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.

20 of 692 comments (clear)

  1. Re: with the sweetest GUI on the market by bravehamster · · Score: 5, Funny
    this might be a silly question, but why would someone want a gui on a rack computer? it's not like you will be sitting in front of this thing.


    What, am I the only one who wants to have a rack of these and a kvm switch built into his desk?

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
  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. "

    1. Re:Oracle 9i Too! by pangloss · · Score: 5, Funny

      now those are words that you rarely find together:
      Oracle...low cost
      Future releases...on-time

  3. Re:Wet Dream Come True by First+Person · · Score: 5, Funny

    I really hate to nit-pick, but shouldn't you *scream* before you *faint*?

    BTW: I agree, these are pretty cool systems. I'm amazed that Apple didn't release a rack mount system years ago (and, hence, that we are impressed by this introduction).

    --
    Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
  4. Re:Problems with XServe hardware. by frankie · · Score: 5, Informative

    1000$ for an extra 256megs of Apple blessed DDR

    Apple's RAM is always overpriced, just like most OEMs. So you buy extra RAM 3rd party, as usual.

    IDE just as fast as SCSI my ass

    True, but Ultra3 is an obvious expansion option.

    No expansion slots. The second gigabit network card takes up the only PCI slot

    I'm not sure where you got that idea. The press release says: "three PCI slots, two of which are 64-bit, 66 MHz". I have no clue how they fit 3 PCIs and 4 bays into a 1U box, but I sure am glad.

  5. Re:Did They Fix the Filename Problem Yet? by bbum · · Score: 5, Informative

    - If you want a pure Unix experience at the command line, install OS X on UFS. Trivial. Works. Breaks some third party apps that are Carbon based, but you'll likely not care (I don't).

    - porting: Most packages compile out of the bag or with very little in the way of patching (a lot only require a couple of command line arguments. Fink.sourceforge.net currently has 1100 packages 'ported' to OS X, all fully managed by the debian package manager.

    Fink has certainly grown in size since your purchase, but not much else has changed.

    As James Gosling recently said: "OS X is like Linux, only with Q/A [Quality Assurance] and taste!".

  6. Re:Problems with XServe hardware. by Tide · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well the dell *looked* good, but lets see:

    Windows 2000 Advanced Server with 25 Client Licenses [add $3295]
    VersaRails for Non-Dell 4-Post Rack [add $129]
    Dell Remote Assistant Card Version 3 without Modem [add $499]
    73GB 10K RPM Ultra 160 SCSI Hard Drive [add $550]
    Intel Pro 1000XT Gigabit NIC-Copper [add $189]

    Total cost - $6,459.00
    But maybe you wanted Linux - $3,323.00

    I won't really get into the who SCSI/IDE debate, suffice to say Apple announced a Fibre Raid with 400MB through put, it you really want it. Shipping in Q4 with 1.48 TB of space in a 3U, all hot swappable. The Apple prices are spot on for all the features they bring. IMHO of course.

    --

    People think Microsoft is the answer. Microsoft is just the question, "No" is the answer.
  7. It's gotta be said... by Moonshadow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nice rack.

    *dodges hurled items*

  8. Re:Pretty powerful... by trippd6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its not a RAID server, its a external storage unit, you'll need to plug into a server... using the fibre channel connections...

    Its a RAID box, IDE drives, Fibre channel backhaul....

    Apple is doing alot right... IDE veruses SCSI - IDE is right for what they're doing (small servers), on the RAID box, I'd go SCSI. I think as they build out thier server lines, they'll build some with SCSI some with IDE...

    IDE can be as fast as SCSI, but you can't get 15K RPM IDE drives, you can with SCSI, and SCSI drives are assumed to be run 24x7, IDE isn't... (Although that doesn't mean IDE drives can't last as long, just SCSI drives are designed for more use)...

  9. power usage by tantalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may not be immediately obvious, but the low power requirements of the g4 chip can provide a big advantage here.

    From apple's site: Typical continuous power: 125W (single-processor system); 175W (dual processor system).

    On a desktop, this doesn't make that huge of a difference, but when you fill a room full of these rackmounts, the electricity savings quickly being to add up. Then you can figure in cooling costs. Lower power consumption results in less generated heat and far lower cooling bills.

