Upcoming Mac Racks?

[gbojim]

How can Apple make a real Rack server without hardware RAID capabilities???

Quite easily actually. Many organizations now do not include the RAID array in the server box. Instead, it is mounted in a separate cabinet with a SCSI interface between the server and RAID box. I have installed these with OS X and they work fine.

 

[wrylachlan]

Netbooting cluster

Here's a whacky idea:
So we know that Apple is targetting high end video and CGI people. Most of these industries do their intensive computing in render-farms full of non-descript unix variant boxes. For them computing power per dollar in a small form factor is the most important thing.

My idea is this use net-boot to make many of the cost factors in render-boxes unneccessary. With a rackmounted mac hard-coded in the bios to automatically net-boot you wouldn't need a graphics card, or even a pci bus. For that matter you wouldn't really need a hard drive or keyboard or mouse or any other ports of any kind. Just the motherboard with RAM and an on-board gigabit ethernet chip.

These would be cheap to make, dirt cheap, and would provide serious muscle for rendering. Hook them up to a server from which they would net-boot that had a ton of Hard Drive space and voila, an expandable cheap rendering solution leveraging net-boot, a Mac only technology.

And taking it a step further, Beowulf clusters are screaming for a technology like this. Current beowulf clusters use computers that each have a hard drive, PCI, etc, all things that are totally unneccessary for a beowulf cluster. If this "Thin Mac" had maybe three gigabit ethernet connections it could make a blisteringly fast and cheap beowulf cluster and every University in the world would be buying these things.

My $0.02

 

[Toe]

Re: Netbooting cluster

Originally posted by wrylachlan
My idea is this use net-boot to make many of the cost factors in render-boxes unneccessary. With a rackmounted mac hard-coded in the bios to automatically net-boot you wouldn't need a graphics card, or even a pci bus. For that matter you wouldn't really need a hard drive or keyboard or mouse or any other ports of any kind. Just the motherboard with RAM and an on-board gigabit ethernet chip.

Two questions:

1. Isn't that just going back to the idea of a mainframe? Why not just use a big IBM monstro server?

2. Why netboot? Why not just one computer with 50 processors or whatever? I don't think G4s can handle more than like 4 in tandem, but I believe G5s can work in large numbers....

 

[wrylachlan]

1. Why not a mainframe: same reason they (CGI, Video, University Beowulf people) go for linux boxes now, price to performance ratio. It costs a lot of money to come up with an architecture that will efficiently use a lot of processors. In a task that needs to be done quickly as one unit it makes sense to go with a mainframe. But since renders can be broken down and sent out so that each box is rendering a frame, it makes cost sense to go with render-farms. And the proof is out there on this one as ILM, Pixar, WETA do use render-farms, not mainframes.

2. Why not massive amounts of processors instead of clusters, see above. Just because the G5 might support SMP on a greater scale than the G4 (a theory which we don't know as of yet) does not mean that the chipset logic necessary to make it a reality will be easy. Also, in order to make efficient use of a massively parallel computer like you are talking about the code needs major, major adjustments. Even the compilers used to generate that code need to be changed because they aren't designed around the idea of massive parallelism. A render farm of low cost boxes, on the other hand has no such problem except in the task scheduler that doles out renders to each box. The boxes themselves are standard and use standard compiler techniques.

 

[Ensign Paris]

We have Compaq server at work and they are almost useless, they are ok but when tested against Unix and OSX server it is not so good!

If rack mount G4 or even G3 server at a real cheap price would be released I would buy a few as webservers (Filemaker)

Ensign

 

[Wry Cooter]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
We have Compaq server at work and they are almost useless, they are ok but when tested against Unix and OSX server it is not so good!

If rack mount G4 or even G3 server at a real cheap price would be released I would buy a few as webservers (Filemaker)

Ensign

I think this sort of gets back to the idea that server customers do not always have to be the traditional markets, displacing intel or unix servers in corporations. Schools with a small mac network, that have never had a rack mount server, and want room to grow; even homes with 5 clients or less, might think a server more suitable to their needs at a price comparable to, but needing less realestate, than a tower. And Audio and Video people have been the ones paying extra for the privilege to rack mount, they would love something that could fit in a road case rack mount.

 

[ibjoshua]

Originally posted by Wry Cooter


Or perhaps supported your point? I said the markets are not mutually exclusive- apple can "go pro" and be Joe SixPack consumer based simultaneously.

yeah but what mac15 said was:

Apple is turning into a super pro company
what average user needs that

what i was trying to get at was that all the evidence was to the contrary.
that's all

And pro customers are consumers too.

granted. but 'pro users' (or business users) are not what the term 'consumer' commonly refers to.

 

[ibjoshua]

woops
musta hit the back button
d'oh!

