Apple offers new Mac Pro Server configuration to replace Xserve - Page 4

you forgot the part where Steve J should go back to business school if he continues to makes these half-assed decisions that will bankrupt Apple.

Didn't Apple try this 15 years ago, where they sold rebadged desktop Macs as "servers"? Does installing Windows Server 2008 on a Dell desktop PC make it a server?

Before the XServe, Apple sold a "Server" version of the G3 and G4 towers. Never had a G5 tower server, because the XServe came out thenabouts.

Err, so how does the business using Xserves heavily for their workflow rack-mount 100 Mac Pro's once the Xserves become outdated? Or use fiber channels with the Mini? You can't just stick "server" to the butt of anything and start calling it one. Whats next, iMac server? Macbook server? Some IT folks are going to be tearing their hair out at this one.

They already are. Check this thread on Apple's support site: http://discussions.apple.com/thread....art=0&start=15
Some of these folks have stuck their necks out and installed huge Xserve based systems for their clients and companies. Now they look like complete idiots. I feel bad for them.

I sure hope Apple will announce the next step soon. I think we will see OS X Server running on another brand of hardware. Either directly or virtualized.

Why don't you tell us how many businesses are using 100 xserve systems and need to replace them with Mac Pros?

Obviously not enough for Apple to keep selling them.

Perhaps they ARE complete idiots?

To some here, this news comes as less than a surprise.

What? How can you hot swap a Mac mini? Do you know what hot swapping is?

Swapping a Mac mini wil never be faster than servicing (or swappring) an Xserve.

Perhaps people not working with servers should stop telling people working with servers how to do their job.

Can I get a replacement parts kit with my mini or Mac Pro? What? It takes 45 minutes to replace the singular power supply in my new Mac Pro Xsan MDC? That is bullshit!

And to the people not knowing: on an Xserve that would take less than a minute without powering down.

And how much time will it take to replace an HDD in a Mac mini running RAID 1? You have to have another Mac mini standing by and you'll have to clone the working drive from the old Mac mini to the new Mac mini.

This would make for a good opportunity if some enterprising company made a 6U chassis that supported a Mac pro motherboard, dual PSU, and front loading accessible drive bays. With all the room in there you can even install a PCIe card and house up to 20 total drives. Hey, that's a metadata/journal LUN and 2 other LUNS for an Xsan.

Apple's explanation for discontinuing the Xserve is that people can buy the Mac Mini "server". But wouldn't the Apple fanboi response be something like "A Ferrari costs more than a Kia, so Ferrari should stop making cars"? What about "More people buy Hondas, does that mean they are better than Mercedez Benz"? So why isn't it being applied here?

I don't know. In the sense that I have no idea what you're trying to say. I gather it involves some kind of convoluted thought experiment which demonstrates the famous hypocrisy of "fan boys"?

So you are willing to say, I can remotely connect to a Mac Mini and power it ON? Can you please tell me how to do this, as I get no results to a search for this.

The obvious reason behind this move is clear enough: Xserves and maybe the server market in general don't make money for Apple. However, this should not have been a surprise.

Apple's apparent exit from the enterprise space is disappointing, because it undermines any credibility that the firm had established over the past decade. When Apple chose to make the Xserve, they knew that they were entering a market dominated by Windows and Linux. I think the long term benefits of establishing a beachhead in this space might have outweighed the near term losses of sustaining the effort. Maybe Apple reached the investment threshold that they were willing to undertake; maybe their efforts were not delivering meaningful enterprise growth. Who knows?

From what I have heard about Apple's IT support, it seems that there is/was a cultural divide between the enterprise market and Apple. Apple did not court IT departments like others had, nor did they seem to support those that had selected Apple's solutions (this is what I have been told...no first hand knowledge). Apple wanted to be treated by enterprise staff the same way that consumers dealt with the company. In the end, maybe this cultural difference was the reason that Apple killed the Xserve—they just realized that it would never work.

