6517101
story
Comments: 557 +- Apple: Apple Blurs the Server Line With Mac Mini Server on Tuesday October 20, @03:36PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday October 20, @03:36PM
from the so-easy-a-child-can-set-it-up dept.
from the so-easy-a-child-can-set-it-up dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicaposx.gif); width:42px; height:56px;
macosx
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicapple.gif); width:52px; height:64px;
apple
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.
Related Stories
He who despises himself nevertheless esteems himself as a self-despiser.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The small form factor would make it easy for a developer to keep one on the (literal) desktop alongside a workstation. Personally, I'd use virtualization instead, but others may prefer having a physical box to play with.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're going to put Debian or Ubuntu on it, you might as well get the regular mini. Part of the value is that the Mac mini Server is only $100 more than the standard mini equipped with a single 500 GB drive, when OS X Server costs $500 on its own. I think it's an interesting package. Not everyone needs a Mac Pro or XServe for a server. The mini is plenty for a small scale server, and OS X Server is easy to set up.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Informative)
"Part of the value is that the Mac mini Server is only $100 more than the standard mini equipped with a single 500 GB drive"
A caveat: the server does not have an optical drive (that's where they stuffed the other HD). Still a good deal, just not quite as good as on first glance.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not actually that much of a hinderance. None of my servers have an optical drive, either. When I need to load something from CD, I have a USB Blu-Ray drive that I can cannibalize from my HTPC for the purpose.
I can see a definite market for this, too. I built a super-server a year and a half ago (you know the type, multipe physical CPU's representing 8 logical cores, 16GB of RAM, multiple terabytes of storage, running half a dozen virtual machines, each one having its own set of services, in order to present a complete framework, etc.), but other than that, the overwhelming majority of the servers I run/administrate would do just fine with Mac Mini hardware. They're small purpose-built servers whose primary design goal beyond its actual purpose is power efficiency. At home, for example, I have a small file server. It serves up MP3's and videos to my HTPCs. It also has a network share drive for saving/sharing documents between computers on the network. Beyond that, it's also got a small MySQL/Apache/PHP implementation, and I use it to test web pages when I'm designing them... I just save/work on the files on the appropriate folder on the network drive, and they're live to the internal network immediately. This system is low end... aside from the hard drive (which is as big as I could get in the system), it's running a Via C7 1.5GHz, with 2GB of RAM. I could very easily replace that system with a Mac Mini.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Informative)
Fail. [pcmag.com] Epic fail. [pcmag.com]
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Interesting)
No. Can you buy one that fits in 6.5x6.5x2", has gigabit ethernet, 802.11n, FireWire 800, dual display support, and uses 16w? I don't see that listed anywhere BUT apple.com. Nice try at trolling though.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Use even less power with Wake on Demand (Score:5, Informative)
But wait, there's more! With Snow Leopard, Apple introduced a new "Wake on Demand" [apple.com] feature that could allow the Mini to be in sleep mode (~1.5W) most of the time, but still work as a server when needed:
(1) Airport base stations can now provide a "Bonjour Sleep Proxy" service that will keep announcing all the services your computer is hosting on the network, even after the computer goes to sleep. The base station will then wake the server whenever another computer tries to access it. It isn't clear whether this happens only for Bonjour services, or for any IP-based access (which should be possible in principle).
(2) All this magic can happen via the wireless network if your computer is new enough. (Wake-on-LAN was only possible via ethernet before.)
If the server is set to go back to sleep automatically after a few minutes of inactivity, this setup provides a low-power, always-on server arrangement: the computer sleeps most of the time, automatically wakes up whenever someone wants to connect to it, then goes back to sleep whenever it's not needed.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lenovo sells what's essentially an Eee Box (atom processor+motherboard) in a midtower case for $200 shipped if you shop around on their website. I've seen it for less. It includes a DVD+/-R optical drive and 1 spare SATA port, for a total of three drives. It also includes a PCI slot where you could add a 4 SATA port expansion card. Hard drives only eat about 5w a piece, so the meager power supply shouldn't have trouble with the "extra load" at all. My buddy just put together something similar from newegg, but he went with the Atom 320 processor (64 bit, dual core atom) for a few bucks more. It's his primary file server now.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting to note, the new iMac's DisplayPort is also an input. Just switch to your server on your iMac if you need to, or use screen sharing over the network. Nice to use the Mac Mini as a dev machine, and use your iMac as a KVM.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/uk/imac/features.html#ports [apple.com]
"Mini DisplayPort.
