[Macworld]

Post your comments for Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server here

[NaOH]

A couple of things that would make it even more suitable are dual Ethernet ports and an eSATA/SAS compatible port for connectivity speeds above the 800Mbps that FireWire 800 provides.

[peelman]

I would argue that laptop drives, which are built to take much more abuse than typical 3.5" drives, generally are MORE reliable than their 3.5" counterparts. I've used 2.5" 7200RPM and 5400RPM drives in desktop and server devices for quite some time with no reliability issues (yet).

[deemery]

I've been running Server (starting with Tiger) on Minis for a while. In fact, I bought a refurb FW800 Mini and a copy of Snow Leopard Server -the week before- this product was announced. (The Mini server is quite a bargain compared to what I paid for!)

FW800 is fast enough to make this practical, but eSATA would have been MUCH better. On my Mini Server, I keep the home directories, etc, on an external RAID Mirrored (hardware) FW800 enclosure (from Other World Computing, by the way... Good people to deal with.) The internal 5400 rpm drive is used only for the OS itself and webpages.

I'd strongly recommend against Apple Software RAID 0 (striping), I tried that and any hiccup on either disk and you're hosed.

Others have installed 7200 rpm drives in 'conventional' Minis with no reported heat problem, but I'm not sure about trying to jam 2 of them into that small space.

What I think the right Mini Server configuration should have been was a 7200 RPM drive and eSATA out (preferably multiple eSATA connectors). I've used a 3rd party USB-Ethernet adapter with no problems until the latest X.6.2 update, and I haven't had time to figure out why that stopped working all of a sudden.

[DeucesWyyld]

deemery, on 19 November 2009 - 05:51 AM, said:

I've used a 3rd party USB-Ethernet adapter with no problems until the latest X.6.2 update, and I haven't had time to figure out why that stopped working all of a sudden.

This is because Apple broke the Hackintosh, and therefore disabled ethernet adapters that are not used in their models.

[tfrogh]

Now all we need is an LTO3 or 4 Firewire 800 tape backup solution.

The Mini is tempting. I prefer using a MacPro. As I have said before...I DETEST MY XSERVE! They are ridiculously LOUD! I would trade this beast in a NY minute for a MacPRO!

[veggiedude]

At $999 it is like getting the computer for free when you consider the alternative. Windows Server is $1000 (only 5 seats) and no computer thrown in.

And remember, Mac OS X server downtime is 38.5 minutes a year compared to 2.5 hrs for Windows Server. (http://tinyurl.com/yjeujmf)

[MorrisTheCat]

Thanks for the review. It sounds like a very good deal and a good move for Apple. It will get some IT shops to consider looking at OS X Server in their environtment much easier since it lowers the barrier to entry a lot over the XServe or a Mac Pro and separate OS X Server license.

I think its interesting that many of Apple's training videos on topics like AD integration, Netboot and client management often used Mac minis as the servers in those vids. So definitely Apple has been using the mini as a server even in their own environment for some time. Glad they decided it would be good enough for the rest of us as well.

[tfrogh]

You know, It is interesting...I can find NO performance comparisons between any of the Apple Servers over the last few years. This is a real hole in Apple market as there is no real way to determine the value in upgrading.

I run an office with 10 employees and about 15 machines. I use my Servers for file sharing and one has SMTP turned on. All files are stored on external eSATA RAID5 devices. Each Server has a TimeMachine set-up for backing up the files on the server and one Server controls an LTO3 tape library for nightly back-ups.

So, really, how much faster is the sharing of files on an MacMini Server vs an INTEL Xserve vs a G5 Xserve vs a G4 Xserve and how do they compare to quieter siblings (MacPRO, PowerMac G5 and PowerMac G4). Oh, I know...The Xserves have the redundancy and parts kits and are only 1U. I would like to hear about real performance numbers for file throughput with 5 simultaneous users accessing 200GB files.

Of course on top of all that internal performance measuring, how do they compare to some of the competitors? Granted, I would quit if I had to administer a MS Server.

t.

[ClimbAZ]

pretty cool. I like the eSATA comment that would be amazing.

I'm really wanting Apple to allow 10.6 Server on vmware ESX and ESXi. I'm sure they would sell a lot more Xserves and OS X server if they would open up their licensing for this.

[krazykayaker]

peelman, on 19 November 2009 - 05:48 AM, said:

I would argue that laptop drives, which are built to take much more abuse than typical 3.5" drives, generally are MORE reliable than their 3.5" counterparts. I've used 2.5" 7200RPM and 5400RPM drives in desktop and server devices for quite some time with no reliability issues (yet).

You're also incorrect in your RAID descriptions, RAID 1 creates a perfect mirror of the drive, RAID 0 stripes them into a single 1TB volume. You point out both options but you say RAID 0 is mirroring.

I would agree that 2.5" drives are more reliable. They generate less heat and run cooler and cost less to run. 2.5" drives also have a higher shock rating. The latest 2.5" drives available today are much faster than their equivalent capacity 3.5" drives of just a year or two ago.

Think about it. You have a 500GB 3.5" drive and a 500GB 2.5" drive. Let say the both have two platters. Which one is going to have a higher transfer rate? Well, the 2.5" drive has 500GB packed onto a smaller surface, so it has a higher areal density. Each pass of the read head is picking up more data. So the 2.5" drive has a higher transfer rate. Not only does it have better throughput, but it has higher IOPS.

Just look at the latest VelociRaptor performance drives. They're just 2.5" drives packed into a 3.5" form factor heatsink. You can just take a look at the enterprise server market right now and see that drives are moving from the 3.5" form factor to the 2.5" form factor because it offers more performance and value.

Also, even if you get a faster external drive (let's say it maxes out at 115MB/s) and connect it with FireWire 800. You still limited to the FireWire 800 bus speed which is 800Mbps or 100MB/s. If you have two internal 2.5" drives that only maxed out at 90MB/s, you could striped them and get 180MB/s and still be under the 3.0Gbps (300MB/s) limitation of SATA-II.

But still, if all out capacity is what you need, you can't beat a 2TB 3.5" external drive :-)

[leicaman]

I showed the Mac Mini Server to our Mac guy in IT and he was all over it. Within 24 hours he had a proposal it to get one to integrate Macs using Open Directory with the PC AD servers.

I'm all for it! And I hope it can handle Portfolio Server too!

[MorrisTheCat]

leicaman, on 19 November 2009 - 11:25 AM, said:

I showed the Mac Mini Server to our Mac guy in IT and he was all over it. Within 24 hours he had a proposal it to get one to integrate Macs using Open Directory with the PC AD servers.

I'm all for it! And I hope it can handle Portfolio Server too!

Nice! Though its a little wierd that you had to show the Mac IT guy the mini server. He hadn't already heard about it?

This post has been edited by MorrisTheCat: 19 November 2009 - 11:34 AM

[bjsny]

I'm someone who has been interested in how the mac mini server might function in the home setting. I was particularly interested in using it as a time machine server. But given the argument in this article that this server would be overkill for the home, I'm wondering if the regular mac mini with snow leopard would still be able to function as a time machine server.

I've read other posts claiming that it is indeed possible to use the client version of snow leopard to host time machine backups over a network. But is there any difference between using that or snow leopard server? I see that snow leopard server actually has a "time machine server" control panel under system preferences, which regular snow leopard doesn't have.