Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What would the point of virtualization be in this situation? There's nothing that you can't colocate on a single iteration of OSX, is there?

You should, ideally, run services on separate servers. If you were to run your web server, email server, mysql/postgre, directory server.. on one box, you are that many times more vulnerable to having your system compromised by some security or configuration vulnerability.. you're also that much more screwed if you have down-time for any reason.. like a bad board or multi-drive failure when you're unavailable.
VMs also let you allocate servers to different admins.. important here where we have sys admins employed directly by various depts.. but we run their vms (not their servers)

Running VMs on something like an XServe doesn't provide you with real hardware redundancy in the face of a catastropic failure. You can get this though.. like in my VMWare ESX infrastructure. I can loose any single component, even a full server, and it only blips. VMWare moves the OS (booting off the SAN) to the other head-node.
I mention ESX just to give you another example of why people like running VMs.
 
And if I ever again hear someone say that "Linux can be the PDC for your domain" I will probably erupt into violence on the spot.

PDC? What's this, NT 4.0? Really, haven't heard that term in a LOOOOONG time except to describe the PDC Emulator.

I doubt that figure has dropped with the increase in the Apple market share these past few years. More likely it has INCREASED. And it's still 100% of the market share in pure 100% mac deployments. It has to be.

Apple sells lots of iphones... home users buy them.

Apple sells lots of iPads... home users buy them.

Home users buy more apple macs... MacBook, iMac... blah.

Home users go in to work and rave about their iPhone / iPad / iMac / Macbook .... corporates buy them...

Corporate sysadmins see how many of their users are demanding iOS . OSX devices... Need and OSX server to manage them....

Whoops... best we can offer is some pikey Mac Pros 'Under a desk someplace'.

Cue hysterics at Apples' amatuerish '6U per server' offerings...

The end.

Actually, iOS is managed in the cloud. Seeing OSX end up being managed in the cloud would be no shock. When you consider the services offered by OSX Server, there's really not much you couldn't/wouldn't want to move to the cloud.

Also, nobody needs an OC48 to access these services that isn't already using one to offer these services. We're not talking MySQL in the cloud here, just client management. If you need storage, why would you be looking at an Xserve anyway? If you want to deploy clients, you're not going to need much on premise to support that.
 
Dude, you really shouldn't be taking that discussion too seriously - I was only playing devil's advocate as to how you could connect a SAN. And to continue, Airport Wireless-N for the seperate network.

Sorry - but I missed the sarcasm.

Or maybe it's my fault. I should have realized that anyone suggesting using iSCSI in a datacenter without having at least three NICs - two with TOE and at least one with iSCSI Offload Engines - was making a joke.

;)
 
Assuming that you mean "host" rather than "colocate" (since "colocation" has a distinct meaning referring to off-site network servers) - industry "best practices" suggest running one service per server.

In practical terms, this means running one service per VM - hosted on the appropriate number of physical servers depending on the load each service presents.

Instead of putting all your eggs in one basket, run your DNS server in one VM, your DHCP server in a second, your web server in a third, your file server in a 4th, your....

If you have to upgrade or you have a problem with your file server - you can debug or reboot file services without any effect on DNS, DHCP or web services.

So yes, as you suggest, you could run 10 services on one host. Many say, however, that running the 10 services in 10 VMs is a better idea (even if the 10 VMs are on that same host).

I certainly mean collocate, as in collocated services or roles running on the same host. For instance: http://technet.microsoft.com/hi-in/library/dd425201(en-us,office.13).aspx

Being an ex-EMC employee, I've got quite a bit of VM experience, and even I would say that's overkill to give those types of services their own VM in an environment where 1 server is enough power to be sufficient. 2 servers with 5 VMs and clustering/load balancing wouldn't be so bad.

You should, ideally, run services on separate servers. If you were to run your web server, email server, mysql/postgre, directory server.. on one box, you are that many times more vulnerable to having your system compromised by some security or configuration vulnerability.. you're also that much more screwed if you have down-time for any reason.. like a bad board or multi-drive failure when you're unavailable.
VMs also let you allocate servers to different admins.. important here where we have sys admins employed directly by various depts.. but we run their vms (not their servers)

Running VMs on something like an XServe doesn't provide you with real hardware redundancy in the face of a catastropic failure. You can get this though.. like in my VMWare ESX infrastructure. I can loose any single component, even a full server, and it only blips. VMWare moves the OS (booting off the SAN) to the other head-node.
I mention ESX just to give you another example of why people like running VMs.

