RIM's enterprise server now manages Apple's iOS devices

2»

Comments

  • dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,022member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    With VM a 4U running 12 cores could potentially out perform 4 1U boxes because cooling and RAM limitations on the iUs may not equal 10+ VMs running on a 4U. Depends on the application environment. Anyway that is not how any of the big data centers do it now-a-days. Two words: Load balancing! For example Google data centers with 50,000 servers all load balanced running the exact same application with RAID 50s. You may have a big ass server but you only have the one. Never say never, especially when you have all your eggs in one basket.



    People, seriously, we do not talk about a messaging server, a sales database, ERM, or anything like that. The starting point was deploying mobile profiles. A 2004 PowerBook could do that (if the software were compatible). And your hardware orgy notwithstanding, there are very few common systems really requiring such equipment. I was working as IT planner for a 40 million passengers per annum airport, and our entire airport database, schedule processing system and resource allocation management software were running in one cheap quad-core ProLiant garbage can with 16GB RAM, and a software RAID 1 on S-ATA disks, serving flight information to 15.000 users, approx. 600 flight information displays, information kiosks, the airport's Web site, the billing system and a situational awareness dashboard. Wait times: none. Problems: none. (Of course we had this twice, being connected to two separate Fiber backbones, etc.) And you want to throw 10 times the hardware at deploying mobile profiles? A task that is neither time critical nor resource intensive?



    There is no need to put a machine for this purpose into a server room, as long as you have an IT back office that is access controlled. So, the form factor is highly irrelevant. The configuration data for thousands of iOS profiles fits on a memory stick (one configuration is normally less than 50kB and valid for hundreds of users). So, if a Mini should die, you put that stick into an iMac, a MacBook Air, or whatever, because there is almost no processing power involved - the wireless network is the bottleneck, not the hardware. As long as you have backups, there is no need to go wild with RAID etc.



    Just because RIM wants $99 per seat, there is no need to think it is difficult.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


    And you want to throw 10 times the hardware at deploying mobile profiles? A task that is neither time critical nor resource intensive?



    Sorry no, I was a bit off topic in replying to another slightly off topic post comparing 1 4U to 4 1Us and the capability of hot swapping. I have three cabinets in three different locations plus a few virtual servers in various countries so I tend to think of solutions along that scale. Not really addressing the hardware requirements of the profiles since I really don't know much about how BES works anyway.
  • geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post


    Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.



    No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...



    also no iLO or lights out cards......
  • aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post


    A lot of you are comparing Mac Mini "server" pricing to the real deal. No IT department (well a competent one) would deploy a Mac Mini in a production environment with "thousands of users hitting it" (as another poster said). It's unfortunate that Apple has deprecated their main server line that utilized real server grade parts. Sorry, but throwing a SATA RAID 1 array in a small enclosure and calling it a day doesn't equal a production grade machine that I'd be confident to deploy.



    ...These machines start at the $2,000 range and only go up in price if you wish to scale out. Our Exchange server cost $10,000, but I can sleep at night knowing that the beast will never go down - ever. I couldn't do the same for a Mac Mini.



    /rant



    Want redundancy? Get two. Use external data store. Need extra capacity? Cluster. The minis just end up as front-end processors, even for an exchange box if you wish.



    Not as elegant as it would be had the mini been provided with a second network port for iSCSI, but you can VLAN at the last switch for some improvement.



    But, I can't say I would actually want my 25-30 person company doing it. it is a special solution for a special type of company. It is a slight improvement over a "prosumer" NAS appliance, at a disproportionately higher price.
  • uguysrnutsuguysrnuts Posts: 459member
    A decade behind is putting it mildly- Worse than "has beens", those two "never were".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post


    The difference between Apple then and RIM today however, RIM doesn't have a Steve Jobs to come and save them and whereas Jobs was decades ahead of his time in some respects, RIM's ex CEO's & co-founders are a decade behind.



  • macky the mackymacky the macky Posts: 4,622member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    I have to say, a lot of you are just plain mean, selling 11 million phones per quarter isn't chump change. RIM is a solid company that is simply being passed over in the consumer markets by Apple and iClones. They had the first successful smart phone though and they are number one in corporate security for their services. Regardless of what you guys may want/think, RIM is going to be a round for a long time.



    Sorry, even RIM's new management can see their blood in the water and can hear the Da-Dum, Da-Dum, Da-Dum music... There's going to be a food fight in the next 12 months and RIM is the chum.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,737member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UltraSPARC View Post


    Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.



    No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...



    Not every company needs those features. If your talking about a server farm, even a small one, then yes. But if your talking about a few servers, then no. My experience is that rack and blade servers get much hotter than my Mac Pro does even when it's under a lot of strain. That heat is a killer, and causes problems I just don't have.



    Apple's problem with its servers was that they had no interest in going higher. No 2R machines, no 3R machines. No blades. Companies had no way to move up, and so they lost interest. It's really too bad, because when Apple first came out with them, they were proving to be pretty popular and cost effective.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,737member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    I have to say, a lot of you are just plain mean, selling 11 million phones per quarter isn't chump change. RIM is a solid company that is simply being passed over in the consumer markets by Apple and iClones. They had the first successful smart phone though and they are number one in corporate security for their services. Regardless of what you guys may want/think, RIM is going to be a round for a long time.