Well if you are a rude Internet dick you might say that.
No it was not a surprise, but Apple handled it poorly.

I was able to find a solution in minutes -- have tested it with no problems...

But, then, I am not a server expert!

.

Fabulous! - would you care to share? Please don't say "Start up Automatically after Power Failure", thats not the same as the ability to start and stop your server remotely.

I never said I was either, but please do share the built in support on the Mac Mini that enables you to do this. I would really like to know how I can remotely connect to a Mac Mini that is powered off, and turn it on.

If you claim it can be done, then provide links to the solution.

Why would desktop app developers need XServes exactly?

Yup. Lion 10.7 will be the last OS X we see of OS X as we know it. It will be absorbed into unified-hybrid-whatever iOS after that.


That's very interesting. All XServe production now for in-house use only. But I think eventually Apple will use other hardware. The benefits of scale in using third party server solutions to run their massive cloud will overwhelm essentially custom-manufacturing your own servers.


Mac Pro is too big and power hungry to justify large-scale implementations. As for Apple, I think they will go third-party server products.


I think OS X Server is on SMB market for the next few years, I don't see VMWare licensing to virtualise OS X Server on PC hardware happening.

This is it folks, OS X Server now for SMB. iOS in full swing. Apple's enterprise and edu focus is iPad, iPhone and Mac. Probably in that order.

XServe is (was) awesome.

*SIGH* the burdens of iOS/mobile success.
Naughty Apple! Naughty!

There has always been strong moves by Apple in the education and enterprise space but like you say this "fought" with the consumer goals.

With the massive success of iOS devices they are focusing on getting that in edu and enterprise.

Apple will get into business easier from the front-end rather than the back.

As for big business, the goal is iPhones and iPads for everyone and Macs for execs, rank-and-file can BYO Mac if they want and as for the server backroom, that's left to the anti-Apple dark wizards of IT.

This is a bad and irresponsible move on Apple's part. Many depend on the Xserve. Eliminating the 1U option will make it extremely difficult to get Mac OS X Server deployed.

Mac Pro's and Mac Mini's are not specifically designed to be servers and lack many features that the Xserve offers. Redundant power supplies, lights out management, ease of replacing parts (try opening up a Mini), server specific expansion options, 1U size, thermal considerations etc...

These features are VERY important. By killing off the Xserve Apple looses a lot of credibility and this will not only effect server sales but will cascade down to the desktop platform choice.

There aren't a too many happy campers and the list will keep growing unless Apple either reverses its decision or announces a credible Xserver replacement:

http://www.xsanity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10953

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/applepros/signatures

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/...-january-31st/

Ha! Why should I do all the work!

I am very comfortable with my capabilities -- both strengths and weaknesses.

I don't need to prove my creds or chops to anyone!

You guys claim it cant' be done.

I claim it can -- because I am doing it, after a few minutes research and a little trial-and-error.

You guys can find the solution(s) as easily as I did!

I realize that you cannot prove a negative, so if you have specific questions regarding a specific method or procedure I will answer them.

Hint: It's done the same way(s) on a Mac Mini (or other Mac) as it is done, AFAICT, on an XServe or other server. I don't have access to any server hardware-- so I need to rely on what I read and what others say.

.

Thanks, you're a very helpful guy!

So you log in through your VPN or non-public network on a secondary IP address to the MM or MP LOM, because you certainly wouldn't want this feature on your public IP or netblock, and preferably not even on the same wire. Then, while the main machine is totally off, you ask it to boot?

And when he says totally off he means just that - powered off, not sleeping. LOM has it's own CPU and ethernet pathway. It stays on while the main computer is off. When you give it a command the LOM system actually powers up the main motherboard.

.

It's been about 10 years since I did any heavy web development, so my limited knowledge of server farms is rusty.


On a server farm, using XServes or whatever:

1) Do most of the servers act as general-purpose servers?

2) