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

Apple Updates Mac Mini and Adds Server Option

aaarrrgggh said:
Most servers benefit from two NICs; Firewalls ideally have 3. iSCSI is the obvious thing you NEED a second port for, but having separate DMZ and LAN ports is nice even if you have a firewall upstream. We keep server to server traffic for management and rsync on separate networks for fine-grained ups, wake-on-LAN, and SSH logins.
Click to expand...

Way to expose your internal network to an attacker coming into a DMZ service. And seriously, the "DMZ" function on most routers is just awful. You should never, ever turn that on for anything. Do port forwardings to a dedicated segment. The firewall should filter external traffic coming in, and traffic going back to the Intranet. Then you have a proper DMZ. Only the select few services you want to expose should be open to the outside.

iSCSI is the only reason to have a dedicated nic. But this is a Mini and it has a FW800 port. Best just connect your external storage to the FW.

The Drobo pro features FW800. This makes a perfect external storage array for this Mac Mini.
 
mosa said:
On a different topic...

I've been wanting a Mac mini for a long time but am I wrong in thinking that the new low end iMac is a much better value than a Mac mini almost maxed out? With the iMac I get a Magic Mouse, better processor, and a screen for less than $200 more. Here is my Mac mini configuation:

2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
320GB Serial ATA Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Wireless Keyboard
User's Guide (English)
iWork '09 preinstalled
Apple Remote

For $1086. The Low end iMac + iWork and remote is $1267. If I match the hard drive and add the mouse the Mac mini is like $50 less and still totally inferior.
Click to expand...

Yes the iMac would be a better value and you can use your current monitor as a second monitor for the iMac or pass it down to a friend.

However a lot of people here do not like computers with a built-in monitor and do not want to pay for a monitor every time they change systems. But it seems you do not care about that so have fun with the iMac, I think it is a great machine.
 
it does what it says on the tin!!!???

I think only a few people agree with me so far, the mac mini is aimed at:

Home Networks
Small/ Medium Business's


I think this is a perfect platform. OS X Server is by far the easiest. I know someone who is windows certified to the highest level plus more & installed os x server edition for a client for the first time time... guess what...

He installed it, & within 1 hour, 16 client iMacs were set up, ready, all roaming profiles worked... He said in his 30 years of it consultancy & networking jobs he has !!NEVER!! seen this. "It takes time with a windows set up, even for a 3 client/ 1 Server setup" he said.

I say, small/ medium business/ start up business
+ small budget
+ low loss of work
+ Time Machine
+ iPhone sync via cable or over air
+ simple to use web server/ email server
+ LOSS of time spent on problems
+ low running costs
+ SOMETHING LIKE THE DROBO FOR EXT STORAGE VIA ETH or FW or USB
+ small machine which can be hidden
+ Snow Leopard OS X
+ £799* (UK) / $999* (US) for all the above

= a winning effort.

A applaude Apple. They may have a large cost on the machine for some, but for the above... this is cheap. I was going to go with a mac mini for when I start up my business, now I'm going just get this.

It's Awesome!... but then thats just my views & thoughts...
 
ateslik said:
But for a home user its nearly useless with only one network port. You need two ports. One for the external network (internet connection), and one port for the internal network (home router).
Click to expand...

Why would you not just plug it into your router or switch? It doesn't function as the router itself. Use TC/AEBS or 3d party for that.
 
KnightWRX said:
Way to expose your internal network to an attacker coming into a DMZ service.

iSCSI is the only reason to have a dedicated nic. But this is a Mini and it has a FW800 port. Best just connect your external storage to the FW.

The Drobo pro features FW800. This makes a perfect external storage array for this Mac Mini.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have called it a dmz; it is really a fully isolated network in our setup, but multiple-level dmz systems (such as others have pointed out are required for credit card processing) aren't uncommon. Would also let the server manage VPN.

iSCSI is the only thing that really needs two ports (running off a USB dongle is idiotic), but many other systems become more complicated from a security perspective with just one.
 