 

[Toe]

Originally posted by Wry Cooter
I think this sort of gets back to the idea that server customers do not always have to be the traditional markets, displacing intel or unix servers in corporations. Schools with a small mac network, that have never had a rack mount server, and want room to grow; even homes with 5 clients or less, might think a server more suitable to their needs at a price comparable to, but needing less realestate, than a tower. And Audio and Video people have been the ones paying extra for the privilege to rack mount, they would love something that could fit in a road case rack mount.

Indeed, my company is a 50-person, non-design-oriented business. We use Macs simply because we always have and moving to Windows would be stupid.

I have a Workgroup Server 7350. I have been waiting ever since then for Apple to come out with a real server box. I would love to slap a super-powerful OS X server in here, but NOT on a high-end graphics machine with the word "server" on it.

I don't need a kickin' video card. I don't need a big, slow IDE drive. I don't need a huge cool-looking plastic case. I don't need great sound capabilities, AGP, DVD, etc., etc.. I need a killer CPU, a killer Ultra-3 RAID, some PCI slots, a USB port, and a rock-bottom-of-the-line video card. Period.

 

[Toe]

Originally posted by Wry Cooter
...even homes with 5 clients or less, might think a server more suitable to their needs at a price comparable to, but needing less realestate, than a tower.

Now you're talkin'.

I have always thought the home PC was a fairly stupid idea.

The home computer should be in the closet, like any other appliance. By the fuse box or something.

Then the house should have terminals, clients, and accessories spread around it. The TV. Some notepads. An office terminal. The coffe maker. The HVAC. Etc.

But not a big piece of hardware spread all over the place... one that can do nothing but send e-mail and print. How primitive!

 

[peterjhill]

Re: Happy coincidence, chance, know!

Originally posted by dukestreet
But unless they really lower the price of the machines, it still won't be a viable option when compared to the el cheapo PCs in a decent render farm.

People are willing to pay more for a rack mounted system that is built right (ie. not taking a Mac G4 server and adding mounting brackets to the handles).

Dell has some well designed rack servers, we have a bunch at work. Easy to access, lots of hotswap and redundant parts.

Here is what $6,200 or so buys you:
PowerEdge 2550
Dual Pentium 3@1.4 GHz w/512k L2 cache
1Gig SDRAM, 133 MHz
2 36 GIG 10k ultra160 scsi hds
No Operating System
8X dvdrom
4 bay hotplug harddrive backplane
3 years 4hour, onsite support
dual redundant 330 watt powersupply
10/100 ethernet
10/100/1000 ethernet

Apple could easily compete with that.

Lets see:
Dual (or quad) G4s @ 1Gig (or better)
1.5 gig sdram
same hard disk options
superdrive
I love front panel accessible hard disk drive bays
some real onsite support, who is dell subcontracting with?
redundant powersupplies.
10/100 ethernet
10/100/1000 ethernet

The current servers address some of the functions, but what I need is something that you can pull out on rails from the rack, while it is on, and get at the insides of the thing. Also, how about a flip down front to access hotswapable harddrives, 4 bays is a nice number.

Rack mounted non-Apple servers are not cheap when compared with an identically configured machine in a tower enclosure, without all the hotswap features. System admins want this in their purchases. Apple has a real chance to compete with Sun in the low end server market. Linux on Dell and IBM are currently eating away at Sun's market share, I'd like to see Apple come in and shove them aside with hardware that is at least as good as theirs with their already looking darn good software.

(IMHO)

 

[peterjhill]

Re: Yeah, but no internal RAID!

Originally posted by Toe
I've written to Atto and Adaptec, and they have NO PLANS whatsoever (so they claim) of making internal RAID cards for OS X.

This even though Adaptec has RAID PCI cards for Unix.

How can Apple make a real Rack server without hardware RAID capabilities???

Apple has software developers also, they could easily write their own raid drivers. With the bsd microkernel it would be trivial.

 

[Wry Cooter]

Re: Re: Yeah, but no internal RAID!

Originally posted by peterjhill


Apple has software developers also, they could easily write their own raid drivers. With the bsd microkernel it would be trivial.

Perhaps a bit less so very likely if needing to support unix AND hfs+. Maybe the BeOS engineer they have hired can get the metadata, resource fork or not stuff a bit smoother.

 

[jbouklas]

It's a lot cheaper to make a rackmount system, actually. You use less case materials, you account for less open bays, and much less expansion. You don't need anything above a CD-ROM, and garbage graphics. It would run an Apollo G4, which uses very little power and produces very little heat. Imagine not the retail solutions now, but something like the Compaq slim servers. Small footprint. It fits in with Apple trying to make their way into big business (genome, etc.).

-Jim

 

[Wry Cooter]

Originally posted by jbouklas
It's a lot cheaper to make a rackmount system, actually. You use less case materials, you account for less open bays, and much less expansion. You don't need anything above a CD-ROM, and garbage graphics. It would run an Apollo G4, which uses very little power and produces very little heat. Imagine not the retail solutions now, but something like the Compaq slim servers. Small footprint. It fits in with Apple trying to make their way into big business (genome, etc.).