    It isn't being mean. Go to the financial sites, and the enterprise computing sites, and you'll read the same thing. Go to the investment sites, and the same thing there. The fact is that RIM is done. They ignored reality for too long, and now they're way behind. Their sales were down 25%, their first loss in many years, and another write off, this time for BB7 phones, which are failing to sell.



    Heins is taking the company in the wrong direction. He wants to go back to the business customer, which means the IT department. But that horse has galloped out of the barn and is lost in the distance. They can't go back. The consumer, who is the basis of smartphone sales today, is being thrown to "partners". No one knows what that means, or who they are.



    The practical thing to look at is where phones in business are coming from these days. It no longer dictates that in most companies. When "C" level executives bring in an iPhone and demand that it be supported, it is. Then others bring them in, and the BB moves out.



    Right now, more iPhones are moving into business and government than BB's. Even Android phones are moving in.



    There is very little confidence in RIM these days, which is why the stock is down more than 80% from 2010.



    Sorry, but it's the truth.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,737member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post


    Companies have already moved beyond that. Many use low cost server without HD in 1U cases connected to SAN drives. Small server farms are so cost effective now that many companies virtualize everything from processors to storage and allocate computing resources dynamacally. The fact that Apple does not allow non-Apple HW virtualization is truly out of touch in the corporate world. Apple is just not competitive in that space.



    AS for RIM, I think Microsoft should just buy it, combine the market of Windows Phone and Blackberries.



    There are far more companies out there with a small handful of servers than there are with even small server farms. Not everything is server farms. Apple isn't looking to compete with server farms.



    But even the Mini is beig used as servers in many businesses very successfully. They are being used as servers in casino's, hotels, cruise ships, small businesses, the education market, and so on. So are Mac Pro's, and even iMacs.



    You guys have to get over your specialized interests and look at the rest of the world.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Apple's problem with its servers was that they had no interest in going higher. No 2R machines, no 3R machines. No blades. Companies had no way to move up, and so they lost interest. It's really too bad, because when Apple first came out with them, they were proving to be pretty popular and cost effective.



    In my experience they were only popular with Apple enthusiasts or people who needed to stream Quicktime video prior to the popularity of HTTP streaming being adopted in the browsers. Regular IT guys did not like them at all because they required a Mac to manage them. In most NOCs there are no Macs, only Windows and Linux. The Xserves were frustratingly difficult to manage on the command line like regular Linux and Solaris machines because Apple moved a lot of the standard config files and directory paths from their normal locations as they are found in other UNIX versions. They were well made machines though.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,737member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    In my experience they were only popular with Apple enthusiasts or people who needed to stream Quicktime video prior to the popularity of HTTP streaming being adopted in the browsers. Regular IT guys did not like them at all because they required a Mac to manage them. In most NOCs there are no Macs, only Windows and Linux. The Xserves were frustratingly difficult to manage on the command line like regular Linux and Solaris machines because Apple moved a lot of the standard config files and directory paths from their normal locations as they are found in other UNIX versions. They were well made machines though.



    I knew of a lot of companies that had them. But they didn't usually sell to Windows and Linux shops. They went to Ad agencies, movie studios, etc.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I knew of a lot of companies that had them. But they didn't usually sell to Windows and Linux shops. They went to Ad agencies, movie studios, etc.



    Yes but the needs of most of those types of companies were not likely to grow into racks of servers which obviously a 1U box is designed to accommodate. I do know one guy who has a full 44U rack filled to the top with xserves. He is across the aisle from my data center cabinet. He mainly hosts for churches since apparently churches are very pro Apple because of their mutual anti-porn philosophy.
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,737member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Yes but the needs of most of those types of companies were not likely to grow into racks of servers which obviously a 1U box is designed to accommodate. I do know one guy who has a full 44U rack filled to the top with xserves. He is across the aisle from my data center cabinet. He mainly hosts for churches since apparently churches are very pro Apple because of their mutual anti-porn philosophy.



    Yes, that's what I was saying earlier. Companies that did need to move, couldn't, because Apple had no path for that. It's the chicken and the egg problem. Even a company that favored using Apple's product, might not have done so because of the limitations of the line.
  • relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    Want redundancy? Get two. Use external data store. Need extra capacity? Cluster. The minis just end up as front-end processors, even for an exchange box if you wish.



    Not as elegant as it would be had the mini been provided with a second network port for iSCSI, but you can VLAN at the last switch for some improvement.



    But, I can't say I would actually want my 25-30 person company doing it. it is a special solution for a special type of company. It is a slight improvement over a "prosumer" NAS appliance, at a disproportionately higher price.



    The best solution would be to get a Synology DiskStation DS1511+ with 6 TB at $700.00. There is still two slots empty to add an additional 6 TB when needed and the Synology software is fantastic. It includes everything that a normal server could do including LAMP and it costs less then a Mac Mini.
  • kochartechkochartech Posts: 1member

    KocharTech offers Managed Services solutions in the field of Enterprise Mobility. Our solutions enable enterprise customers to secure, manage and grow their dispersed workforce.

    Through our deep industry experience and a 360 degree view of “empowering workforce through mobility” – we help clients create successful businesses by maximizing ROI and minimizing mobility related risks.

Sign In or Register to comment.