KnightWRX said:
We're talking small business. And bridging over 2 networks on a server is ludicrous as far as security goes. :rolleyes: If your server gets owned, the attacker now has open doors on both sides.
Click to expand...

If the server gets pwned, it does not mater if you have 1 or twelve Ethernet ports. He can use 1 as well as two.

Besides one does not use single layers of security and network security is the least effective form of security anyway.

You working on your CISA and CISSP I assume?
 
jjthomps said:
We now work with AcctVantage. A Mac "centric" solution that is cross platform.
Click to expand...

Would love to hear your impressions of AcctVantage. I glanced at it and it looks interesting, although the "cloud" and webstore integration with NetSuite are big draws for me.

Not sure how to PM someone on this forum...? Any way to contact you otherwise, jjthomps?
 
calderone said:
Let me ask you a question.

I just got off the phone with Apple. They are going to let me return my current Mini, well past the 14 days thanks Apple!

I was set to go with the 2.66 model as: I already have an OCZ SSD for my server (assuming single drive) and a copy of SL Server.

Even with EDU, that puts me very close to the new dual HD model. I am on the fence on which one to order now.

Hmm... I think I will just go with the 2.66 model. I already have SL Server, a fast HDD and no need for a dual drive Mini as I have robust network storage. I would probably just pull the 500GB drives out and put something faster in anyway.

Looks like I have made up my mind.
Click to expand...

Rock on! :D
 
KnightWRX said:
Way to expose your internal network to an attacker coming into a DMZ service. And seriously, the "DMZ" function on most routers is just awful. You should never, ever turn that on for anything. Do port forwardings to a dedicated segment. The firewall should filter external traffic coming in, and traffic going back to the Intranet. Then you have a proper DMZ. Only the select few services you want to expose should be open to the outside.

iSCSI is the only reason to have a dedicated nic. But this is a Mini and it has a FW800 port. Best just connect your external storage to the FW.

The Drobo pro features FW800. This makes a perfect external storage array for this Mac Mini.
Click to expand...

You can put the DroboPro on a gigabit switch, which is faster in my tests. I prefer doing that over Firewire. Sure, I don't think there is any real performance hit. That said, a second NIC would have been nice.

The lack of a second NIC will probably make me go with a regular Mini since I already have a MOSXS license.

mytdave said:
Rock on! :D
Click to expand...

Not much of a question huh! :D

If only Apple had released this before I picked up MOSXS... A second NIC would have sold me already!
 
EagerDragon said:
If the server gets pwned, it does not mater if you have 1 or twelve Ethernet ports. He can use 1 as well as two.

Besides one does not use single layers of security and network security is the least effective form of security anyway.

You working on your CISA and CISSP I assume?
Click to expand...

No, I'm a Unix sysadmin for 1100 server shop. With an extensive and segmented DMZ.

I stopped the certification game about 10 years ago.
 
KnightWRX said:
:eek:

Twice the chance of catastrophic failure. I hope that data isn't important.
Click to expand...

RAID 0 is very, very common, especially in installs where maximum performance is required, and it's done in arrays with dozens of drives. That's why you have a separate drive/tape/etc. for BACKUP. :eek:
 
mytdave said:
RAID 0 is very, very common, especially in installs where maximum performance is required, and it's done in arrays with dozens of drives. That's why you have a separate drive/tape/etc. for BACKUP. :eek:
Click to expand...

Dozens of drives ? Dozens more chances of catastrophic failure :eek:. You do understand that in a RAID 0 setup, losing 1 drive means losing the entire array right ? The more drives, the less robust.

RAID 1+0. All the performance over dedicated controllers (you are using redundant controllers for each side of the mirrors right ?), much more resilient.

And mirrors is a high availability solution, not a backup solution. You should never think of RAID as a replacement for proper backups.
 
Actually, this is great for many companies!

EG. I work for a steel fabrication firm with about 50 employees who have computers on our network (plus a few laptops out there).

