Slashdot Mirror


Apple Introduces Xserve Rackmount Servers

2nd Post! writes "MacCentral is reporting the announcement of 1U Apple rackmount hardware. The Xserve, despite its cheesy name, seems quite powerful: dual G4/1GHz with 4MB DDR L3 cache, up to 2GB DDR (yes!) SDRAM, 4 ATA drive bays (up to 480GB), 2 Gb Ethernet ports, 2 64/66 PCI slots (one of which may be taken up by one Gb Ethernet card), and, of course, FireWire. Pricing starts at $2,999 for a single 60GB disk and 256MB RAM." Yahoo! has posted the press release; Doc Searls is writing about Jobs' speech. Update: 05/14 18:14 GMT by M : Apple's page about the Xserve is now live.

17 of 692 comments (clear)

  1. So the Sun/SGI/whatever rumors are dying now by line-bundle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So does that mean the constant rumour of Apple buying (or bought by) Sun/SGI/whatnot will die now? Clearly Apple can make its own servers.

    BTW Why did they choose ATA drives over SCSI?

    1. Re:So the Sun/SGI/whatever rumors are dying now by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But look at Apple's target markets:
      Education, Creative, Biotech, Video. Are these markets people that want to rely on IT and support? I don't think Apple is competing against Sun or SGI. Seems pretty clear they are offering a UNIX alternative for people who don't want to have to know UNIX to me.

      Certainly no big challenge to large database companies nor Windows Enterprises.

    2. Re:So the Sun/SGI/whatever rumors are dying now by MoneyT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cost. SCSI costs much more, meaning a higher price. However, it wouldn't have been a bad idea to include a built in SCSI interface.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  2. Oracle 9i Too! by rgraham · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This wasn't mentioned in the press release but seems like a pretty big deal and come from the MacCentral coverage: "Introduces Mike Rocha, senior vice president, Platform Tech, Oracle: Oracle 9i on OS X -- we very excited about this hardware. Oracle is about low-cost clustering. Future releases will be on-time, synchronous. When we use UNIX native support, native APIs, optimized for this hardware, we can synchronize our releases so that our customers can have unified database versions across different hardware platforms. "

  3. one step forward, two steps back? by tps12 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I can't believe it. Apple finally emerges from the stone age and leaves PC100 RAM behind, and sticks IDE drives in a server case.

    Well, I'm disappointed. Everything else about this looks really nice, obviously.

    Hm, thinking about famous systems that use IDE drives...think they're trying to appeal to Google?

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
  4. What the fuck is Apple smoking? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're positioning this server (according to MacWorld) against, among other things, Sun's 280R.

    Let's see here:

    The 280R has dual redundant power supplies, can have up to 4 CPUs, gigabytes more memory, is SCSI-based, and, since it's 5RU, has a ton more expandability.

    The main comparison point Apple chose to use? Available disk bays, and price. Who do they think they're fooling when they claim that an IDE-based XServer will be comparable to a $20k enterprise-ready server?

    Man, the crack in Cupertino must be good.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:What the fuck is Apple smoking? by MoneyT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except you got it all wrong. Demanding control over your hardware and software is not a bad thing. When will you people learn that the most sucessful people are the people that demand control. Don't believe me, let's start a list:

      Bill Gates: insists on control of the OS industry. Why? Not definative, but theoreticaly he want's a universal standard of operations on computers.

      James Cameron (think Terminator and Titanic): Known as being a very demending director who knows and insists on having what he wants. The result is a stream of rather sucessful movies.

      Steve Jobs: Until he came back, Apple was floundering because they were trying to please everyone and offer everything. This was simply dumping money and killing the business. Jobs came back and had insisted on direct control over the mac. Ergo, end of clones and only 3 or 4 options per group of macs.

      Control is not a bad thing. Abuse is a bad thing.

      BTW, using a mac and using a PC are two very different experiences, give it a try one day and you might be suprised.

      Posted anonymously to prevent the same smiting of my account

      You'll take the credit for posting that which is in accordance with the opinions of moderators and the majority (goodthink), but you will hide behind a viel of anonmminity when you are going to be contrary. Coward.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  5. Pixar by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This announcement explains Pixar's move to OS X. How else could a render farm on OS X be space-effective?

