Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blurs the Server Line With Mac Mini Server
Toe, The writes "Today Apple announced several new hardware offerings, including a new Mac mini, their (almost-literally) pint-sized desktop computer. In a bizarre twist, they are now also offering a Mac mini with Mac OS X Server bundled in, along with a two hard drives somehow stuffed into the tiny package. Undoubtedly, many in the IT community will scoff at the thought of calling such a device a 'server.' However, with the robust capabilities of Snow Leopard Server (a true, if highly GUI-fied, UNIX server), it seems likely to find a niche in small businesses and even enthusiasts' homes. The almost completely guided setup process means that people can set up relatively sophisticated services without the assistance of someone who actually knows what they are doing. What the results will be in terms of security, etc. will be... interesting to watch as they develop." El Reg has a good roundup article of the many announcements; the multi-touch Magic Mouse is right up there on the techno-lust-inspiration scale.
...call me skeptical on that one.
But OS X for a server, is rather lame. OS X is a Desktop OS
Windows is kinda mediocre for both Desktop and Server but gets the job done.
Using Linux for normal desktop use for normal actives is just doing extra work... However it is perfect for a server.
Sure they can all do the Job as a Server and Desktop and they have their variants which make them a bit better at it. However OS X even being Unix Based doesn't make it a good server. It might make it a reliable server just as long as you do what Apple want you to do with it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I rather like the really small form factor. Given that it comes with OS X Server (which costs $499 by itself), I think it's a pretty decent deal for those who want an OS X Server machine for a small office.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Go and check out how much a so called 'windows home server' cost and is like on the market, what's the argument here? Mac mini server is a brilliant idea, and it is what a lot of mac mini users is doing with it.
I love the idea of a Mac Mini server for many tasks. If you just need a server for directory, file, and print stuff, this is a damn good idea, especially if you're constrained for space. Even if you're not, most small offices don't have huge IT setups... many just use a business-grade cable or DSL connection with a small router. This is the perfect kind of server for that kind of small office setup. I don't think Apple anticipates anyone running heavy SQL on this or anything. This is also a good way to test the waters to see how much of a market there really is for OSX Server. Bravo to Apple on this one. It's a few more bucks than a PC equivalent (no surprise there), but a typically elegant-while-useful idea that Apple is sometimes famous for.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Meh. Some of us already use boxes like this (or actual minis) in this sort of capacity.
Once you install a robust OS on a bit of hardware, the whole desktop/server distinction is entirely arbitrary.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I rather like the really small form factor. Given that it comes with OS X Server (which costs $499 by itself), I think it's a pretty decent deal for those who want an OS X Server machine for a small office.
Me too. I don't see this becoming hugely popular as any business with a large IT department can just throw together a small server if that is what they need but I can see that this mini server hits the sweet spot for a fair number of small businesses.
"Servers" generally have things that make it robust and easier maintain
and easier to put into a rack in a colo somewhere. This includes things
like hot swap drive bays, hardware RAID and multiple power supplies.
This is the sort of thing that separates a Dell "server" or a Sun "server"
from desktop machines.
I can take a clone crapbox and do the same thing with it (and have).
I can take a regular mini and load a server OS on it (and have).
If Apple didn't overprice their Server Distribution to begin with,
there would be really little point to this particular configuration.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Back in the day, any random PC could be a competent cvs/build server for a small development team.
I knew a guy that had a Linux box doing this job long enough without trouble that he forgot how he had set it up.
Smaller PCs are legion. Even cheap mini-sized systems are abundant now.
Once you contemplate all the other possibilities, and consider that you
may not need something terribly pretty, this thing isn't really that
exciting.
Apple should just drop the cliff pricing on the Server version of MacOS.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Seriously, this thing could be a nice little Subversion/backup/collaboration server for a small iPhone development shop. With built-in CalDAV, email, wiki, svn, time machine, rsync, web server, etc., it's a nice little small workgroup server. It would be nice if they could have made it cost a little less, but having a small, quiet server in a home or small office is pretty valuable.
