Does this replace standard ethernet style connectors? In other words, could it become a built-in device port in the same way we have Gigabit ethernet now?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Supplies Tightening as WWDC Approaches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Does this replace standard ethernet style connectors? In other words, could it become a built-in device port in the same way we have Gigabit ethernet now?
It's used to get two 40 Gbps Ethernet connections, in case you want fast networking.
You can't get 80 Gbps out of a 10 Gbps hose.
Really? "GbE" is "Gigabit Ethernet" - so I'm surprised to hear that you don't use it. You've never connected a copper cable to the Ethernet port on your Apple?
10 GbE and 40 GbE are currently priced too high for the mainstream, but for workstations they're becoming more common for clustered and multi-system applications. SANs over GbE/10GbE/40GbE are a common use.
While in theory 40 GbE could run at a slow speed over T-Bolt, in practice many applications that are designed for 40 Gbps networking would fail when run at 1/8 the speed (timeouts, latency issues, programming bugs exposed by the vastly slower network...).
----------
Your "standard Ethernet style connectors" are GbE, and have been for years.
And, coincidentally, Apple seems hell-bent on eliminating "standard Ethernet style connectors" from their Apples.
yes, but you're saying 40 & 80 GbE. this sounds like a new standard to me? Why would PCIe be the only solution to utilize 40 or 80 GbE. Why not just upgrade the built-in ethernet ports?
Last edited by a moderator:
The current GbE built-in ports are powered by PCIe-based controller chips - on the motherboard or in the southbridge - but PCIe controllers.
PCIe is used throughout the system - even for AppleBooks and Imacs. Just because there is no PCIe card slot doesn't mean that PCIe isn't a vital part of the system. T-Bolt is just a PCIe to PCIe bridge - it lets PCIe devices live outside of the painfully slim Apple box. It's stuck with a slow (4 lane) implementation of a slow (2.5 Gbps/lane) version of PCIe, however.
____
The point, though, is that today on a workstation I can connect a 40 GbE card and work on today's fastest networks. It's not cheap (I'm putting $1000 cards into a $1400 workstation), but if I have the need for speed I can do it.
I can't do this on a laptop or all-in-one, and I can't wait for 40 GbE to trickle down to the lowest common denominator.
Stumbled upon this interesting video from Steve Jobs back in the Next days talking about how and why they would dominate the workstation market. Much of what he says still holds true today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ-G99rh0p8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ-G99rh0p8
And NeXT went on to be a big player in the phone and music player business - but is disappearing from the workstation market.
What type of work are you doing that requires this kind of speed as a desktop workstation? It still sounds like rack-server tasks, (i.e. Xserve) not a client level Mac.
Why does it matter? Am I "using it wrong"? Is there a list of things that one should not do from a desktop system? (And the "Xserve" died years ago....)
It's something that I can do with my $1400 Dell ($1400 includes 3 year on-site warranty) or a current Apple Pro - but that I could not do with a modular Apple system duck-taped together with T-Bolt.
But to answer your ill-conceived question - just look up "SAN", and ask why anyone would want one that's slower than what's available.
Last edited:
Call it ill-concieved if you want. I am just trying to understand something I admittedly know nothing about and have no experience with. I'm willing to learn here. Since when do we criticize someone for asking honest questions in a discussion?
Yes, I realize the Xserve is dead. That that was my point. Apple already stuck a stake in the ground for enterprise markets. But if you have a case for why something is needed on a client-end workstation, I honestly want to know. I'm not trying to tell you "you're holding it wrong". I'm trying to understand "how you're holding it".
For example, right now I run a small XSan fleet for video production work, all connected via PCIe cards with dual 4G fiber ports. Our RAID storage and switch can do 8G. This same tech can be applied to T-Bolt, and is available from Promise Technology, currently at 4G, equal to the PCIe variant. I can only imagine that it will get faster over time, and we essentially have no more need for PCIe cards with Xsan.
This further allows more types of Macs to work with Xsan, and I think that's a good thing. Expanding more of our computers access to our XSan volumes at high speed is indeed something I would be very much interested in. We have a mixed environment of Mac Pros, iMacs, and MacBook Pros. Being able to do our production tasks from nearly anywhere in our offices, be it an edit suite, our production studio, or an office-based Mac, is a good thing in my opinion.
Our Xsan server started off with an XServe. Now it's on a Mac Pro. Soon it will be a Mac Mini, which is more than sufficient for what our needs are.