The Mini DisplayPort lets you connect an external display, including the Apple LED Cinema Display, to your iMac. On the 27-inch iMac, the same port offers input, too. So you can connect any external source that has DisplayPort output — including a MacBook or MacBook Pro — and use your iMac as a display."
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Informative)
You will then notice that there is a Configure-to-order option of a Promise FireWire 800 RAID unit with 4x 1TB hard drives.
Parent
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks for mentioning that. I was about to bring up www.macminicolo.net [macminicolo.net] and others like it. Lots of colo sites love the mini because they are only equivalent to 1/2U of rack space (about 1/3U wide x 1.5U tall), but a mere fraction of the depth of most rackmount server gear. In terms of server hardware, you can't even approach that level of density without using blade servers, and you'll spend more for an empty blade server chassis than you spend for two decked out Mini servers running Mac OS X Server (at the new price).
Easy. The server model has no optical drive. This means that you'll have to have another Mac (remote optical thing) or an external drive when you need to upgrade the OS. Otherwise, for a server box, you'll never use one anyway, so it makes a lot of sense. :-)
For whatever it's worth, I'm using a Mac Mini for my personal server and couldn't be happier. I used to run an old Mac G4 tower, but wanted to be able to do faster photo rendering for generating thumbnails, etc. The Mini fit the bill perfectly, bringing the time per photo down from 30 seconds per RAW file to about 5 seconds, and a subsequent software rewrite from using dcraw and Imlib2 to using sips (Mac OS X's built-in image processing tool) cut that time in half again.
I back it up with Time Machine to the same Airport base station that I use for backing up my laptop, so I just don't have to think about it. It just runs. Every so often, I turn on the monitor and log in to install software updates or security updates. Would I expect my parents to run a server like that? Probably not. Do I think the Mini makes a great personal server for the sorts of people who are inclined to use one? Absolutely.
Parent
Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
...call me skeptical on that one.
Re:Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a recipe for disaster waiting to happen. I've been in the unfortunate spot of representing a consulting company called in to configure a Mac OSX Server purchased by less-than-knowledgeable employees. It was a small business, about 5-10 people, that did contract-based graphic design/marketing. They loved Apple stuff, and were suckered into a completely unnecessary Xserve system, complete with overpriced external rack-mount tape backup drive. Being young and mildly tech-conscious, they overestimated their ability to manage this thing, doubtlessly egged on by some "whiz" at a Genius Bar waxing their balls about how well they'd be able to run it on their own.
Wrong. Granted, it's not hard to someone like me who does this sort of thing for a living, but managing backups was way out of their league. The backups weren't even running, though they remained blissfully unaware of this fact, and setting up network shares/user permissions was beyond their capability. This ended up costing them way more than ever needed to spend to get what amounted to a file server up and running, and I blame this on bad marketing.
Oh, we tried to convince them to sell their ridiculously overpowered server equipment before it depreciated in value, but they were insistent on using it, because it's Apple.
Misleading marketing like this is exactly what drives the borderline masochistic relationship Apple nuts have with Apple. All I can do is shake my head.
Parent
Re:Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being young and mildly tech-conscious, they overestimated their ability to manage this thing...
C'mon, who here on /. hasn't been there? If you haven't yet found yourself in such a position, you will eventually.
...but managing backups was way out of their league. The backups weren't even running, though they remained blissfully unaware of this fact...
This reminded me of my own worst IT disaster, back when I was young, green and waaaaaay over-confident. I learned from my mistake; who's to say that your clients didn't learn also? They at least had the common sense to recognize that they didn't know enough and therefore called you, right?
It seems to me that you are making an error that is all too common: ignorance != stupidity. There is no shame in simply being unaware of something -- everyone has something yet to learn. The truly stupid, however...well, they have a way of weeding themselves out of the gene pool.
As for the "borderline masochistic relationship between [Apple users] and Apple" -- I don't know about that. I've only used a Mac occasionally, but it seems like a far less masochistic relationship than that which exists between Windows users and Microsoft, or even arguably less masochistic than the relationship between Linux users and <insert name of favorite distro here> (and I say that as one who regularly uses Gentoo, so I'm neck-deep in masochism <grin>).
Parent
Re:Bold claim... (Score:5, Informative)
Overall, if you want centralized logins at your mac-centric organization I would definitely recommend a Mac Server, largely because LDAP config on Linux still isn't quite as simple as it is on a mac, but for everything else(web, database, file shares etc.) I would go Linux.
