Snow Leopard for XServer!

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Server, Xserve, and Networking' started by guklein, Aug 24, 2009.

  1. guklein macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #1
    Snow Leopard for XServer!

    Will it be released on august 28?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
  3. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
  4. Shake 'n' Bake macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
  5. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #5
    Either way, it's still an overly expensive server.
     
  6. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    If you try configuring the same options from say Dell, you'll be paying just as much; if not about twice as much just for Windows Server.
     
  7. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #7
    Not even close. I can get an HP with more storage bays for about the same cost as that box _and_ it includes an array controller. Install Apple's $700 array controller and it's more expensive. In my mind, there's nothing really server quality about the box.
     
  8. xparaparafreakx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    #8
    LOL, I wish that was the case for my Dell Poweredge 2950s.

    They do what they should do for me, provide awesome OD and enforce GPO on little junior high kids at work/school.
     
  9. Don.Key macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    #9
    Probably yes but 10.x.[0-3] on SERVER is a for a real suicidal admin only.

    Stay with Leopard or Tiger until the SL reaches at least 10.6.4
     
  10. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #10
    I thought the review from Yager on the previous ones, and some ofthe more recent reviews for the recent update showed it was actually quite competitive. Add in the licensing, and it's a decent package for some.
     
  11. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #11
    At the retail level, the HP DL360 G6 is on par with the Xserve hardware-wise. Retail price, the HP is higher ($6,629 HP vs $5,649 Apple for a difference of $980) with a configuration of 1 x 2.26, 3GB RAM, 3TB of raw disk, and a 3 year warranty. The HP would definitely have an advantage on disk I/O simply for the fact that it has twice as many spindles.

    I don't know many companies paying retail, except when buying Apple. Of course, the Xserve includes an OS, but again I don't know any companies buying server licenses at retail costs either.

    In reality, I'm concerned with what my company can buy. I worked for an organization of 138,000 employees, and Apple refused to budge on any pricing. I was shocked considering the potential for more sales of hardware was obvious. I could get Cisco, HP, 3Com, practically any company to drastically reduce prices just to get a foot in the door.

    Given that I can get a non-OS X server to do what I needed, we went with HP, who gave us a nice discount. In the end, I could buy 2 HP DL360s for every one Xserve, software included.

    On top of that, the HP includes:

    1. iLO, so I can remotely do anything including powering the box on or off and booting from an ISO on my machine. This is a huge advantage.

    2. The ability to have up to 8 hard drives for more throughput and scalability. This is where the Xserve really lacks. I mean, a server with just 3 drive bays is just ridiculous. I can't even get a 2TB RAID 5 array with a hot spare.
     
  12. LeeTom macrumors 68000

    LeeTom

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    #12
    Xserve provides Lights Out Management too, it works the same.

    Actually, in my company's case, this is a bonus for the Xserve. It's 1U size allows us to fit more of them in one rack, and since we're using about 10 of them, very few of which need tons of storage, it's beneficial. OD doesn't need more than 3 drives. Neither does iCal or Address Book server. Neither do web services. We put the external fibre channel RAID arrays where we need them, when we need them. I think the future holds more separation of storage and processing, not less - especially where you have failover going on. That data needs to be able to switch over in an instant.
     
  13. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #13
    Just because you can afford something else, doesn't mean it's not useful.

    Macs = high performance low cost super computer.
    http://obamapacman.com/2009/08/high-performance-low-cost-super-computer-virginia-tech-mac-cluster/
     

Share This Page