-Jim

Actually it might depend exactly what is being served. What you say makes perfect sense, but I could also easily imagine a version with as many slots as any tower, stuffed with graphics coprocessing cards, for render farms, or graphics workgroup serving. (Or audio DSP cards, for multitrack digital audio)

 

[alex_ant]

Re: What about just porting OS X server to Intel

Originally posted by vallette
I agree that porting the client version of OS X to Intel is losing proposition on a number of fronts, especially in terms of Apple's bottom line, but what about only porting the server version? To me this makes perfect sense and allows Apple to enter a market that they don't seriously compete in.

Well, why doesn't Betty Crocker develop an OS and port it to Intel instead? There are some markets in which some companies simply feel out of place.

Although Apple's flirted with the server market in the past they've never been successful.

I think it's the "stabbing yourself in the head" principe. You can stab yourself in the head once, and - ow, that hurts! You don't want to do it again.

I'm talking about rack mountable units with hot swappable drives, NIC cards, power supplies, etc. Without the server equipment they'll always suffer in the corporate world. Companies buy Intel based servers, load them with Intel compatible server software (read MS) and then put compatible clients on the desktop.

Yup, they do. So what does that have to do with Apple? 🙂

So lets say Apple ports OS X server to Intel. IT professionals gain a robust, UNIX based server package capable of running on readily available equipment (and an alternative to MS) and Apple gains the foot-in-the-door they need to start competing in the corporate world.

IT professionals already have many robust UNIX-based servers at their disposal. The Sun Blades running Solaris, and countless x86 blades running Linux or one of the BSDs, among others. Both of these, the x86 blades in particular, are far more cost-effective than a Mac OS X Server for Intel blade could ever be. Linux and Free/OpenBSD are much faster, more mature & proven, and less expensive than OS X Server.

Porting is simplified since the majority of consumer oriented applications and drivers wouldn't be run in a server setting.

So you end up with an OS that can do basically 50% of what Linux can do on a server, 70% as fast, running a filesystem that is 4000% more sucky, for only $500 ($1000?) more...

Although this would make an Intel version of Apple's crown jewel available to the general public, the price point of the server version would put it out of reach for the vast majority of home/casual users thereby not threatening Apple's current bread and butter.

Until it gets pirated and spreads to the desktop of every OS X-loving computer geek who wants it... underground hardware drivers would begin to pop up within weeks.

In fact at 1000 bucks a pop I'd venture that selling the Intel version might actually contribute to the bottom line.

All the closed-source x86 Unixes are either dead or dying. BSD/OS and OpenServer come to mind... not to mention Steve Jobs' own OpenStep, which was a big money-loser.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

I think if Apple wants to go after the rack-mount world, I hope they won't go after any applications that require great CPU performance.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any reason why I personally would choose a rack-mount Mac over a rack-mount Linux machine, unless I needed something extremely easy to set up and administer. It seems to me like a rack-mount Mac would remove from the picture all the things that make the Mac great, putting it on the same playing field as the big server vendors so it can get eaten alive. Can anyone help me here?

About the G4's power consumption - yes, it is low-power, but it's also low-performance. Sun has a 1U, 64-bit, 500MHz blade for $999. Not the fastest thing ever, but it would still be competitive. If I'm looking for a reputable server vendor, and I have a choice between Apple and Sun, I know which one I'm going to pick...

Alex

 

[CHess]

Vallette, Apple is still primarily a hardware company. They really only Make software to run their hardware and to make their hardware more attractive.

Porting OS X server onto an Intel machine for them would be silly. First off, there is not that much difference between OS X and OS X server in terms of the software they'd have to rewrite. If they did one, then they might as well do both. Second, I don't see them doing EITHER for reasons I stated above.

If Apple is going to push itself more into the server market, it is going to do it with Apple hardware, not Apple software.

 

[vallette]

Vallette, Apple is still primarily a hardware company. They really only Make software to run their hardware and to make their hardware more attractive.

I think you missed the point of my post. Apple is a hardware company but they've never been able to compete in the server market even back in the days of AUX--the other UNIX based Apple OS. All I'm saying is captalize on what's already out there. Don't force corporate clients to purchase all new equipment just to run OS X server. And maybe, just maybe if you get MS off the servers you can get them off the desktop where Apple really makes their money.

Porting OS X server onto an Intel machine for them would be silly. First off, there is not that much difference between OS X and OS X server in terms of the software they'd have to rewrite. If they did one, then they might as well do both. Second, I don't see them doing EITHER for reasons I stated above.

They'd never port the consumer version because, as you stated above, they're a hardware company and having an Intel version of the OS would seriously eat into their desktop sales. They aren't, however, a server hardware company and they're going to face a serious uphill battle to become one.

If Apple is going to push itself more into the server market, it is going to do it with Apple hardware, not Apple software.

Maybe so but based on history it's far from a sure thing.