowadays).

For 10 or 100Mbps Ethernet you have any proof that USB is too slow?
[ Gee here it is 480Mbps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Peripheral
And better here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_2.0_bandwidth
]

USB is not a good protocol to use since it has a lot of overhead and is very dependant on the cpu. Firewire drives are a lot faster than USB for a good reason. The USB network adapters themselves are mostly quite flaky and can cause a lot of problems. Yes, it might work but it's far from optimal/ideal. If you want to use it for just an internetconnection than this would be just fine but if you want to use it as a nic for a lot of traffic you'll most likely run into a lot of problems. In the end it's not abnormal that those USB network nics are too slow.

Apart from that, you don't need it since you can use vlans on the gigabit nic which is a much much better idea.

Servers are also not really meant for ordinary users. You have to have some basic knowledge about what it is, does and how you should configure it. ISP's disconnect people because they don't have the knowledge to run a server, a lot of those boxes get rooted or become spamzillas. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to configure the machine (sysadmins benefit from that as well as they don't have to spend a lot of time with configuring the machine, it's also a relief to have a machine you can configure very easily) but you do have to have the knowledge to do so.

 

[seedster2]

Is the Mini user serviceable? will opening one yourself void the warranty? Otherwise having to bring it in to swap a dead drive the Genius bar sort of defeats the purpose no?

I ask because without changes to the enclosure wouldn't users be concerned about cooling. Apple is notorious for form over function. I also recalled the 500GB time machine "barely" met the server grade moniker.

I still struggle to see value in the Mac Mini line even with the updates, now the iMac has made tremendous strides with the quad core.

 

[MacToddB]

I just picked up a Mac Mini Server from the Apple Store! I'm about to set it up for web serving.

I'll let y'all know if I have any newsworthy info. Any questions or things I should look for, take pictures of, etc.?

 

[mainpoliboy]

Not that bad

I guess i just want to throw my two cents into this forum. Over the summer, i bought a mac mini, and when Snow Leopard server came out, I installed it on the mini. I bought it for a small company that me and two friends have started, and it is a god send. We purchased it for its mail and calendar features mostly. Coupled with mobileme and some iPhones, it has made our lives so much easier. Our mail gets pushed to our iPhones, as well as the calendars, and i'm sure i'm preaching to the choir as to the features such as the ability to see each others calendars and the other intra-office features, but this solution was WAY more feasible and economical than using a xserve (which would have scared me to set up anyway) or a macpro. The set up was very easy for me (someone who has just an above average knowledge of computers) and was even easy enough for me to even start to host our own website off of the mini. For small companies that want the big company features (exchange, or something similar, centralized storage, etc) this product fills the gap.

 

[MacDSmith2]

I just picked up a Mac Mini Server from the Apple Store! I'm about to set it up for web serving.

I'll let y'all know if I have any newsworthy info. Any questions or things I should look for, take pictures of, etc.?

I would be interested in knowing how you set up the Server so that your outside internet connections "see" your web page, but are isolated from your internal network attached to your router/cable modem where your Server and HDD drives are.

 

[KnightWRX]

I would be interested in knowing how you set up the Server so that your outside internet connections "see" your web page, but are isolated from your internal network attached to your router/cable modem where your Server and HDD drives are.

With a 3 interface firewall.

On a pix, you'd have the 0 outside, 50 dmz and 100 inside interfaces. The Mac Mini would sit on the dmz interface.