Yeah, I'm well aware of vSphere and its features. But 1 host/10 guests seems more likely to overutilize the server simply maintaining that many guests.
 
Apple's been pushing Towers for meta-data controllers for a long time because they're redundant ( you really should have at least two), they don't take much horsepower, and customers balk and spending 5K for a MDC.

Towers do make some sense here because the system is designed from the ground up to be redundant.

Too bad they don't make an earless pro that would sit on it's side in a rack.

We have two Xserver MDC's both with dual redundant power supplies. Same goes for our Xserve RAID's. Price is very subjective. A single HDCAM deck like Sony HDW2000/20 is around 40K so 5K for MDC isn't that much. In all honesty we could never rely on MacPro servers. We can accept relatively high cost server hardware but downtime during key projects would be killer blow to us.
 
PDC? What's this, NT 4.0? Really, haven't heard that term in a LOOOOONG time except to describe the PDC Emulator.

Read the Samba docs - they're really that far out of date.... :D Besides, for small domains the concept hasn't changed that much. But yes, your're right, for a multi-continent multi-site domain with hundreds of thousands of systems the term "PDC" is very much out-of-date.

There should be some joke here about not seeing the forest for the trees, but I can't think of it. ;)
 
Last edited:
Read the Samba docs - they're really that far out of date.... :D

There should be some joke here about not seeing the forest for the trees, but I can't think of it. ;)

I really used to love Samba, and I recall them promising AD capabilities in whatever version it was that came along in 2001...not surprised it still hasn't happened, lol.
 
Not to but in with your perception, but...

The reason companies keep their equipment (usually 5 years), purchased or leased, it due to their accounting rules. They probably are on a 5 year depreciation cycle.

Believe me I have tried asking the accounting department to reduce that to 3 years because of the technology whirlwind, but it seems one they are put into place they never change.

True, but when you're paying $50 per month per computer for computers that are worth maybe $100 because they are running 900mhz Celerons with 256 megs of ram it gets frustrating. Whatever savings you get from accounting you loose in productivity and throwing money into dead hardware.
 
With the discontinuation of the Xserve, Apple has suggested that potential customers consider either the Mac mini, which gained a server option in late 2009, or the Mac Pro, which saw Apple release a server-specific standard configuration on Friday.

Article Link: Steve Jobs: Xserve Axed Over Poor Sales

Sorry ... but neither of these systems are servers in any way shape or form. I honestly don't get it. I guess that Data Center in NC will be full of Mini's.

Chris
 
I keep wondering if this signals the eventual end of OSX Server. I mean, Apple could probably port most of these services to Open Darwin, (or Linux) and support the applications without having to support a server hardware platform or server grade OS. Let RedHat, IBM, Dell, and HP carry that commodity level cheap rackable 1U product and support it.

The Mac Pro makes a great workstation. It, and the Mac Mini also make a nice "Small Office" server, (or even, a nice rogue department server.)

But when you're talking real data centers, you need a 1U form factor with hot swappable storage and 2 line redundant power.
 
I keep wondering if this signals the eventual end of OSX Server. I mean, Apple could probably port most of these services to Open Darwin, (or Linux) and support the applications without having to support a server hardware platform or server grade OS. Let RedHat, IBM, Dell, and HP carry that commodity level cheap rackable 1U product and support it.

The Mac Pro makes a great workstation. It, and the Mac Mini also make a nice "Small Office" server, (or even, a nice rogue department server.)

But when you're talking real data centers, you need a 1U form factor with hot swappable storage and 2 line redundant power.

Even if Apple ports all their services to Linux I bet they are still going to continue OS X Server and keep selling it, maybe at a reduced price.
 
Since they were not selling many, then they should have no issue certifying and licensing Mac OS X Server to run in VM enterprise environments (like VMWare vSphere) since it wouldn't be cannibalizing hardware sales of their own. That actually could turn out to be a much more lucrative market then XServers.

Anyone who thinks the new Mac Pro "Server" edition or using multiple mac mini's are a valid replacement in a enterprise environment clearly has never worked in, supported, or managed an enterprise environment.
Amen. Yeah, uh, where do the HBAs go on the Minis? Hopefully the will let OS X run on vSphere, they would probably sell 30 copies in my organization. $999 would be a good price point.
 
I doubt that figure has dropped with the increase in the Apple market share these past few years. More likely it has INCREASED. And it's still 100% of the market share in pure 100% mac deployments. It has to be.

