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

Xserve RAID and Xserve Updates

Where is the SCSI? If I need 2+ terabytes of storage, I think I would want it to be fast... no?

*sigh*

Yet another cool idea that is lacking in some of the "must have" details.
 
New xserve

could almost be used as a stand alone desktop!!

I might be in the very small minority, but I would prefer a desktop form a la my Beige G3. All the 1U Xserve needs is a SuperDrive and it could be used as an (expensive) desktop model!!

Otherwise a very appetising update!
 
It can handle over 200MB/sec using ATA drives. Is SCSI really necessary?

That isn't a retorical question, I honestly don't know. Is that fast enough?
 
Originally posted by yzedf
Where is the SCSI? If I need 2+ terabytes of storage, I think I would want it to be fast... no?

*sigh*

Yet another cool idea that is lacking in some of the "must have" details.
Click to expand...

SCSI is not "must have" any more. And the way the Xserve works, with ATA/133, it's actually faster than SCSI based servers. AND, ATA is much cheaper...
 
Originally posted by crassusad44


SCSI is not "must have" any more. And the way the Xserve works, with ATA/133, it's actually faster than SCSI based servers. AND, ATA is much cheaper...
Click to expand...

From my experience with SCSI and IDE drives, I would want SCSI just for the reliability.

Remember the big row a few months ago when most companies (including IBM, WD, Seagate, Hitachi etc) started reducing IDE warranties from 3yr to 1yr?

I am supposed to trust these inferior (reliability wise) drives for mission critical server work?

What is the point if I have to keep swapping out dead drives every month after the first 14-18 months?
 
Dude, this is a great deal. I highly, highly doubt the drives are at all unreliable. Besides, its fully redundant - and the PRICE is 3X less than the comparable DELL offering.

Top XServe RAID - $10,999
DELL EMC CX200 - $30000

Apple's comparison chart is here.


Throw in a (couple!) XServes, and you are still way below the price of just DELL's storage!
 
Sweet

i'm not in the market for an xserve, but i am debating how to backup my DVD masters/vid projects. i was considering the cheap-o rout (DC'ing an bunch of FW HD's together) but the entry level pricepoint for the raid is affordable. I think this was a good release. I look to buy around the time they will actually ship (late march? is that the best guess?)

My experience with ATA has been more than acceptable. I don't miss SCSI, really.
 
SCSI too limiting for Xserve RAID

Apple discusses the "whys" of Xserve RAID design in the various product web pages. Go read them instead of sitting on MacRumors.com scratching your head and posting questions to a forum full of people equally as uninformed about a brand new product as you are.
 
maybe they're waiting for serial ATA?

what do think? maybe that's why they didn't use SCSI maybe they're waiting for the second gen or maybe even the third? cuz I read somewhere that the first gen isn't going to have much of a perfomance boost...

this great! apple has updating everything except the iBooks and the iPods... so i guess we'll have to wait till next week :p this is good! GO APPLE!

THANK YOU
MaT
 
Re: SCSI too limiting for Xserve RAID

Originally posted by Sayer
Apple discusses the "whys" of Xserve RAID design in the various product web pages. Go read them instead of sitting on MacRumors.com scratching your head and posting questions to a forum full of people equally as uninformed about a brand new product as you are.
Click to expand...

PR trash is not helpful. real facts are.

fact - most IDE drives now come with 1yr warranty.

fact - as prices have dropped, so have reliability.

fact - servers are all about reliability

fact - speed is not most important feature of a server

fact - every other release apple has done in the near past that has been delayed has had problems within days of release. (both hardware and software)

fact - expectations of a server are much harsher than that of a shiny little notebook.

this may be why the sales of this machine, in the past, have not been what apple expected/wanted. this is the land of reliability. uptime here is measured not in days or hours... but months.

3rd quarter (calendar year) sales shall show us if this new product is up to snuff.

i merely point out why many may choose not to purchase this right now. if it is good, and the facts bear this out in 6-12 months, then apple might have an unqualified success on their hands. as of right now, they do not.

time will tell.

IMNSHO, YMMV.
 
I am really disappointed it used ATA. ATA is merely half duplex, and in major applications you need the drives to be able to read and write at the same time for maximum speed.

It's a good lower to possibly mid range server.

BTW, When did Hitachi and IBM's Hard Drive Division merge? Did this just happen or did I miss it?

GPT
 
Re: Re: SCSI too limiting for Xserve RAID

Originally posted by yzedf
fact - expectations of a server are much harsher than that of a shiny little notebook.
Click to expand...

