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

Xserve Refresh?

Just received G5

I just got a new dualie G5 XServe the day before yesterday and it looks normal.

I don't care if they upgrade anything, other than making a video display standard (we don't need 3D anything - put in the $2 VGA chip) but for God's sake, come up with a better rackmount system. Look at IBM's for instance. It takes me 3 minutes to Rack an IBM, 20 an XServe.
 
TrumanApple said:
2x 2.5 ghz processors does NOT mean they are equal to a 5ghz processor. That would only be the case in the perfect world where all instructions could be executed in parallel and already knew how to be divided up. For example... to preform (A*B)+7.... you have to finish multiplying A*B before you can add 7... you cant do both at the same time... (wow that was a bad example... but still works)
Click to expand...

Well, when the G5s came out the WERE advertised as such on Apple's site in their videos. They pointed out that dual G4s only gave a 50% performance boost by adding the second processor, while the NEW G5s do effectively utilize the second processor to double speed.
 
dernhelm said:
I'm hoping never.

But I'm betting on Itanic chips in them sometime late 2007.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The Itanium chip was a flop. It never filled it's expectation on power and consumption. Only a handful of companies actually use it with less than brilliant sales. I think Apple os going to wait for the Replacement of the Xeon a multicore 64-bit processor...
 
The xServes really need a bump, they only really make sense if you're buying a few and need the rack mounting. Otherwise why not just buy a dual 2.7GHz powermac as a server? Would be nice to see dual dual core CPUs all round in the Powermac and xServes, but the xServes would benefit most - it's a server that's needs to do lots of things at once, a Powermac wouldn't get as much benefit. As to when, MacPredict is predicting the update for around the 27th of next month
 
macorama said:
The xServes really need a bump, they only really make sense if you're buying a few and need the rack mounting. Otherwise why not just buy a dual 2.7GHz powermac as a server?
Click to expand...

A couple of reasons:
  • xServes have ECC Ram
  • xServes are meant to keep going if you have a failure of a fan or part
  • xServes have health status LED's on the front for quick-checking their health

These are just a couple of reasons. Oh, and of course, I am assuming you are putting OSX Server on the PowerMac. If not, then you have a whole other list of reasons why the xServe is better as a server.
 
iris_failsafe said:
I don't think so. The Itanium chip was a flop. It never filled it's expectation on power and consumption. Only a handful of companies actually use it with less than brilliant sales. I think Apple os going to wait for the Replacement of the Xeon a multicore 64-bit processor...
Click to expand...
It was a flop because people preferred the cheaper x86_64 cores from amd which forced intel to produce something similar. Backwards compability has always been a key issue in the "PC/x86" world, and people did not want to use the slow (initially) x86 compability of the Itanium processor, so they opted for x86_64.

Now, Itanium really is a great processor with many interesting features. What Intel needs is a hw-manufacturer with (relatively) little focus on backwards compability. Guess who fits that description... I for one would welcome a Itanium workstation, if it costs less than 10000$ that is ;)
 
Flame away...

longofest said:
A couple of reasons:
  • xServes have ECC Ram
  • xServes are meant to keep going if you have a failure of a fan or part
  • xServes have health status LED's on the front for quick-checking their health

These are just a couple of reasons. Oh, and of course, I am assuming you are putting OSX Server on the PowerMac. If not, then you have a whole other list of reasons why the xServe is better as a server.
Click to expand...

While I love Mac hardware and OS/X, the one major flaw IMHO, is the lack of redundant (hot swapable) power supplies. With my previous employer, the data center had more than 1,000 servers on the floor. While not an everyday event, power supplies do fail on a regular basis. I would personally be hesitant to run a mission critical application on a server without redundant power supplies. At least not without having another server available for failover.

My 2 cents...
 
longofest said:
A couple of reasons:
  • xServes have ECC Ram
  • xServes are meant to keep going if you have a failure of a fan or part
  • xServes have health status LED's on the front for quick-checking their health

These are just a couple of reasons. Oh, and of course, I am assuming you are putting OSX Server on the PowerMac. If not, then you have a whole other list of reasons why the xServe is better as a server.
Click to expand...

Also: they have dual ethernet and FW 800 as well as accepting 16GB RAM ;)
 
Toe said:
Did Apple ever say they were going to move everything to Intel?

