Would You Buy A Mac OS X Server?

waterbug asks: "Slashdot has had recent stories on NeXT, integrating Unix with the Mac OS, OS X and X11, old Macs as terminals, and PPC distros of Linux. While all these stories have elicited scattered comments on the topic, I haven't really seen a good, focused discussion of whether Apple would be a viable manufacturer of OS X-based servers." Do you think Apple will be able to pull this off? I guess only time will tell, but it would be interesting to hear what you think about this right now.

"Imagine the following:

• A real server box with 2 or 4 G4's and easy access to all the hardware
• Mac OS X with full SMP support and all your favorite tools
• All the cool NeXT/OpenStep stuff that comes with OS X
• Redundant power supplies
• Hot-swappable SCSI RAID
• Industrial design that kicked ass, so that you'd want it out in the open instead of hiding on a rack or under a workbench

I think Apple has demonstrated that it has the skills to build such a box. The question is whether any of you would buy it. Admittedly, you'd probably pay a modest premium over an x86 solution, but would it be worth it for the enhanced compatibility, usability and style? Does OS X make Apple a more credible vendor of industrial-strength systems?"

Comments

Lack of apps and strong competition

[Tet]

MacOS X server certainly has it's work cut out if it's going to succeed. It has two main problems. First is lack of applications. It's in a similar position that of Linux a few years ago. I expect Jobs to push Ellison quite hard to get an Oracle port. Without that, big businesses just aren't going to take it seriously for heavy duty server use. Being BSD based, we can assume ports of Apache and Samba will appear shortly (if they haven't already), but without a heavy duty database (and in the minds of most decision makers, that means Oracle, rightly or wrongly), it'll remain as a niche file/print/web server. Secondly, it has to show significant advantages over the competition, and thanks to Linux, the competition is in pretty good shape at the moment. I doubt OS X will win on performance, and it can't win on cost, so it has to rely on other areas if it's to succeed. The only way I can see it doing well is if it comes with some stunning easy to use remote management software. Getting the UI right has long been one of Apple's strong points, so perhaps it has a chance after all, but it's going to be a long hard struggle...

Mac OS X will make a solid impact

[aibrahim]

Mac OS X brings all the reliability and customizability of UNIX together with the usability of a MacOS.

There is a huge market for servers that "normal people" can configure. Right now only Windows NT Server fills the need. MacOS X is definitely better, in every way other than application availability, than the MS offering. That is the real market.

It will not replace serious Sun machines, at least not for a while. But for small deparmental servers and company LAN's this is a serious contender.

What would you gain?

[scotpurl]

What can you get from an Apple server platform that you can't get elsewhere? Yeah, it'd be cool, but aside from that, what concrete things do you gain? Does cool hardware that no one outside the server room can see really mean better performance?

I mean, if all I wanted was file sharing, then anything would work. If there's some sort of remote administration, or client-adminstration you gain from the server, like Tivoli/SMS, that'd be a neat add-on. But I'll bet you can buy 2-3 boxes for the price of one Apple server.

My only hesitation is supporting a monopoly, be it Microsoft or Apple. Apple killed off all of their hardware competition, which was a shame, as I think some of their "competitors" were actually making better "Mac" hardware than Apple was (and at a lower price).

But why do you want your server out in the open? People will play with it, unplug it, bump it, spill drinks on it (like the $300 DEC Alpha keyboard I toasted once), and have to listen to the @#!! RAID drives whining and spinning. Get that thing into another climate-controlled room with fire suppression, hidden wiring, and locked doors. If you want to play on the console, then you need one as a workstation, not a server. :-)

Re:What would you gain?

[aibrahim]

If you are comparing Mac OS X as a server to UNIX: NOT MUCH. You may even lose a little from the point of view of an experienced UNIX admin.

If you are trying to build a network with limited staff resources and experience your only choice has been Windows NT. Apple is aiming squarely at Windows NT/2000 here.

So, which one would you rather have in your network: BSD based Mac OS X OR Win 2K ? Given a real RDBMS I'll choose OS X every time. I trust those Unix guts to keep working. If they fail, I trust Apple's interface builders to have built something a brain dead idiot can figure out when I have to hire the eventual ASSE's (Apple Systems Software Engineers aren't here now, just wait, they may use a different name though.)

To address the idea of why you want your server out in the open: marketing. When you bring the PHB-type investors and clients around your little internet start-up they look at rack systems and think, "What a mess, these systems look like junk, they must be out of date." Show the same morons (morons who happen to have your money) some pretty SGI or Apple servers and they think, "WOW- these guys have all this futuristic computer stuff. They must know what they are doing."

Stupid but true.

Another argument against racks: They cost money. If I have a few systems (less than 5) I'd rather stick each machine in its own case and leave work room around them. The stupid cases cost less money, and might look better.

Re:server ? thats a desktop.

[aibrahim]

I think you are more interested in bragging about your machine than being serious about the value of Mac OS X systems.

Mac's already have 64 bit PCI in all their tower systems.

OS X has all the scalability of any BSD, that includes the ability to address 64bit file and memory spaces, on 64 bit hardware. Current Apple processors are 32 bit. Then again with a UNIX kernel moving to 64-bit should be easy.

As to graphics, some people like to use them. It is nice to have several X terminals displayed on the same screen.

