[Macworld]

Post your comments for Xserve (2009) here

[rab777hp]

Mac OS X was never very strong in servre environments, most people just turn to linux, or windows.
If apple wants a share in the server market, they need to both take hardware seriously, and improve Mac OS X server's operation

[gpandehis]

I totally agree with rab777hp. In addition, there is no bare metal support from Apple for virtualization.
Pity, because the Xserve could be a good cost effective alternative to Sun, HP and IBM.

[rab777hp]

The reason is isn't a good alternative is because its cost-effective its rather cheap- as servers go- but it isn't very good.

[emerick]

Just a nitpick. The article stated
"I recommend waiting until after Snow Leopard Server is available, as it will address up to 16TB of RAM."
Actually, to quote from Apple, "64-bit computing shatters that barrier by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes".

[WilfredLaurier]

emerick said:

Just a nitpick. The article stated

"I recommend waiting until after Snow Leopard Server is available, as it will address up to 16TB of RAM."

Actually, to quote from Apple, "64-bit computing shatters that barrier by enabling applications to address a theoretical 16 billion gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes".

You're quoting the wrong marketing material.

http://www.apple.com...tyfour-bit.html

Quote

{quote:title=Apple:}{quote}
Snow Leopard Server uses 64-bit kernel technology to support breakthrough amounts of RAM ? up to a theoretical 16TB.

The flashy potential of a 64-bit OS is 16 exabyte support, but Snow Leopard Server itself is only designed to support up to 16TB.

In a similar vein, I wonder why Leopard Server only supports 32GB of RAM? Leopard Server allows more than 4GB of RAM with a 32-bit kernel by using PAE, but the PAE spec itself is 36-bit and supports up to 64GB of RAM. I'm guessing Leopard
was designed with the artificial 32GB limit rather than 64GB like Snow Leopard will be limited to 16TB rather than 16EB.

[Gee4orce]

Snow leopard server is really going to make a huge difference - at WWDC Apple we demoing improvements of between 2x and 10x to most of the services. That's like getting a whole extra server or more !
There's no doubt that OSX Server stacks up very well against Windows, but it's often hard to make a case for it against free Linux installations.

[Datsond71]

" the video card is over-engineered and overpriced for typical data center needs, where only simple 2-D video is necessary. "
The video card will be used for more than just video. However OpenCL use requires the 1GB version of Nvidia GeForce GT120.

[LowededWookie]

What the hell do you need a super video card for in these?
Seriously, these units are designed to sit in a rack in a server room not on a desk and be used like a workstation.
People will simply connect via remote desktop.
Yes you can use the extra unused cycles under GrandCentral but then you can do the same with XGrid which is a more suited application anyway so the graphics card is somewhat moot.
Also, 64 bit machines do handle up to 18 Exabytes of RAM but considering that's a far far far away target 16TB RAM is more logical to quote as Terabyte RAM is in development but Exabyte has to go through Terabyte and then Petabyte before it can go to Exabyte. That's many years down the track and by then we'd probably be on Mac OS X 10.9 or Mac OS XI.

[demani]

Well- an editing house would love to have several of these in the machine room, as opposed to shoehorning the Mac Pro towers in. Were the onboard video up to snuff for a FCS workstation (plugged into the Xsan) it would be ideal. Add the necessary BlackMagic card and a second video card and it should be good to go. Unfortunately, these just don't fit the bill for that. Heck - give me a 2U workstation model- they could be priced higher than either the Mac Pro or the Xserve, but would be a hit with any large studio- storage and workstation in the same form factor is a no-brainer spec decision. Make it a 5-6 drive bay with one double wide slot and two regular ones and the right market will gladly pay for it.

[Bimmered]

I don't understand why people don't give credit to OS X Server, and/or Snow Leopard Server!

I mean it clearly offers you the UNIX foundation that Linux is also based on without having to deal with lots of tweaks and terminal sessions like in a Linux Server environment. I find that fantastic.

As for stability, as is the Windows counterpart compared to OS X Leopard in terms of stability, so is Windows Server compared to OS X Server. It's no where near as unstable as MS and you also don't have to worry about viruses or trojans or any other kind of malware.

With OS X Server you can easily and comfortably administer your own server without being geeky or having to read countless books on different services like you do in Linux (SMB, VPN etc...)

[flybynight]

I think Apple would do great in this market if they tried just a little to cater to and support the enterprise market. The ease of setup and integration into existing server environments for even an individual department makes them very compelling. Makes it very easy to get your feet wet without throwing out all that you already have invested in server infrastructure.

[rlav]

Sorry for the nitpick, but the temperature measure you refer to is spelled
Fahrenheit.
> 115 degrees (Farenheit)