  10. Blinkenlights by 0101000001001010 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I think we missed the most important part of the server.

    It comes with Blinkenlights for the two processor, just like the good old BeBox

    That alone is worth $4k

    P.S.:These machines actually cluster. Now imagine a rack full of clustered 1U G4s, all with psychedelic Blinkenlights showing activity.

  11. 10.1.5 by paradesign · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://www.apple.com/xserve/management.html

    its in the management graphic. i want that too

    --
    I want 2D games back.
  12. Apple's defense of ATA by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Informative
    Take it or leave it. From their site:

    The ATA drive subsystem has a high-bandwidth I/O bus that minimizes bottlenecks, even when all four drives are engaged at once. That's how Xserve can achieve a theoretical peak performance of up to 266 megabytes per second, compared to a 160MB/s theoretical performance with SCSI Ultra160 disk drives -- at a significantly lower cost, and while generating less heat than SCSI drives.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  13. Great differentiator by sg3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    According to the web site, there are no per user fees:
    No per-user "taxes"
    Xserve lets you eliminate the most galling expense in your department's budget: the usurious per-user "tax" you've been obliged to pay for using server software. Since Xserve comes with an unlimited-client license of the UNIX-based, industrial-strength Mac OS X Server, you can serve thousands of additional users -- without spending thousands of additional dollars in licensing fees.


    If I understand correctly, this is a signficant differentiator between Apple's offerings and companies providing Windows XP on their servers. This is because the hardware OEM would have to negotiate a great deal with Microsoft to do a similar "unlimited deal". Either that, or they'd have to absorb the costs, an unlikely scenario.

    Of course, the hardware OEM could install Linux instead, but we all know that Microsoft generally frowns on OEMs picking between Windows and Linux:

    Kuney introduced a Microsoft memo to Ballmer, from the spring of 2000, that called into question Dell Computer Corp.'s backing of Linux. The memo said it was "untenable that a Windows Premier Partner would be promoting Linux."

    Source was eWeek, March 18, 2002.

    So, if Apple sees any sort of success with Xserve, you'll probably see the other OEMs putting pressure on Microsoft to let them offer Linux or at least reduce their Windows licensing fees, meaning more, cheaper choices for the customers.

    I guess competition is good after all.
    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
  14. A haiku by supabeast! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple's small server
    just 1U so powerful
    I think I have wood

  15. Re:I don't get it by FatRatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't (and frankly neither do I) but I can see quite a few people who do. I don't think the hardware is going to be the selling issue here (although they'll want it to be solid and somewhat competitive) but the administration tools. I can only speculate from what has been written and past remote admin software from Apple, but I bet the selling point will be how easy it is to administer the things. With any luck they'll do to server administration what they did to the Unix desktop, i.e. make it easy.

    A cheaper 1U AMD based server box with FreeBSD or Slackware may be cheaper and just as easy to administer for you and I (and most of the /. crowd) but for things like schools, graphics departments, etc. this could *potentially* free up administration costs since you don't have to have a unix propeller head around part or all of the time.

  16. Re:power usage - rule of thumb by victim · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a ballpark figure, 1 watt turned on all year costs you $1. Maybe double that if you are in a continuously air conditioned environment like a machine room.

    The savings may not be too large. I checked an Athlon system with an ammeter recently. It came in at 120W with one drive in it while doing its server tasks. So, they at least are in the same ballpark. (The measurement techniques are surely different, I would not claim one was higher than the other based on this data. Just that they are near each other.)

    Power is one of the reasons I suggest people not use that crappy old 486 or pentium as a NAT/firewall box in their house unless they are doing it for joy. In about a year or so of electricity savings you can pay for one of the new integrated appliances and enjoy increased reliablity and savings in the following years.

  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. Re:What the fuck is Apple smoking? by Macdude · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?


    Hmmm, for $20K I can buy 5 dual processor Apple Servers and fit them in the same 5 Us of rack space. That's 10 CPUs, 10 Gigabit Ethernet ports, 5 unit redundancy, 10 GBs of RAM and space for 2.4 TBs of HD...


    What was your point again?

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America