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  6. Re:I don't get it - for me, quality by victim · · Score: 5, Interesting
    For me, having a quality hardware product with a reasonably secure OS that just works on it is the attraction.

    The last batch of 6 1U x86 rackmount servers I bought from one of the largest PC manufacturers came with misprogrammed APICs that made them unable to run Linux without spending several days on hackery to get them going. The PCI slots are still useless, they can't deliver interrupts, but the rest of the machine works. I shuttled machines around so they don't need their PCI slots. (This machine was not purchased with Windows, it was a no-OS machine.) Two of these machines have failed in the 6 months that I have owned them.

    The previous batch of 2U servers I purchased had a whiz-bang scsi controller that displayed a linux allergy and took me weeks of trying pre-release patches and waiting to get a linux version that worked acceptably. I still have to build custom kernels for these machines when I upgrade.

    The biggest problem I have purchasing PC hardware is there is no good way to tell what is "server grade" and what has cheaped out components in the power supply or capacitors that will cause their MTBF to suffer. The extreme price pressure always tempts the manufacturers to cut corners.

    So, the attactions...
    • Apple (with a couple of stunning counterexamples (AppleIII, first Airports, some monitors)) was an outstanding reputation for making high grade hardware.
    • The OS is going to work correctly on the hardware.
    • If I like the machine, I will be able to order more identical machines 6 months later.
    • I will not be rolling the dice to see if my OS will run on the new hardware.
    • The firewire ports will work. Even with two processes hitting the same disk at the same time.


    Ok, they cost about 30% more than the servers I have been buying (and certainly outperforms them, but that is irrelevant, my servers are low cpu users). I'll take that. It vanishes in the unbilled hours dealing with mystery hardware and having to buy a bunch of spare machines to count on being able to replace a machine when needed.
  7. Top500 time? by dbirchall · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Yeah, those are pretty nice specs. It gets a little more interesting when you take that theoretical peak performance of 630 GFlops for a rack of these babies and look at the most recent Top500 list.

    A lot of us snickered when Apple pitched the G4 as a "supercomputer" (using the technical export definition), but if folks like Genentech build racks of these, clustered, and land in the top 10% of the Top500 list, Steve and company will be the ones laughing.

    Let's see... the *bottom* of the Top500 list is currently a 116-CPU Cray T3E 1200, with a theoretical peak of about 139 GFlops... you'd only need enough Xserves to fill 1/4 of a rack to come up with that kind of power.

    Okay, okay, I guess I want some too.

  8. ATA over SCSI by Pfhor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For the price, this is amazing. the box has two 64bit/66mhz slots in it, which could probably fit two dual channel scsi160 (or 320) controller cards in it.

    It's a 1U case, if I was going to do massive storage intensive tasks on it, I would plug it into a hardware raid. Like the Lacie TX12000 system, http://www.lacie.com/products/product.cfm?id=4A867 A58-54C8-11D5-97C60090278D3ED0

    Which is rackmountable, and handles all the aspects of the raid itself. That way, if the server breaks, I can remove it, put a new one in its place, and keep going. (Servers support netbooting now, so I wouldn't have to change configuration). For the education / science / lets get work done crowd, this is an awesome benefit.

    Since storage capacity is essential, and you can raid the drives, why not put ATA in there? Instead of scsi. If you need scsi do the above, and put them in a box dedicated to handle them.

    Oh, and the machines all have RS232 ports on em.

  9. serial console port == nice touch by green+pizza · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With Apple's recent knack for removing "legacy" ports on their machines, it's really, really nice to see that they thoughfully added a serial port on the Xserve for console access. My server farm is all Unix, and as such, I don't use a KVM, rather, I use a serial terminal server.The Xserve, with both serial and VGA would work great in any server farm environment. Kudos to Apple!

  10. Big iron on the client side by daviddennis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're a heavy video editor and want access to a machine that's super fast and has proper cooling for lots of drives, this might be a really appealing workstation.

    I'm thinking of this myself, but I'm planning to wait until the midyear introduction of new G4s. They'll probably put the best of what they've developed here into the new systems plus a faster processor.

    Just because it's called a server doesn't mean you need to use it as one.

