Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology (Apple) Businesses Apple Technology

Xserve Competes With High-End Unix Servers 126

Posted by pudge from the bring-it-on dept.
wayneh writes "There is a great article at ITworld.com about how Apple's Xserve is finding its way to high-end server vendors. The vendors who traditionally sold Sun and IBM servers are now looking into and stocking the Xserve as their clients become curious about the system. It'll be interesting to see how well the Xserve does among its more traditional competitors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xserve Competes With High-End Unix Servers More

Xserve Competes With High-End Unix Servers

Comments Filter:

  • yay (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nemui-chan ( 550759 )
    It'll be nice to see Apple get out of its rut as a graphics machine and only in schools. Macs are great machines... it used to just be the OS that (tech) people didn't like... and now even thats not a problem. (Did I get the first post? :)

  • Big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MalleusEBHC ( 597600 ) on Thursday September 05, 2002 @01:15PM (#4201322)
    I'm a diehard Mac guy, but I'll be the first to admit that Apple has not put out competitive servers before the XServe. When Apple changed from offering basically souped up Powermacs with a non *nix OS to one of the best 1U servers on the market running OS X, does it really surprise anyone that they are going to be getting attention in markets of which they traditionally were not even on the radar?
    • No, that's not a surprise that they are suddenly in the market... but it is very important to hear that they aren't simply being laughed off. People are actually taking at the Xserve seriously, and this is encouraging.
    • The big reason XServe is being taken seriously is that, unlike Apple's other hardware offerings, they are cost competitive with competitors. There was an article on one of the server magazines that compared costs and Apple beat both Dell and Sun. I'm not sure why that is, but it was true. Apple's number one problem is that their hardware costs so much compared with a system from Dell, HP or an other manufacturer. Plus Motorola can't provide half decent chips that compete with offerings from AMD or Intel. This drives up the cost/power ratio of Apple versus Wintel machines. Apple must do something about this. (Although I didn't mind paying the premium for my new G4, which I love and is fast enough for what I do)

  • demand & licensing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05, 2002 @01:29PM (#4201459)
    This is great to see. I hope that Apple can scale their production volume to keep up with the demand. I think one of the major selling points is that it comes with an Unlimited client license for Mac OS X Server, unlike any Windows 2000 Advanced Server setup. Licenses are expensive, and I know that's been a major factor in us moving away from Novell NetWare here at my university.

  • RAID, too (Score:3, Informative)

    by big_oaf ( 560706 ) on Thursday September 05, 2002 @01:30PM (#4201473)
    If you remember way back in May when Apple introduced the Xserve, they also previewed a 2GB RAID solution. According to this relatively old c|net article [com.com]:

    Apple also previewed a future storage device, the Xserve RAID, a 5.25-inch thick cabinet that can contain 14 hard drives for a total capacity of 1.68 terabytes. The system has two 2-gigabit-per-second Fibre Channel connections, a high-speed connection technology for communicating with servers.

    There have been some rumblings around the Mac rumor community that this will soon debut. Can I get a "booyah"?
  • I'm actually waiting for a faster processor (scaled down Power4, etc.) and better memory bandwidth. I would like a 64 processor rack for some serious computations. Though I can afford it, I don't want to go down headache-road with a PC-based rack. Does anyone have an Xserve with myrinet?
  • At the end of the article, it says:

    "The challenge is, who is going to buy it?" Eunice said. "There is so much pricing pressure and competition in the market. The reality is that Apple will have a hard time going to financial communities or telcos with this product."

    Apple gives you an UNLIMITED client license - how can the article offer this as a serious concern when licensing cost is such a big concern, especially for Micrsoft houses?
  • As I recall, IBM doesn't have a license to run the AltiVec stuff, which is kind of a hinderance to deploy machines the IBM Power processors, but maybe that doesn't affect the Xserve machines. I wonder if they'll finally get a license or resolve that. I could be wrong though.
    • there have been rumors [macrumors.com] that ibm's upcoming 64 bit PPC chip supports altivec.
    • As I recall, IBM doesn't have a license to run the AltiVec stuff

      Actually, as a AIM partner IBM has full rights and access to the Altivec technology. They just don't seem to want it.

      There were rumblings that IBM was 'rolling their own' version of vectoring that would not require special compilation as Altivec does - but that was a while ago and no hard evidence ever emerged. Now IBM is announcing (Oct. 15th) a scaled down Power4 with 160 vectored-operations unit. (Altivec has 162 operations.)
      Draw your own conclusions - IBM either scaled the Power4 to PowerPC and added Altivec or their own brand of vectoring that has a very similar number of operations to Altivec.

      =tkk

      • Just after posting I saw this [macnn.com].

        For whatever it's worth someone's reporting that the IBM vectoring is NOT Altivec and isn't Altivec compatible.

        I vote for calling it Altivec2 and using this chip whatever it takes... I'd much rather hitch my future to IBMs engineering and manufacturing than Moto's.