Apple sells lots of iphones... home users buy them.

Apple sells lots of iPads... home users buy them.

Home users buy more apple macs... MacBook, iMac... blah.

Home users go in to work and rave about their iPhone / iPad / iMac / Macbook .... corporates buy them...

Corporate sysadmins see how many of their users are demanding iOS . OSX devices... Need and OSX server to manage them....

Whoops... best we can offer is some pikey Mac Pros 'Under a desk someplace'.

Cue hysterics at Apples' amatuerish '6U per server' offerings...

The end.
There is no iOS management in OS X Server
 
I think Steve and Co. made a mistake. Keep those high end product users happy and you'll sell more of other products. People who buy Xserves are the same people who buy Mac pros, etc., in bulk with expensive configurations. Keep those people happy, i'd say.

Of course, Steve has billions in the bank and I have a day old pizza and a rusty bike to my name so what do I know.
 
I honestly don't get it. I guess that Data Center in NC will be full of Mini's.

Chris

No, the data center (as well as their data center in Cupertino) has real serious server stuff that Apple can't make and has no interest in making. Why do so many people assume that Apple uses their own servers for small businesses when Apple is now a $65 billion enterprise in annual sales and poised to soon go over $100 billion with over 46,000 employees?

These are a few of Apple's own job postings on their site. Heck, they even use Windows servers along with big iron from IBM (AIX Unix OS), Oracle/Sun (Solaris and Linux), etc. At least they don't buy their servers from HP and Dell!

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=62312&CurrentPage=8

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=63053&CurrentPage=11

These are the kinds of servers you can expect to see in Apple's data center:

From IBM:

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/hardware/index.html

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/hardware/servers/index.html

From Oracle/Sun:

http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/servers/sparc-enterprise/index.html

http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/servers/blades/index.html

http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/servers/x86/index.html
 
There is no iOS management in OS X Server

Not quite true.

From http://www.apple.com/ca/server/macosx/features/client-management.html

Fast iPhone deployment.

Deploying iPhone across an organization is easy with the new iPhone Configuration Utility. An IT administrator can create Configuration Profiles that include corporate passcode policies and distribute them on Mac OS X Server.

Of course, the utility itself is not however limited to OS X Server. Maybe there's some extra integration for OS X Server users, but I haven't played around with it so I don't really know. It would however be absurd for Apple to make it a bullet point on that page if there wasn't some kind of tie.

with big iron from IBM (AIX Unix OS), Oracle/Sun (Solaris and Linux), etc. At least they don't buy their servers from HP!

Nit picking here, but have you heard of the Integrity series, the BLxxx series blades and of a little OS that could called HP-UX ? :rolleyes:

HP is as much a big iron vendor as IBM and Sun.
 
Nit picking here, but have you heard of the Integrity series, the BLxxx series blades and of a little OS that could called HP-UX ? :rolleyes:

HP is as much a big iron vendor as IBM and Sun.

Yes, I'm very well aware of HP's fine line of servers and the HP-UX, but why would Apple buy them from one of their biggest competitors in the PC market (as well as tablets and phones that HP will bring out with the webOS)? Would you buy stuff from one of your main competitors? :rolleyes: My statement wasn't meant as a knock on HP's servers or even Dell's, for that matter. I'm sure Apple could just as easily buy HP and Dell servers if they weren't such key competitors.

Apple clearly states in their IT job postings that their data center consists of IBM/AIX, Sun/Solaris, and Linux although I'm sure the clients are all Macs and not anything from HP and Dell either. I also talked to some people who work in Apple's IT and they also do a lot of custom Unix OS applications they program in-house along with Linux. It's apparent that Apple uses some Windows servers as well from their list of job postings but I'm guessing this would be a very small portion.
 
Last edited:
WTF?! I was just now reading about this...how dumb. I realize the OS X server market is very small, but hell, so is Apple's overall global market share...what next...discontinuing Macs because "hardly anyone buys them"? Yes I know OS X Server can be run on the Mac Pro (if you want Xserve specs) but that thing isn't rack-mountable.

Not that I was ever going to be able to afford an Xserve myself...but still. Dumbest f--- up from Apple in a while. :rolleyes:
 
WTF?! I was just now reading about this...how dumb. I realize the OS X server market is very small, but hell, so is Apple's overall global market share...what next...discontinuing Macs because "hardly anyone buys them"? Yes I know OS X Server can be run on the Mac Pro (if you want Xserve specs) but that thing isn't rack-mountable.