The nice thing about the mac clients is that they support most of these technologies out of the box. For instance sharing NFS between macs and Linux is pretty braindead simple. Of course, that *other* OS still doesn't support NFs out of the box. I mean, I guess you have to give them a little slack, the protocol is only 20 years old....
Parent
For those who need a server... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, or universities and such in need of a budget supercomputer. You can easily create a cluster of these things by using Xgrid [apple.com] and because of the small form factor, you won't have to reserve an entire room for this setup.
Or if you do have a room to spare, you can cram insane amounts of gigahertzes and terabytes in there for relatively little money.
Parent
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:5, Funny)
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
Well sure, if you do it wrong like that you'll run into trouble. The proper way to install a MacMini supercomputer is not to put all the minis next to each other in the same room.... instead, you superglue a couple dozen minis to the ceiling of each and every room in the building. That way the heat output is spread evenly across the entire building rather than being allowed to build up in a single room.
As an added bonus, if any of the minis ever does overheat, the superglue will melt and the mini will fall from the ceiling. The person whose head it lands on will call the IT department and notify you that a node needs replacing.
Parent
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Duck! (Score:5, Informative)
Let me ask again. Is this server, 'rackable'? How many Us?
4 Mac Minis will fit on this $58 2U tray. [macsales.com].
Parent
Scoff? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Scoff? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Scoff? (Score:5, Informative)
We have custom built rack shelves for Mac Minis that neatly hold the power supplies and minis.
http://www.mythic-beasts.com/macminicolo.html [mythic-beasts.com]
14 minis in 5U including the power supplies. You need to allow some rackspace for the masterswitches and switches too.
Parent
Re:Scoff? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Scoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Scoff? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, it may not be the right thing to rack-mount en mass
Tell that to these guys [dannychoo.com]. Apple has been experimenting with the server potential of the Mini for quite some time now.
Parent
Re:Scoff? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Obligatory quote in accordance with social norms (Score:5, Funny)
That's not a knife.. THIS is a knife (pulling out Kabar-based server)
Re:Obligatory quote in accordance with social norm (Score:5, Funny)
That's not a knife, that's a spoon.
Parent
Welcome to the party... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I've done this for years.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I put OS 10.4-Server (10-Client version) on a Mac Mini back in 2006 and continued to pick up used mac minis for less than $200 each to play around with Xgrid. Eventually I moved the server over to an old dual core PowerMac G4 tower and used all the Mac Minis as render nodes, but it was a fun little project and worked extremely well for rendering blender, compressor, and Final Cut projects. I even put screamernet II on them for lightwave rendering as well. I had about $4500 invested in the project, the price of a decent Macpro, and had a distributed rendering grid.
With the release of some tools like Xgrid Lite, there wasn't the need to go with the full blown Server version of OSX in OS 10.5 or 10.6. Everything I needed could be downloaded with the xserve remote admin kit and a default install of OSX.
But for the year or more I used the Mac Mini as a home server, it worked extremely well. It just sat on the bookshelf and frankly I just ignored it 90% of the time because it did exactly what it needed. I'd log in every month or so to do updates, etc. But it was pretty much turn on and forget. Plus it didn't suck down as much power as the PowerMac. Something I learned once I moved out of an apartment with the utilities included and into my house.
Real shot is at Microsoft for small business... (Score:5, Interesting)
For small business purposes, Microsoft server offerings are horrid. Windows Server OEM price! is $800, and then there is the whole "client access liscence" crap where until you pay even more if you want more than 5 computers to talk to your server!
This, on the other hand, is a complete system for $1000, thats silent (so you can have it in your office, suprisingly important!), doesn't have client access liscence crap, and can support a bunch of windows systems as well as macs for file sharing, email, calendaring if you want to use Mozilla rather than Outlook, etc etc etc.... Don't have enough storage for your liking? Simply add a 4 TB external USB array for $800...
Its a really brutal product to deal with if you are Microsoft.
Compared it to the Cobalt Qube.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Just, whatever you do... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't use the Guest Account!
DC Power (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
We've been using a Mac Mini as a server... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We've been using a Mac Mini as a server... (Score:4, Funny)
oh you fanboy. You think you are so clever having a machine that actually works, but for 1/2 the price I could duct tape together a pile of old crap that would work 3/4 of the time (0.8 nines, in the jargon). It wouldn't have the fancy logo, which is the only reason you want this "working thing" anyways.
Parent
Re:Only posers would scoff... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Parent