        =tkk

    • I'm sure someone else has already said this but here it goes anyway:

      Apple, Motorola and IBM all created the 160 128Bit instructions cooperatively. Altivec is the brand name that Motorola uses, it has nothing to do with the instruction set. IBM can use the instructions they just cannot name it Altivec unless Motorola says okay and allows them to license the name or just use it for free (unlikely).

      So IBM is integrating the "Altivec" instructions it will be branded a different name more than likely.
  • Erm... I'm confused.

    I thought that the Apple Xserve boxes were 1U Dual 1GHz G4 machines with ATA/100 7200rpm Hard drives.

    How exactly does this compare with the type of High-End systems that companies like IBM and Sun sell?

    These machines rank along side the Entry Level / Workgroup type machines and are hardly the cutting edge of power.

    I like Apples kit, but please call it what it is.

    • Re:High-End? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sedna ( 601993 )

      The whole idea with the article is that high-end *vendors* are starting to sell Apple, not that Xserve is a high-end server. Both IBM and Sun have entry-level servers in the segment where Apple are aiming. With this trend, costumers will find Apple products as an alternative in the channels they usually use to buy Sun or IBM low-end servers.
      • The post is called Xserve Competes With High-End Unix Servers. It is true that the article does not call Apple servers high-end, but the post does hence my comment.

        Also I am not sure about calling companies high-end vendors, it just doesn't sit right. You have large companies who sell large expensive systems to other large companies. I wouldn't call the vendors 'high-end', they sell computer systems some of which are high-end.

        c.

        • Re:High-End? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by sedna ( 601993 )

          You are right in principle, I suppose the correct term would be "Vendors of high-end systems". I am a phd Student at a meteorology department. Our computer park start with Sun workstations and end with Linux clusters and a couple of mid-range Sun servers. Even if we normally buy systems with the same or a little bit higher specs than Dell stuff, we do it from vendors that also sell huge server parks. The fact that these companies start to sell Xserve have, of course, no implication on their sales of Sun Fire 15k systems, but still, how many do they sell each year? The vast majority of costumers, that want a Cobalt server or a couple of Sun Blade 100, suddenly have more options. I think this is a good channel to people that want UNIX but don't need a huge setup.
  • I've only read about the Xserve, and have not heard it pronounced by Apple.

    Is it pronounced:
    X-serve?
    Ten-serve?
    Zerve?
  • The current issue of the german c't magazine has a comparison of Apples XServe vs. Dells PowerEdge 1650.

    Basically what they are saying is that for low-end office serving the XServe does well, however, as more performance is needed, the PowerEdge clearly wins (Linux). Administration and integration in Mac OS X environments are strengths of the XServe. Want more power, go for Dell/Linux.

    Lars

  • Synergy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by baldass_newbie ( 136609 ) on Thursday September 05, 2002 @02:38PM (#4201985) Homepage Journal
    In the article they talk repeatedly about the ability of XServe to talk with Sun boxes. They also talk about the XServe filling a niche Sun doesn't.
    Is it me or would an Apple/Sun alliance make a lot of sense? I mean, besides the egos involved. You'd have server (high/low end and database) coupled with desktop.
    Plus you'd have all of the stuff that MicroSoft wants working together (clean desktop for idiots, server market, stability, security) Just wondering
    • Sun and Apple both offer their customers the same thing: great OS and good hardware in one package from a single vender.

      With Sun's foray into the low end Linux market, it seems like they're going to be competing more directly with XServe than teaming up with Apple.

      • Granted, they're now competing, at least with one line. So wouldn't this fall into the 'cheaper to buy than build' category?

        The question then could be who buys who?

        It would seem a natural fit in some ways. In other ways, I don't know. But it would definitely get two anti-MS teams together and could give Bill Gates fits he hasn't had since Borland was a threat.
        • The problem I think is that Sun sees Apple's market as somewhere they want to go, and Apple sees Sun's market as something they'd like a slice of...

          I mean, If IBM's new mini Power4 chip comes out, and Apple migrates to it, then Apple will be squarely on a path which will lead them to seriously powerful unix servers... Sun class...

          (well, maybe not ;))
  • I still don't know how well apple will do with xserve - but I do know it has some great possibilities. My thoughts [warpedvisions.org] are that apple snuck this one past them all ... and will hit them hard. Unix + sleek hardware + sleek front-end ... go apple!
  • There must be some truth in Apple's benchmark http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html BLAST results: At the short word length of 9, the Xserve is 21 times faster than the IBM eServer x330 and 52 times faster than the Sun Fire V100. At the long word length of 40, Xserve is 5.8 times faster than the IBM eServer x330 and 13.4 times faster than the Sun Fire V100.
  • The XServe is already fairly cheap for the power it provides. The ability to put 480 gigs in the box only adds to this cost-effectiveness, given the cost of rack space (though they need to make the internal drives SCSI). The company I work at has been very successful using lots of inexpensive boxes to scale to a large number of users. I think something like the XServe would be excellent in this type of environment.