Not that I was ever going to be able to afford an Xserve myself...but still. Dumbest f--- up from Apple in a while. :rolleyes:

Ummm... At the most, Apple probably sold around 10,000 Xserves a quarter. That wouldn't amount to 0.5% market share of which is a much smaller and very specialized market than the PC market. Well over 1,300,000 Windows servers are sold per quarter but that's still peanuts compared to around 75,000,000 PC's sold per quarter around the world.

In contrast, Apple sells over 42,000 Macs per day and growing at 25%+ year-over-year. On a daily basis, Apple also sells well over 150,000 iPhones and 50,000 iPads and these numbers will probably double over the next year. Over 1,300,000,000 phones are sold per year, so Apple still has long, long ways to go and plenty of room to grow with a very profitable product. Which businesses would you focus on?

Apple sold more Macs last quarter than they did all year several years ago. Apple is selling more Macs than ever before and the Mac business alone account for $22 billion in annual sales. Tim Cook pointed out that number would be #65 on the Fortune 500 chart. The Mac business is very profitable for Apple as well. Although Apple's market share in global PC unit shipments is only around 5%, it is estimated that Apple rakes in 35% of the profits.

It'd be great if Apple can also make high-end profitable servers, but those (like IBM's fully-loaded mainframes and Power UNIX servers) would cost well over $1 million each. In the low-end, cheap generic servers running Wintel and Linux cost less than half the amount of the Xserve with inferior specs and performance.

Also, servers have a much longer upgrade/replacement cycle than PC's and certainly mobile devices like phones and tablets. Servers, if maintained properly, can easily do what they're supposed to do for a decade or longer, if necessary. So IT departments are much stingier about upgrading or replacing old servers. They can just upgrade or add additional processors or just add a few more servers to the existing infrastructure if they need to expand. Server companies make more money doing maintenance and doing consulting and integration work than selling the hardware.

I'd say Apple knows exactly what they're doing. They're focusing on what they do best in markets they know they can compete in. That means the consumer market. The enterprise backend is not an area that Apple ever cared about and never had expertise in. Apple is making a big push into the enterprise but it will for the front end client devices with the iPhone, iPad and the MacBooks. Apple will have a much easier time selling these devices to the large enterprises than selling servers.
 
WTF?! I was just now reading about this...how dumb. I realize the OS X server market is very small, but hell, so is Apple's overall global market share...what next...discontinuing Macs because "hardly anyone buys them"? Yes I know OS X Server can be run on the Mac Pro (if you want Xserve specs) but that thing isn't rack-mountable.

Not that I was ever going to be able to afford an Xserve myself...but still. Dumbest f--- up from Apple in a while. :rolleyes:

Apple's world market share is under 4%. They're strong in North America and Europe, weak in Asia and Africa.
However, that's nearly 4% for one PC manufacturer. Apple is one of the largest PC manufacturers in the world. They're in the top 5 in the US. It's disingenuous to make it sound like they're a minor hardware vendor.

Apple's marketshare for SERVER shipments was small by any measure. I've got literally hundreds of servers in my division (close to a thousand) and very few were XServes (I've got 4, another group still runs a PPC cluster which ran Geo-Sci code very well with Altivec).

Apple has some significant advantages in enterprise but they're utility is narrow.
* They're easy to manage for novices
* They're based on BSD so there's plenty of apps/services available that are familiar to unix/linux admins. Pretty much all our Sys Admins use Macs as personal machines.
* They're *nix boxes that integrate into Active Directories.. which is important for me.

Apple's got significant disadvantages too.
* better warranty options from other vendors
* better HPC support with Linux
* better pricing from other vendors
* better integration with pure Windows environments
* better 3rd party integration. Apple doesn't even ship with an iSCSI initiator.. wtf?
... and so on

I use XServes for Mac Management (golden triangle) and for custom web apps and Apple WIKIs that authenticate to AD. This is something that would not be easy to do with Linux. I don't like scripting (php, perl..) on Windows either. For web dev, we look at OS X Server as the best of both worlds between Windows and Linux.

I won't need new XServes for a while so the impact won't hit me for a while. There is the possibility that Apple could make lemonade from this lemon though.

