Slashdot Mirror
Apple Updates Xserve, Announces Xserve RAID
jht writes "This morning Apple introduced an updated Xserve and the long-awaited Xserve RAID. The relevant specs for new Xserve: single or dual G4/1.33, upgraded DDR 333 RAM, and FireWire 800 all added, with pricing between $2799 and $8248 for stock configs. The Xserve RAID specs: shipping in configs of 720GB for $5999, 1.26TB for $7499, or 2.52TB for $10999. It uses up to 14 180GB drive modules (each on a separate ATA/100 channel), and a pair of Fibre Channel interfaces to connect them to the Xserve."
Well from the spec's its got hot swapable redunant power supplies, hot swapable redundant cooling subsystem, hot swapable redundant RAID controllers, hot swapable RAID cache battery backup (72 hours), and supports fibre channel output, through a well priced card. Saying IDE doesn't cut it is a bit of a generalisation.
The original XServe came equipped with ATA 100 drives, either 60GB, or 120 GB. The new one comes with ATA 133 drives, either 60 GB, or 180GB. The XRaid comes with ATA 100 drives, 180GB each. Can someone explain the implications on swapping these drives back and forth between machines. Am I correct to think an ATA100 drive will work in the ATA 133 bus, but not the reverse? So I can't take a drive module from a new xserve and shove it in an old one, or shove it in the xraid? I was under the impression from Apple at one of their seminars that the drives were supposed to be completely swappable between the different hardware. Yet now with the switch to ATA 133 (which is ofcourse more desireable than ATA 100) some of that swappability is gone?
Does it seem more ironic that they're making more money by doing so? [g]
First off, you're using an outdated OS on the machine. No multitasking, that's why your machine is crawling. Secondly, you offer no specifics on hard drive speeds or bus speeds so I can't help you there. Next, pitting NT against anything that Apple did before OS X is a losing battle for Apple. If you want to see a really impressive dual, put a new Apple G4 tower against a newer PC. i do it at work, on my desk a dual 1Ghz g4 tower versus a Dell 2.2 Ghz. Both with 1.5 gigs of ram. The Mac outperforms it consistently. What you really need to do is update your hardware or stop using Macs if they bother you so much.
It's good to see Apple being pragmatic about this. If IDE offers sufficient performance (and it should, given that each drive has its own IDE controller), then why not use it?
OK, so you can buy SCSI drives that are faster due to higher rpm. But can you build a 2.5 Tb system with SCSI that outperforms an Xserve RAID?
Well if you're refering to the general switch from scsi to ide, then not really. Apple adopted scsi wwwwaaay back before ide even existed. Back then there was scsi or mfm/rll. And mfm/rll only offered internal hard drive storage, no scanners, no external drives. So the original adoption of scsi made complete sense back then. Apples continued use of scsi made sense for almost exactly the same reasons. Many people had things like scanners and external hd's (dtp, video, etc), so a move to ide wouldn't have made sense even if it would have resulted in a somewhat cheaper disk subsystem, since they'd most likely would have to have shipped scsi anyway.
Now fast forward, things like usb and firewire take care of things like scanners and other higher speed peripherals, the the internal disk bus can be just that. So all of a sudden ide makes sense. And then in terms of performance, ide has definitely caught up and it would be hard to make an argument for scsi from a strictly price/performance standpoint.
So, while a curiousity, it not all that ironic, just a sign of the times.
And easy to set up and use. And there you have probably the #1 reason to buy an Xserve.
What I do not understand is why anybody is interested in having Apple servers. Afterall servers do not have to look good, they just have to be cheap and fast.
;)
Well if previous Apple server sales (pre xserve) are any indication, nobody is
But seriously, these boxes are for Mac shops. It provides them with a "real" server platform, but one that uses an os that is common with their desktop machines, making maintenance muuuuch simpler. Plus if the servers are easier to maintain in general, then you have a potentially huge savings from that fact alone. After all, how many places need raw cpu power, some obviously do, but I would guess that the majority have other issues that are more critical to them. This is a no brainer for people who are simply using the things as file servers, as the specs are more than adequate for that. I don't think people are looking at these things (or Apple positioning them) as massive compute servers to run their TB Oracle database servers on.
Most importantly, it keeps shops in the Apple fold. One argument that people could make is that if they have to go with pc/linux servers, then they might as well go with the desktops too, again to simplify maintenance. This way, Apple ensures that people stay 100% Mac and keep the M$/Linux infiltration at bay.
Hey if you want to run you enterprise on some junky $399 WalMart PC go ahead. Let me know how that works out for you. When I buy something for work I make sure it's fully supported by a major vendor.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Good Design - a joy to work with ;-)
And somehow that translates in a better bottom line for the buyer.
I'm a longtime Mac user who was envious of IDE HD drives for years, then Apple abruptly switched. IRC there are certainly advantage to a SCSI HD, but omitting the on-drive controller saves $$$.
When Apple first promoted SCSI, it was a very novel deal. PC's lagged considerably, esp. when you could get a Mac with serial (Appletalk) and SCSI built-in. Once they had SCSI, I guess was cheaper to string the hard drive into rather than add IDE? I kinda wished they jammed a parallel port and RS-232 in there, too, but that's greedy.
Also, why does IDE not do external devices?
I'll note that SCSI was hardly ideal, esp. in its earliest form. The chain could onlt be very short, and ordering the devices plus termination were a bit of black magic to get it to work. God forbid you pull a cable with the power on. Plus the SCSI cables were *expensive*.
Does anyone else remember "analysts" making fun of Apple for going to USB and Firewire?
IDE doesn't cut it (IMAO) in the real world, no matter whose badge is on the front of it.
Behind a RAID controller, IDE drives cut it quite nicely in the real world. What's important is the host interface, and the number of spindles behind the controller. This RAID will do just fine.
I write in my journal
Most importantly, it keeps shops in the Apple fold. One argument that people could make is that if they have to go with pc/linux servers, then they might as well go with the desktops too, again to simplify maintenance. This way, Apple ensures that people stay 100% Mac and keep the M$/Linux infiltration at bay.
... indeed, once people see beyond their partisan prejudices it becomes rather apparant the Apple, FreeBSD, and GNU/Linux are allies, promoting consumer choice and competition, and all being threatened by an illegal yet government condoned, convicted monpolist.
... they compete with Win2000 servers, and allow those unable to yet make the leap to free software to at least retain some control of their computing environment, free from the reign and vagaries of a convicted monopolist, and free from the chronic security problems of that same monopolist. This is a smart thing for Apple to do, and something which really shouldn't bother any of the free software or open source advocates all that much.
This is a very good point, though really it is to keep Micro$osft at bay. GNU/Linux is really no threat to Apple at all
Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. If people started moving to GNU/Linux or FreeBSD in droves (perhaps because they become aware of the importance of the freedoms free software grants, or simply because they like the $0 cost), Apple still has the option of simply freeing the source code to their own operating system. While this doesn't jibe with Apple's current strategy, it isn't antithetical to their business model the way it would be for a monopolist like Microsoft (withness Microsoft's current "shared source" anti-free software disinformation campaign. Their only hope is to widely decieve the world's decision makers, a possible but increasingly unlikely proposition).
The Apple servers are important because it allows entities more comfortable purchasing proprietary corporate products over free software solutions the ability to do so without having to contend with the deliberate incompatabilities that Microsoft introduces, and will inevitably introduce again, thereby creating pressure to move to the Microsoft desktop as well. A GNU/Linux or FreeBSD server is no threat to Apple in this regard (both work fine together with Apple desktops, and neither introduces deliberate incompatabilities or attempts to coerce its clients into adopting the same system as their desktop), but there are plenty of old school Apple shops that still haven't grocked free software and its advantages, and would ultimately feel more comfortable paying for a shoddy Win2000 server than a free software or open source equivelent. That this is an ignornant or foolish stance for them to take is not at issue (it is clearly silly, but nevertheless remains all too common), that said shops not be lulled into the Microsoft trap is, at least from Apple's perspective.
These servers don't compete with GNU/Linux and FreeBSD servers all that much IMHO
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I can't believe that Apple has released a revamp to the Xserve and it -still- lacks ECC (SECDED) memory support and hot swappable power supplies. There isn't a self-respecting network administrator worth his salt who would consider buying such hardware for a 24x7 production environment.
:( ]
ESPECIALLY given the cost premium for these units. Look at a Dell 1650 - you can get those with redundant PSU's [and all their memory is ECC/SECDED] starting at around $3500 with that kind of configuration [oh, and of course the drives for that price are already in at least a RAID 1 mirror].
Apple needs _sales_, and to sell it they need hardware which can compete. I don't think anyone can deny that their 15 & 17" Powerbooks will wipe the mat with any x86 laptops out there. But for servers, as much as I would love to buy one of these, until Apple adds some professional grade hardware - there is no way that this will be anything more than a toy & a novelty.
I can almost exuse the lack of redundant PSU's because that's pretty new in the 1U world [though several vendors offer it and those who don't really can't be considered true servers, they're just attractive form factors]. However, lack of ECC in a server is unforgivable.
Just last week I was thinking that unless the Xserve improved those two issues [especially ECC] that they would be gone from the market -very- soon like the iBook. I am surprised to see this revision to say the least. But since they're totally flubbing network admins demands, I doubt we'll see this last much longer than the g4cube [which I also thought was cool
We'll see. I don't see how Apple can support so many product lines, and they're already going to drop the iBook - I really can't imagine they would keep the Xserve with its undoubtedly losing sales figures.
One thing I like I must say is that they've continued to keep the serial console [again here's something that network admins _need_]. But, where the hell is the powerbook with a serial port? USB->DB9 UART's that are Apple branded and ship with the Xserve should be a minimum here.
Just my two cents.
Twirlip, how do we deal with the case insensitivity in UFS. it occasionally happens that a linux package will contain a directory with two files like "HEAD" and head or ReadME and readMe of "configure" and CONFIGURE.
Report this as a bug to the maintainer of the package - if they're at all interested in supporting Mac OS X as a Unix platform, they will have to remove the dependency on a case-sensitive volume format (aside from some ex-NeXT users, and fanboys who don't know any better, the Mac volume format is HFS+).
If you have to use some software which requires UFS, the best workaround is to create a large enough UFS disk image and install onto that - saves having to dedicate a whole partition to UFS, and handy for dumping onto DVD if you want to move the "UFS world" to another machine.
Nae bother
Main equipment room? Why not just rack it with the decks and other sundry equipment in the edit suites? Less cabling, nicer look and probably a damnsight easier to work on than some of the kludgy tower setups I've seen, which usually result in a ton of recabling to do minor tweaks in the box.
Or perhaps they're in a 100% Windows shop and can't afford the cost of 50 client licenses? Apple's much easier than linux and much cheaper than windows. There's a market for that segment. These servers hit it quite well.