    D

  11. Re:Problems with XServe hardware. by gig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Another company that will use these heavily is Apple themselves:

    they did the biggest Webcast ever (Steve Jobs keynote)
    they did the biggest download ever (Star Wars trailers)
    over 4000 schools do all of their administration on Apple's PowerSchool software, which is hosted on servers at Apple
    Apple.com is in the top 5 or 10 most-visited computer Web sites
    Apple Store Online is in the top 5 e-tailers
    all the computers at each and every Apple retail store have their hard disks wiped and restored to default from a server at Apple every day
    Apple has been using Mac OS X Server internally for years and years (it was released in early 1999), and they have a lot of UNIX tradition in there, so their internal network is probably aching for these boxes
    Apple's iTools Web services are very popular ... check them out and think about how many servers it takes to give every Mac user a free 20GB virtual disk and full-featured email and online apps such as HomePage
    Every Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X installation includes Apple's Software Update, which checks for updates to included software and automatically downloads and installs patches and updates (after getting the user's permission, of course) to keep the clients current

    That's a lot of serving, you know? They're going to be able to show this stuff off on their own projects, show what it costs them to serve the biggest Webcast with Xserve and QuickTime Streaming Server and no per-stream fees, or how they keep millions of Mac clients up-to-date, and it's going to be a very compelling solution for any company that also does anything like the above list of things that Apple does with servers.

    There are going to be a lot of places where a rack of these will be in a small room somewhere and everybody uses PowerBooks to access the server over Wi-Fi or Gigabit Ethernet.

    All Power Macs and PowerBooks have Gigabit Ethernet ... the Xserve is ready to plug and play with all those fast clients that Apple has been shipping out for quite some time now. Why would you get a Dell/Microsoft server with 10/100 when you have lots of 10/100/1000 clients around? Why would you want Windows at all when it costs so much and is so unreliable?

    Also keep in mind that all the new stuff announced for Mac OS X "Jaguar" this summer will apply to these Xserves. Apple's Rendevous is ZeroConf networking, for example. And I don't get why so many Slashdot posts seem to think that having FireWire on your 1u server is a bad idea ... FireWire is THE multimedia networking protocol ... Apple is THE multimedia computer company. Macs route real-time audio and video streams and MIDI data through FireWire, so your server has to have it to do that stuff, especially this year as music and video moves over to Mac OS X. There will be a lot of Xserves and their matching RAID boxes in music studios next year.

  12. OS X can't boot off software RAID by extra88 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is an important point which often gets glossed over. OS X can take two drives and make them RAID 1 but it can't boot off it. That means even with this Xserve you can't have disk redundancy for your OS. OS's drive fails, server goes kerplunk.

    This is what I want - I want my OS on a RAID 1 and my data on a separate RAID 1 or RAID 5. If any drive fails I want the system to keep going, keep providing access to the data and I want it to let me know a drive failed via blinkenlights and by email (my pager has email). If it doesn't have its own email alert, I want it to execute the program of my choice or log it to a file so I can use a script or cron+script to make my own email alert.

    I want this in a system which costs around $5000, provides at least 8GB for the OS disk and 30GB for data. I don't need a 14 bay array which will probably cost $3000 before you even add any drives to it. I need to set up an OS X file server this summer. I don't need a blazing processor or even blazing disk performance. I need reliability, redundancy and monitorability (I think I made up that word).

    I can get this for Windows 2000 Server from many sources (with hardware RAID and hotswap drives, something I don't really need).

  13. Where to start??? by mallie_mcg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) I suppose RC5-64 seeing as that is the one thing i seem to care about at the moment. DAMN, a keyrate of 20.7 M/Keys/sec is faaast. and 48x that in a rack, makes me wish i had much money to blow. DnetcDB

    2) Thats a server, woah! They *look* good.Blue PCB inside, sweet metal stylings outside, i know that i should not look at these things and think it is good or anything like that, but i can not help myself.

    3) Cooling: This is my only concern, they do not appear to have a decent air intake system at the front of the rack, to cool the internal componantry.Sure the G4 is relatively cool, but there are the HDDs and 48 of them in a stack would be a lot of heat.

    4)Comparable to PC offerings. At lest our new racks we are purchasing in the next few weeks are only PIII 1.3G machines, the speed differences of these new apple servers are negligable. To what it used to be

    I think that it will be most interesting to see how much penetration into the rack-space market share apple are able to achieve.

    --


    Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
    --I'm not actually after an answer!
  14. Re:..also a RAID server... by pangloss · · Score: 3, Interesting