E pluribus unum
Imagine a small home/workgroup server like this, but with iPhoto support so that everyone can share a photo database.
OSX server includes an iCalendar server, Address Book server, Mail Server, iChat server... so they have every other server component that a Mac Centric office would need, why no iPhoto server?
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
This Mac mini has more power than most servers had a couple years ago. Is a HTPC serving all your multimedia needs in your home (mp3s, videos, pictures) a server, or do you also need to use it as a file server? Microsoft has been advertising the concept of a home server for a couple years. What is blurred here?
I got a 10 year old dsl router from ebay for 5 bucks to use as a print server. 10 of those things would have less computing power than my last cellphone (my current one actually has the same computing power as my last computer). And I call it a server.
Has the guy who wrote this ever typed anything into a command line?
However, with the robust capabilities of my butt I will surely find a niche on my couch...
Wait, Apple overprices their server distro? The cheapest version of Windows Server that I could find was 2003 R2 Standard, which is $1000 for five seats. OS X Server is $500 for unlimited seats.
Of course compared to a Free Unix/Linux box both are overpriced, but if spending five hundred bucks saves your sysadmin a couple of hours tinkering around (it may or may not - I have very little experience with OS X Server and no experience as a sysadmin), it's paid for itself.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Yup, I'd agree with you. I consider myself a Linux guy, but I have a Mac Mini at home. I originally bought it so I could push stuff I purchased from iTunes to my iPod (and I still use it for that.) I have it plugged into my TV via VGA, and use a bluetooth keyboard/mouse.
Mostly though, it's a convenient backup server for the Linux laptops in our home, using rsync over ssh. It's great, and fits conveniently on a shelf next to my TV.
I think Apple hopes to do similar business with a Mac Mini Server. There's no optical drive, so I'm curious about that ... but if you want to set up a small server in your home, I'm sure Apple would love to sell you this thing. Small, fits on a shelf, great for home use.
I don't see this being used at the office, unless someone works in a small business (less than 100 people) that doesn't have their own server room, and wants to set up a small web server or file server.
Apple already has a rank-mounted server called the Xserve for this purpose.
For the price of one Xserve you could get 3 Mini's loaded with 10.6 Server. So if you don't need a beefcake Xeon, why not?
Doing RAID without swappable drives is INSANE.
Have you gone inside of a mini? I have. I can't imagine
any of the pretentious types that would buy this sort of
machine would appreciate the experience.
I don't even like to go inside of "normal PCs" for
futzing around with drives. That why my "big boxes"
all have hotswap trays for the bulk storage. Even a
case intended to be worked on poses a potential for
disaster.
This is why "real servers" and storage arrays have
things like externally exposed hot swap drive bays.
This mini exposes the limitations of the current mini
form factor and highlights why they need something else.
A "double wide" mini with room for cardbus slots or the
aforementioned hotswap bays could be quite cool in this
respect without sacrificing much in the way of the current
visual coolness.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Mac Mini Server goes for a grand, with four gigs of RAM, and 1TB of disk, Core 2 Duo processor at 2.53Ghz.
The Cobalt Qube 3 sold for $1149 in 2002 (inflation adjusted, that's about $1367 today), with a 450 Mhz MIPS CPU, 40 gigs of disk, and 32 megs of RAM.
Looks like Apple's going to pick up a lot of business in the niche that Sun abandoned.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think that is the issue. What if one wants a server and all one has is a telephone closet. For 1K you can put a mini in there and probably won't need to worry about power, cooling, whatever. A thousand for a server. Back in the olden days, when I was putting the first servers in a MS Windows environment, the machines cost at lest twice that much, and were unreliable. Today, a growing business could probably live for a while just adding more servers. And at that price, one could keep an extra around. You now, a redundant array of mac minis.
I am not saying that I can imagine a real case where a mini server would make sense. I am just saying that discounting things like aesthetics and design in a what is clearly meant to be SOHO server is rather silly. Not everyone has the funds to hire an MSCE to run a server, has the need for a rack solution, or the ability to set up a *nix server from scratch. In reality, I can't imagine how this would be better than outsourcing, but I can appreciate how this is one of Apples cleaver ideas. I suspect MS might be pushing their xbox server next month
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Are you living in a communist country where competition is prohitibed by the government or something?