Isn't it possible that they'll use whatever processor makes the most sense for the machine in question? Couldn't we have Intel-based laptops and minis and G6-based Xserves and PowerMacs?
Click to expand...

Are we forgetting that IBM seems unable to deliver a 3Ghz machine in the previously promised timeframe? Apple is quite done with IBM. It will be phased out and Intel will be phased in...entirely. It makes no sense to run both chipsets for purposes of continuity within apple. They will be focused on delivering a single Intel OS X rather than having to ship an OS for a specific chip far into the future.
 
not quite, apple is not switching for intels netburst (p4) cpu's and they wont switch the line untill intel has a pentium m based cpu to replace the ppc cpu, also everything will support both untill at least 2010
 
cosmos said:
While I love Mac hardware and OS/X, the one major flaw IMHO, is the lack of redundant (hot swapable) power supplies. With my previous employer, the data center had more than 1,000 servers on the floor. While not an everyday event, power supplies do fail on a regular basis. I would personally be hesitant to run a mission critical application on a server without redundant power supplies. At least not without having another server available for failover.

My 2 cents...
Click to expand...

Redundant Power supplies are virtually non-existant on a 1U device. There just isn't room to include one. Plus it is to difficult to get rid of the extra heat generated.
So unless they decide to sell a 2U device, we will never see it.

I doubt anyone will want to buy an Xserve after it goes to Intel anyway.
Why buy a server running OS X. Desktops I can understand, but if your on Intel for the Server you might as well run Linux.
 
Xserve will switch to Intel when 64bit is offered

Xserve will switch to intel, but the new processor has to be 64bit the same goes for the powermac\imac product range. I see the first intels being the PowerBook\iBook and mini.

It would be a step backwards not to go 64bit for all Xserver and the g5 products. Apple mayor benefit for clusters is 64 bit. In fact I think the Xserve will be last to switch due to the Xserve cluster and supercomputer application.

I could see another release in this field with dual MP G5
 
munkees said:
Xserve will switch to intel, but the new processor has to be 64bit the same goes for the powermac\imac product range. I see the first intels being the PowerBook\iBook and mini.

It would be a step backwards not to go 64bit for all Xserver and the g5 products. Apple mayor benefit for clusters is 64 bit. In fact I think the Xserve will be last to switch due to the Xserve cluster and supercomputer application.

I could see another release in this field with dual MP G5
Click to expand...

64Bit Xeons are on sale now ;)
 
munkees said:
Platform, I agree xeon are 64 bit and are on sale, but the new apple line will be pentium based not xeon.
Click to expand...

How do you know :confused: :confused: :cool:

Why Pentium Only, why not use what they have at disposal....Xeon = Intel best server/worksation CPU.......why not :confused:
 
It's good to see an upgrade to the Xserve RAID. Sounds like a good server for those in need.
 
Update. Not Major though.
Apple Updates Xserve RAID
Apple updated its Xserve RAID storage system, a 3U high-availability, rack storage system to deliver a massive 7 terabytes (TB) of storage capacity at the industry’s most aggressive price of just $1.86 per GB. Apple also upgraded its Xserve 1U rack optimized server with up to three 500GB drives, achieving a groundbreaking 1.5TB of storage. [Sep 13, 2005]
 
This isn't an update at all.

So you can order bigger drives, Big Deal, who cares?

An update would be changing PCI-X to PCI-express, upgrading the processor, adding a $5 video chip to the motherboard etc.

This update is even more lame than the last 2 PowerBook updates.
 
cosmos said:
While I love Mac hardware and OS/X, the one major flaw IMHO, is the lack of redundant (hot swapable) power supplies. With my previous employer, the data center had more than 1,000 servers on the floor. While not an everyday event, power supplies do fail on a regular basis. I would personally be hesitant to run a mission critical application on a server without redundant power supplies. At least not without having another server available for failover.
Click to expand...
If you're gonna deploy 1,000 servers, I doubt you're gonna have them all doing different things. That sort of situation is usually one of clustering and/or load balancing, no? You don't need redundant power supplies because you have redundant servers. If any component on an Xserve goes, you take that machine offline, repair whatever needs fixin', and redeploy.
 
Zappa said:
It was a flop because people preferred the cheaper x86_64 cores from amd which forced intel to produce something similar.
Click to expand...

Itanium flopped long before x86-64.
 
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