I'm not all all saying this is the right solution for what you are doing, which you still refuse to tell me. I guess that's ok, there is no law that says you have to. But I'm only offering my perspective on how we use our hardware. Perhaps video production needs pale in comparison to yours. I really am curious about that. Again, I'm willing to learn about what else is out there. It may change my mind, and my plans for our future hardware needs.
I joined this discussion because it interests me to learn more, and talk about where things are going. I'm not here to criticize what others are doing. My apologies if you get the latter impression.
Sorry to tell you this but you are going to be paying 10 times more in licensing fees to VMWare than you would ever have spent on hardware.
Once they've go you... VMWARE continuing licensing costs are an abomination!
http://arstechnica.com/information-...amazon-slashes-cloud-prices-up-to-28-percent/
My apologies as well, sorry if I took your questions as criticisms.
Some additional comments....
- Workstations and low-end servers are the same - one comes in a box for under the desk, the other in a rack mount. Basically the same motherboard.
- Some people need desktops for the graphics display, even though they need server-class IO.
- For R&D, it can be more convenient and cheaper to develop server-class software on your desktop workstation
We're in #3 - for software development and testing our $1400 workstations are virtually equivalent to our $20K servers.
And our customers may deploy using workstations instead of servers - it depends on what they are doing.
In 2012 approx 4m workstations were sold worldwide.
In 2012 Apple sold 18m Mac computers worldwide.
It's not hard to see why the workstation marketplace is not their top priority.
However I do believe they will revamp and update the Mac Pro to address the needs of their small but important client base. They just won't go head long into trying to address the whole workstation marketplace because it's just not very profitable. Most of the workstation makers are losing money.
Apple already rides the line really close. The Mac Pro is effectively a custom Micro ATX-like job with a huge case around it and daughterboards using another dimension instead of parallel to the board for the processors. If you want the current level of expansion, the limits are the optical drives and 3.5" bays. You can cut A LOT of volume getting rid of those and still slap in the processor, expansion slots, and even a GTX Titan style card.
please oh please!
Enough with the new Mac Pro!
I want a totally new version of OS X Server that has real server features that you would really actually want to use that has a UI that has been personally redesigned by Jony Ive!
I am not joking either!http://www.apple.com/osx/server/
Infiniband and Thunderbolt serve vastly different needs, and inifiniband to USB is an even more off-the-walls crazy comparison... Just thought I'd throw that out there.
I really wonder how many of ya'll out there tossing inifiniband into this discussion actually *use* infiniband... And for anyone who really needs infiniband in their workstation (I gotta tell you, I need it on my racks, but I don't need it at my desk), that's what PCI-e slots and other companies are for. The only thing that could make inifiniband *more* expensive would be to buy cables with an Apple logo
Now, on the MP side of things, SATA3 would be a nice start...
Last edited:
WWDC would be a great opportunity for Apple to make a significant announcement regarding a New Mac Pro and do something special with it, such as not only announce an update but unveil a new, innovative design. It seems like Apple hasn't done that in quite a while and it would be nice to see that type of attention once again for the Mac line-ups, since so much focus has been on the iDevices as of late. Even with the new iMac last year, yes, it was a new design, but "just thinner" (unnecessarily in my opinion) and not truly innovative. I'm curious to see how Apple handles this, as the update to this line is sooo overdue.
All that being said, I wouldn't be against a new user-upgradeable Mac mini-tower which would sit between the iMac and Mac Pro lines...
All that being said, I wouldn't be against a new user-upgradeable Mac mini-tower which would sit between the iMac and Mac Pro lines...
TB requires an iGPU no E5 Xeon has an iGPU. TB is not Apple tech it's Intel therefore required to meet intel standards.
Sadly apple have become a toy maker. Nice toys, but the pro users in apple view are the ones that write software for their toys. It's a strange world. Microsoft is dominate the offices with a OS that is made for toys, and the toys is running unix.
I really don't get it why it's so difficult for Apple to keep-the-pace with their one and only workstation. There's really nothing special in the MP that would require beyond-the-state-of-the-art manufacture or technology. It's an Apple branded PC with powerful components, but still a rather simple design.
That they're unwilled to spec bump it annually is a shame. Even a one-man PC shop around the corner could do it.
That they're unwilled to spec bump it annually is a shame. Even a one-man PC shop around the corner could do it.
It is rather odd, think they could keep up with parts every few months since not a lot has to change right away.
Mac Pro? Are those those professional level Macs they used to sell in Europe? Just as designers had given up on them and moved to windows