You must not be familiar with how the US govt works.
Score: -3 (Pedantic)
If you're going to put Debian or Ubuntu on it, you might as well get an Asus Eee Box and save yourself several hundred bucks. For light server roles, the Atom CPU is fine. Works for me!
Dual ethernet is pretty much a standard feature for a small office server, lets you set up firewalls, remote access and other public-side facing services. And they could have made space for it by removing a few of the USB ports, 5 USB ports seems kinda overkill for a machine that isn't intended for desktop use.
FWIW I haven't used OSX Server in a few years but last time I did the GUI config tools were okay but not amazing. Some of the services were pretty smooth to config, but the hard stuff was still hard. For example to setup Apache you still pretty much had to be an expert in httpd.conf arcana even though you didn't actually have to edit the files by hand (usually).
Am I the only one that thinks that the pricing for the Mac Mini has gone a little insane? When they first came out they were for people who wanted to dip their toes into the Apple world but without spending a small fortune. Now the base unit is £500, hardly a drop in the ocean.
And yet again, nothing headless in the mid-range :( I can either go for the sexy (but hugely overpriced and underspecced) £649 Mac Mini or jump over £1200 to the £1,899 quad core beast. As the idea of paying to replace your monitor every time Apple make your old product obsolete sounds a little absurd to me - I'm not interested in the iMacs.
It's no wonder that some companies (*cough*psystar*cough*) and people are flirting with the idea of a Hackintosh. A £800 mid-range headless box from Apple would surely hit the sweet spot for quite a lot of people.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
This is interesting for people considering a DC-powered server room. The Mini uses 18.5V DC with an external AC-DC converter. No hardware modifications required to run off a DC supply.
Why does nobody think of the cooling? It doesn't matter how small the boxes are, if you cram too many of them into one room without adequate cooling, you're in for a world of hurt. A bigger, faster machine is often more economically sound than a smaller one like this, unless you have a dedicated, seriously cooled server room, and in that case, the non-server form factor would be more of a pain in the ass than the space savings would win you, IMHO.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
So Honda announced a bunch of new Accords.
Cool.
I was looking at buying a Kia for $10k. Can I buy one of those new Accords for that price? I don't see any listed here or on honda.com.
Did I not say "small size and quiet operation"? Since when did "any random PC" fulfill those requirements?
Did I say otherwise? I said there are primary reasons other than aesthetics to use a Mac Mini. For iPhone development in particular, which requires MacOS X, the other systems are not necessarily suitable. If you have different needs and different solutions, that's wonderful too, but quite irrelevant to my point.
Who said anything about "exciting"? This is just a server in a small box.
My point was simply to reject that choosing the Mac Mini must primarily be for aesthetics, I'm not sure what yours is.
Never mind development boxes, there are companies that specialise in Mac Mini colocation! I run a couple of these myself (although not colo), they're quiet, don't take up much space, and only draw 20 watts when idling. That said, I use second hand PowerPC Minis with Debian on them, because (as others have also commented) I find the £500 price tag for a new Intel Mini a bit ridiculous.
I'm kind of curious how they managed to fit two drives in, the ones I've opened up didn't have a great deal of space inside and storage capacity has always been a bit of problem because they only take 2.5 inch drives. While this isn't such a problem now, when I first start using a Mac Mini as a file server a few years back it wasn't possible to get a drive to store all the data I wanted.
With two drives I imagine there might be a bit of a cooling problem too, after several months of being on continuously the vents start to get a bit dusty - I know that shouldn't be such a problem in a properly managed server environment, but I can't imagine that's the market they're aiming at with this release.
https://alephnull.uk/
I don't see what the big deal is. I've been using a Mac Mini G4 as a server for more than 3 years. It doesn't even need X Server on it. Mine has been faithfully serving as a Apache HTTPD/PostgreSQL/Tomcat/Postfix/SFTP and music/file server just fine - and with only one HD too (which had to be replaced after 2 years) and only 1GB of RAM. Sometimes I even hook up an external HD and have even MORE space available. Oh my!!