Some servers have to be out in the open to impress clients that tour your facility. Some facilities don't have any use for large racks of servers. There are a lot of plcaes that can use the money you spend on racks to acquire another computer or two for use as a special purpose servers.

If you have redundant hotswappable drives and power supplies in your desktop workstation, then you may be over spec. Are you doing some sort of batch processing that runs over 100 days per cycle ? If not maybe you should save a bit and get a couple of desktops next time around.

Sure.

[Matthew Weigel]

Based on the bitching and moaning (and relatively reasonable bitching and moaning) on the MacOS X mailing lists about the fact that Apple isn't selling MacOS X Server or their server systems right now, I'd say yes.

And for those idiots who are claiming MacOS X will not have sufficient applications, I give you

• Exhibit A: Classic.app -- run your original Mac apps with their Platinum interface in MacOS X!
• Exhibit B: Carbon -- run some of your better behaved Mac apps with the Aqua interface in MacOS X!
• Exhibit C: Cocoa -- run, with just a little porting, many of your favorite old NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP applications in MacOS X (sorry, requires source, or a vendor still around)
• Exhibit D: Unix -- run your favorite command-line programs ported from BSD, Linux, or virtually any other UNIX, right in MacOS X!
• Exhibit E: X -- being made available is an X Windowing Server for MacOS X -- port your favorite X applications, or run them remotely on that Onyx2000 and display them on MacOS X!

And, for the record, if I got purchasing power in a small- or medium-sized network with UNIX servers after MacOS X is officially out, I'd certainly consider MacOS X as an option. Especially if NetInfo gets encryption like I've been hearing it would.

bloated

[josepha48]

Okay before I get flamed, I'll start right off with the fact that they said you will need 64Meg of RAM to run OS X (last I heard). If that is the case then as a server NO. As a desktop workstation YES. Servers need light compact OSes so that the applications can have most ofthe resources and the system should use little depending on the app. System calls can be expensive on the resource end.

If OS X Server is what you are talking about and this is just another UNIX type OS without the GUI, then maybe. Lets see the benchmarks. Fact is that Solaris is probably the best thing for a web server around these days. FreeBSD on intel or Linux also works. So why not another BSDish UNIX like OS X.

I think it is great that they are putting UNIX with Macish interface. It will make a stable and easy to use desktop workstation. Here is the thing about Mac. Tehy are and never were ery big on the networking world and it will take them time to catch up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all ;-)
Flame away, I have a hose!

Re:server ? thats a desktop.

[Valdrax]

Okay, that's enough bragging about a system that is a hell of a lot more powerful than my college of 10,000+ has for the central student server. (What the heck kind of business are you running that needs that kind of horsepower? I used to work customer support for mission-critical e-commerce and healthcare claims system that didn't have a third of that power.)

Anyway, I'll address your questions:

is apple 64 bit yet (essentialk for files over 2GB on the filesystem) ?

Yes and no, in much the same fashion as NT handles 64-bit filesizes without being fully 64-bit compliant. You don't directly use 32-bit sized file pointers in the Mac OS. I believe, though I could be wrong, that the Mac OS does handle this with HFS+.

does it support VxFS or equivalent log filesystems ?

No, not yet anyway, but Apple isn't attacking the market that needs such things.

does it connect via fibre to a RAID array ?

Only with 3rd party expansion cards.

does it have 64 bit PCI slots ?

Yes, if by "it" you mean the G4 series. No, if you mean iMacs and notebooks -- and the Cube.

why should i waste CPU on displaying graphics ?

What kind of site are you running that's choking down 100% CPU usage on a regular basis? Most highly-loaded sites that I'm familiar with could've spared 5% or so average CPU usage for an inactive GUI except for the customers that were running their system far past what it was really designed to take.

what do i care for tools/GUIs etc as applications like webservers etc which are going to run without an interface anyway as a daemon.

Maybe you don't, but some people might like a less painful interface to those tools. I guess your needs are everyone's needs, though.

what use is that for a server ? its supposed to be dumped in a corner and forgotten about.

That's your opinion. Some people would disagree. It's not like you have to trade off performance for a decent appearance. Look at the Cobalt Qube. Some people have taste. (Heck, some people have shift keys.)

redundant stuff/hot swap raid etc is already standard on all the machines i have including my desktop..you mean apple doesnt have that yet ?

Okay, well that's just weird, because the majority of people don't need to hot-swap the drives in their desktop machine. So, no, Apple doesn't have that yet, as most Macs a desktop systems. I don't think it will be too long before they start entering a more serious server market, like the attempted to in the past with the AIX-based Apple Network Server. Nice machine with all the mid-range server niceties of the day.

methinks you need a desktop and stop trying to wedge a desktop system into server space.

Methinks you should try to understand that your server needs are not everyone else's server needs. You're obviously running some high-end hardware -- one of Sun's top of the line systems -- for special needs. Not everyone needs a god-awful UltraSPARC system like that, and the majority of users would consider your "desktop system" a low- to mid-range server. I've seen large banking and healthcare companies run all their transactions through systems with around %20 of an E4500's power just fine. A good, beefed-up Mac OS X system with the right kind of software support could serve their needs just fine and could do it without the need for the hideous, complex UI experience that funded my support job in the first place.