We're mostly running Windows XP workstations and Windows 2003 servers, but there are times when we just need a small system to work as a server for a specific task. Right now, I've got an old rack-mounted Pentium III class system that was a file server, once upon a time, but as technology moved on - it was put aside. Since it still worked fine though, I put Linux on it and turned it into a web proxy and site filtering server. That's pretty much all it can handle, given its limited drive space and slow processor -- but it does the job.

If it finally dies though, I'd have to buy something to replace it. A Mac Mini server would certainly be a viable option. A big plus, at least in theory, would be ease-of-use in administering it too. Right now, if I quit working here, I'm pretty sure nobody else would have much of a clue how the Linux machine works - and might well end up pulling it out rather than spending time figuring it out. OS X Server should be a lot more user-friendly (although granted, not sure it'd do much in the way of site filtering without resorting to command-line Unix type products on it again?).


profets said:
you can't be serious about using a mac mini as server in a company?
Click to expand...
 
HyperZboy said:
The whole concept of the iMac is ANTI-GREEN since they are ultimately disposable and non-upgradeable and the screens are useless once the machine is outdated, meaning short life-spans.
Click to expand...
Except naturally that with these new iMacs you can use them as an external screen.
 
KnightWRX said:
Dozens of drives ? Dozens more chances of catastrophic failure :eek:. You do understand that in a RAID 0 setup, losing 1 drive means losing the entire array right ? The more drives, the less robust.

RAID 1+0. All the performance over dedicated controllers (you are using redundant controllers for each side of the mirrors right ?), much more resilient.

And mirrors is a high availability solution, not a backup solution. You should never think of RAID as a replacement for proper backups.
Click to expand...

If you are careful with your data, it really isn't a big deal.

For example, let's say I am a photographer. I pop the card into my reader, transfer my RAW files to my safe storage, say a Drobo. I have now backed up my originals and they will be burned to DVD later.

I now import these RAW files into Aperture. My Aperture library is stored on the local machine with the RAID array. It is backed up daily to my safe storage.

I work on my RAW files, and save some out as JPG. They can be saved to RAID and moved, or I can just export them out to my safe storage.

I am getting speed out of my RAID by working with the files locally, but I have them backed up on my safe storage.

Same can be applied to video. If I lost anything, it would be work, not data.

celticpride678 said:
I think the server option is the smartest thing Apple did today. It makes servers more affordable for consumers and it still has the compact design.
Click to expand...

I think Apple just realized that people were already doing it with the Mini. My only criticism is why limit it to the one designated as "server?" They should offer it BTO on the other Mac Mini's as well.
 
KnightWRX said:
No, I'm a Unix sysadmin for 1100 server shop. With an extensive and segmented DMZ.

I stopped the certification game about 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

When the only tool at hand is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Kidding!!!!

You should go back to the certifications, if you let them expire and then need to find a new job, it is a bitch to get hired caused everyone else has them.

Maybe you should consider getting them back, you have a good head on your shoulder so getting them should not be an issue.
 
Did anyone notice the tech specs page for the mini says "2.26GHz, 2.53GHz, or 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor"?

I can't find the 2.66 GHz option anywhere though! :confused:
 
re: OS X alternative to ACT!

Eric, have you looked at the OS X product called Daylite Contact Manager?

http://marketcircle.com/daylite/

They even offer a service of migrating your existing ACT! data into their product.



Eric H said:
So, we're a small Windows-based company (10 in the office, 3 remote salespeople). I'm a die-hard Mac guy, former editor/animator, but not an IT type. We use MS Dynamics (formerly Great Plains) for our ERP and Act for CRM, with a third party company helping with each. We are seriously considering switching from Windows/Dynamics/Act to Mac and NetSuite.

All that being said, it looks like this Mini Server would be just what we need as any serious number crunching would be done on the cloud. Near as I can tell, all we would need is email hosting, some minor data storage (.docs, .xls, some small (<20MB) database files, etc), and a way to send software updates to the desktops and remote laptops.

Any thoughts on this set-up?
Click to expand...
 
At least it's the same physical size

Which means the CinnaMount mini USB Edition is still up-to-date. :cool:
 
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