Mine just sits on a bookshelf, headless, and I use ARD as and if necessary. I'm an Apple fan, but there is no news on this one - I dunno why anyone could be excited about it, especially at the price. Go get a used Mini for less than half the cost and use it for the exact same thing.
Depends on your requirements, afaict the eeebox only supports a single internal hard drive (and I don't think it has esata or firewire either so you are left with shitty USB if you want a second drive for raid). This new server mini supports two hard drives (the previous gen mini could also be hacked to support this but it's nice that apple have made it official). The mini also has a much better processor (which you say is not important to you, fair enough doesn't mean it isn't important to anyone)
In terms of bang per cubic centimeter the mac mini is pretty hard to beat.
As always there are trade-offs, the eeebox is small and cheap but not powerful. The mini is small and reasonably powerful but not particularly cheap. A bottom of the range dell vostro has a price comparable to the eeebox and specs comparable to the base model mini but isn't small.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Don't forget shared calendaring. I'm currently running Apple's Darwin Calendar Server (DCS) on a Debian Lenny box for my office, but it probably uses 7x the electricity the mini does. It takes a bit of fiddling to work with the DCS which many people may not really have either the time or capacity to deal with, and OS X Server would make the backend configuration pretty painless. What is wild is that yesterday, OS X Server unlimited license was $999. Today it comes with a computer for the same price.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I got an original 1.25 GHz G4 Mini shortly after it was announced in early 2005. With the non-server version of Mac OS, it has been serving web pages via my DSL and doing other tasks 24/7 since March 2, 2005. It was also my main day-to-day machine for about 2 years until I stepped up to a used G5 and then a used Mac Pro. But it's still serving just fine, and now it's also what the kid uses to watch DVDs when he's in the room with me. (The kid is younger than the Mini, btw.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
You don't know from ridiculously overpriced. Try paying for an RS/6000, or worse, Windows Advanced License Revenue Generation Server.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I don't mind that it doesn't have a DVD drive; anyone depending on DVDs as a backup solution is already in for trouble (I've had burned discs go unreadable in as little as three months). Network backup solutions are the way to go for this, which any decent admin would implement.
Of course, that depends on the last statement holding true for whoever sets up any given server in an office...
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Oh you mean you just let it sit on your desk as a shiny ornament?
I may be ignorant, but my suspicion is that there are a lot of servers out there that spend 99% of their day idling, waiting for an HTTP request to come in. They are left running 24/7 because you never know when somebody will want to access the data they hold, but nevertheless they are almost always idle.
For that kind of light-duty service, the idle wattage is significant. (of course an even better solution would be to merge a bunch of those services onto a single physical machine, but that's not always done because it can be complex and/or risky to do)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Please link to me to a PC that is a Core 2 Duo 2.5Ghz or better (ie not an Atom) that is also the size of Mac Mini for under $600. I'd love to have one, but so far I haven't found anything from Shuttle or others that is small, reasonably powered and even a few dollars cheaper than a Mac Mini.
You want an ugly beige box that is noisy and cheap. Then go for it, get yourself a PC. But for me, and a significant number of others on slashdot, it's not what we're looking for.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Undoubtedly, many in the IT community will scoff at the thought of calling such a device a 'server.'
I call something a 'server' if it is providing one or more services to other computers. It has nothing to do with the hardware or operating system used.
I've often redeployed old 'desktop' computers in server roles. At that point they become 'servers', whether or not they sport features like high speed, large capacity or redundancy.
I'm sorry -- is the Atom really an equivalent to the Core 2 Duo? And no server software. And higher wattage. And graphics? I can't even tell the price from that page. But yeah, cheapest mini is 599.00 but you get a hell of a lot in desktop OS X and the basic hardware package as well. Typically these days (cough)thelastfiveyears(/cough) if you configure exact specs Apple is not all that way out on cost.