    However, Apple needs to decide where they want to go with the XServe and their server business in general. Do they keep it as an entry-level offering and add bigger servers above it? Do they build a clustering system to make it easy to scale in the way I mentioned earlier? Both? My fear is that they will try to target it to their traditional core customers (artists, designers, etc.) rather than using it as an opportunity to branch out into new areas. In other words, they'll make it work really well as a rendering box but not as a server. On the other hand, one could certainly question whether the world needs another UN*X server vendor and whether Apple is equipped to take on Sun, Dell, and IBM.

    On a different note, what about an Apple X (well, Aqua really) Terminal? A lab full of Apple Terminals powered by a half-dozen XServes racked in the corner would be pretty cool...
  • The Xserve is a LONG beast, easily the length of a typical rack, where most 2 or 3U servers are half that length.

    Generally, the Xserve is a sweet beast in speed and performance, particularly with a prerelease of 10.2 Server I have installed.

    Some of Apple's claims are weak right now, although they are doing a bit to help me with that now. The biggest disappointment was LDAP/Windows Active Directory authentication, which failed miserably in my 10.1 tests. My 10.2 update may have cleared that up, but Apple's documentation group needs some infusion from the other server OS documentation people for more concise instructions.

    It's support apps are very good, and the OS sticks to virtually all IP standards, making the thing easy to administer. Configure, no, but administer, yes.

    I can see this box being a good, less expensive alternative to a few of the Compaq boxes sitting around it.

    The real gem of the Xserve is not the box, but the power of the OS behind it. This box would not be possible without Mac OS X Server 10.2. I have 10.1 Server running on an older 2-processor G4, serving a heavy load. It is a very stable, efficient box.

  • Where's the Journaling Filesystem? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @02:03PM (#4208332) Homepage Journal
    Seriously, I use macs for all my desktops, but since I've seen the JFS light on linux, I won't even consider running a server without a journaling filesystem. HFS+ is far too fragile - I had to reformat both my G4 and my powerbook to upgrade to Jaguar (fsck.hfs+ doesn't fix all hfs+ problems; it reports them and tells you to go find a better disk utility) and UFS doesn't have a journal.

    This is marginal at best for a desktop and totally unacceptable for a server. Apple can't play in this market if they're not willing to cover some really basic software requirements. They've got some great hardware in X-Serve, but who's going to want their big RAID array if you can't store files reliably on it? They need to move beyond thinking, 'oh, we'll get lots of QTSS customers using them' if they really want to make inroads into the market.
    • :sigh:

      Use Hardware RAID for starters. Anyone who is dependent on a filesystem is setting themselves up for disaster (even if it is journalized)

      Apple themselves will be selling an external hardware RAID solution. If you need that now get a third party RAID solution.

      I mean even if you have a journaled filesystem you wouldn't keep the data on the Xserve but, on the RAID box.
      • RAID and Journaling Filesystems aren't interchangable, they solve two separate problems. They're complementary technologies.

        RAID provides for hardware reliability. Lose 1 disk, and you don't lose your data.

        A Journaling Filesystem provides for filesystem integrity in the event of a catastrophic event (complete loss of power, kernel panic, system hardware failure, etc.). Roughly, data is written to a journal, the journal is marked dirty, the data is copied to the filesystem, the journal is maked clean (I know folks, I'm oversimplifying).

        With a straight RAID solution if an event occurs that would corrupt your filesystem, say a system crash, you have two or more copies of the same error, which doesn't help. With a journaling filesystem, the journal is replayed at fsck time, and any interrupted data writes are stored onto the filesystem safely.

        This method is extremely important for real servers because fsck can be skipped on reboot if need be (even if it's not ideal). fsck can take an unacceptably long time on sufficiently huge volumes (I run a couple 2 TB volumes, it's deadly). You could never *think* of skipping fsck on a non-journaled filesystem. The best implementations will store the journal in NVRAM and/or have disks without write buffering.

        Apple's fibre channel RAID system looks like great hardware, but without a journaling filesystem it's going to take time on the order of hours to come back up after a crash with a full X-serve cabinet. Noone can run a mission-critical server like that.
    • >> I had to reformat both my G4 and my powerbook to upgrade to Jaguar. Why? You do have 3 other choices: upgrade, archive and install, and clean install, which all works fine and none of them requires you to reformat.
      • Because 10.0...10.1.5 had left the disk is such a state of disarray (keys not found errors ... I've had a bug filed @Apple since 10.0 that they haven't worked on, see the parent post about fsck) that the installer refused to proceed. Norton Utilities couldn't fix it either. It worked just fine on my wife's iBook though, which has never had 10.0.x on it.

        You do have 3 other choices: upgrade, archive and install, and clean install

        None of the install options would have helped. Now, if they had a smart re-format option, which would rebuild the disk incrementally, moving my data out of the way as it went, now that would be slick.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close