I have to agree whole heartedly with this comment.

People just don't understand why servers are so different, and if they have never doen any high end apps like large oracle databases or large centralized file share systems they never really will :\
 
Apple's website says the XServe has the fastest bus speeds ever.

Weren't they already at 167 MHz?
 
Originally posted by GPTurismo


Well Crap. IBM will probably start up a new HDD division in 5 years once the economy picks back up :(

Damn, and IBM made some of my favorite drives too.
Click to expand...

AFAIK they are only getting rid of the basic IDE stuff. If you like their other stuff... you may be in luck.

They are still doing R&D on hdd, so we may be ok.

It was the DeskStar line that seems to have pushed them over the edge... :(
 
NO bashing ATA!

Now keep in Mind the Xserve has dedicated controllers for each pair of drives. ATA's Half Duplex limitation can be ameliorated somewhat by having seperate controllers for each drive or pair of drives. Since the controllers are much cheaper than the comparable SCSI controllers you're still ahead.
 
Originally posted by sparkleytone
is it just me or does this statement seem to have alot of power hidden behind it?? its almost scary :D
Click to expand...

I am happy to be scared. :)

Apple is on a role. I like this every Tuesday update thing. How about....next week iPods.....and Feb. 24 new iBooks? :D
 
Re: Re: SCSI too limiting for Xserve RAID

Originally posted by yzedf


PR trash is not helpful. real facts are.

fact - most IDE drives now come with 1yr warranty.

fact - as prices have dropped, so have reliability.

fact - servers are all about reliability

fact - speed is not most important feature of a server

fact - every other release apple has done in the near past that has been delayed has had problems within days of release. (both hardware and software)

fact - expectations of a server are much harsher than that of a shiny little notebook.

this may be why the sales of this machine, in the past, have not been what apple expected/wanted. this is the land of reliability. uptime here is measured not in days or hours... but months.

3rd quarter (calendar year) sales shall show us if this new product is up to snuff.

i merely point out why many may choose not to purchase this right now. if it is good, and the facts bear this out in 6-12 months, then apple might have an unqualified success on their hands. as of right now, they do not.

time will tell.

IMNSHO, YMMV.
Click to expand...


As generally true as your statements may prove to be, they are far from facts. For instance, its your opinion (and probably that of countless others) that the reliability of drives has dropped. And in the rare instance of a liberal use of a server, speed can be the most important factor of a server.

It's just that you came off a little to hardedged and seemed to be basing things off of general truths, not facts.

MhzDoesMatter
 
Re: Re: Re: SCSI too limiting for Xserve RAID

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter



As generally true as your statements may prove to be, they are far from facts. For instance, its your opinion (and probably that of countless others) that the reliability of drives has dropped. And in the rare instance of a liberal use of a server, speed can be the most important factor of a server.

It's just that you came off a little to hardedged and seemed to be basing things off of general truths, not facts.

MhzDoesMatter
Click to expand...

When the warranty issue came up, I had a very long talk with a sys admin friend of mine who is very much the hardware guru. He is young enough to not be overly nostalgic for "the good old days" yet realistic enough to see the differences over time.

RAM seems to be better, and cheaper. Not nearly the number of duds that there used to be.

HDD are faster, bigger, quiter (mostly), and more likely to break. Most of the drives in his domain are of the small 2gig variety. They have turned out to be slow, quiet, and safe. The newer whiz bang fast drives have been far more prone to failures (of the rattling ball bearing in a can kind). Even tried buying slower new drives. They were better than the fast drives, but worse than the older stuff.

My personal experience with cheapo drives through the years has been fairly consistent; they all suck.

Nearly every IDE hdd on the market is not designed for 24/7 use. They tend to fail, in a big way.

I hope this is not what is in the xserves. Apples customers do deserve better. They expect good quality hard/soft ware... and they pay for it.

Best of luck.

:)
 
Is it just my Attention to Details or is

Mac OS X Server 10.2.4 Not out yet?

I might just have to make another topic out of this...
managementshot_020903.gif


Whoops apple slipped... I mean software update doesn't show anything for me... hm...

The 1.42 GHZ are just too hot right now to be running in those. Look at the rack the heat would spread and they would all melt into one big metal clump. :(

Ouch.
 
So you have 14 drives, and you can only read or write to each one. So the problem there lies that if you can't read from a drive to get the final part of a file or even the first part because it is writing you slow down, who cares you can write or read from all the drives simultaneously if they can only do one at a time...

all i can say is CHEAP LOW END SOLUTION

:(

At least as desktops apples really kick booty :D
 
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