The XServe is a fine 1U (a 3U with more internal storage would have been nice for SMBs that didn't want to pay for external storage boxes but cest la vie).
..however, I'd MUCH rather be able to use OS X Server licenses in my VMWare ESX infrastructure.
Apple already licenses OS X Server for use in Fusion (though it's not well supported right now). If they'd just allow licensing for ESX virtual servers I could put my XServe budget into my ESX virtualization infrastructure.
Win Win.
 
Yes, I'm very well aware of HP's fine line of servers and the HP-UX, but why would Apple buy them from one of their biggest competitors in the PC market (as well as tablets and phones that HP will bring out with the webOS)? Would you buy stuff from one of your main competitors? :rolleyes: My statement wasn't meant as a knock on HP's servers or even Dell's, for that matter. I'm sure Apple could just as easily buy HP and Dell servers if they weren't such key competitors.

Apple will buy from their competitors because Apple doesn't make serious enterprise hardware.
I believe Apple said, at one time, they were running the itunes store on XServes but I'd be surprised if that were still the case. Maybe it's very parallel but when you need real high performance in a tightly coupled system you don't use Apple products.

There are some enterprise systems that Apple requires that just won't run 1U two-socket XServes.. and OS X Server.
Apple is a massive organization. They have plenty of places where they needs serious iron. For example, Apple moved from Web Object to SAP for the online store years ago.

You don't run a massive SAP installation on a 1U OS X Server nor do you run a massive payroll system...and on and on
 
Also, servers have a much longer upgrade/replacement cycle than PC's and certainly mobile devices like phones and tablets. Servers, if maintained properly, can easily do what they're supposed to do for a decade or longer, if necessary. So IT departments are much stingier about upgrading or replacing old servers. They can just upgrade or add additional processors or just add a few more servers to the existing infrastructure if they need to expand. Server companies make more money doing maintenance and doing consulting and integration work than selling the hardware.

I disagree with that statement because I think you're specifically speaking to major iron and not commodity servers.

Major systems, like mainframes, run for years and years and years because they're loaded with proprietary systems (like our payroll) and they cost an enormous amount to replace. Mainframes are still a huge ($$) market because they run the infrastructure of may organizations. They often run for ages but only because organizations pay through the butt for serious support contracts to keep them alive.. but that's still way less than replacement.

Our IBM support contract for the mainframe at my last place of work was $70k per year, 10 years ago. Then we finally decommissioned it and I got $1500 for the mainframe when we sold it for scrap. keeping it running was worth a lot.. even well after the hardware was obsolete.

Saying servers, in general, have a much longer upgrade cycle is very misleading though.
You're insane if you're running a mission-critical X86 server outside of warranty. The only time I'd disagree with that is in our compute clusters where we can loose a node with no real impact in the overall functionality of the system.
Heck, I only upgrade from the stock 3yr warranty on my x86 boxes when they're expensive enough that it's difficult to replace them in 3 years (that also coincides with them being powerful enough to be useful 5 years out).
 
Apple will buy from their competitors because Apple doesn't make serious enterprise hardware.
I believe Apple said, at one time, they were running the itunes store on XServes but I'd be surprised if that were still the case. Maybe it's very parallel but when you need real high performance in a tightly coupled system you don't use Apple products.

There are some enterprise systems that Apple requires that just won't run 1U two-socket XServes.. and OS X Server.
Apple is a massive organization. They have plenty of places where they needs serious iron. For example, Apple moved from Web Object to SAP for the online store years ago.

You don't run a massive SAP installation on a 1U OS X Server nor do you run a massive payroll system...and on and on

Apple buys from IBM and Oracle/Sun. Apple doesn't compete at all with IBM and Oracle. Apple would also need enterprise services like consulting and systems integration from them and would need to fill them in on a lot of internal information on how Apple runs its operations. Why would Apple divulge that kind of stuff to HP and Dell? It's way different from Apple buying chips and displays from Samsung and LG even though they compete in the area of phones and tablets.

I mentioned in an earlier post that Apple runs massive servers from IBM and Sun. I've been posting links to Apple's IT job postings that require expertise in IBM/AIX, Sun/Solaris, Linux, Oracle databases and various SAP positions. I have a few associates at Apple who work in their IT departments. Apple also does a lot of custom in-house UNIX stuff of their own along with AIX, Solaris, Red Hat Linux and Oracle Enterprise Linux. They also run Windows servers where they feel it's necessary.

I've been answering all these posts of people who think the NC data center and that everything Apple does run on a farm of Xserve servers or even Mini servers.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.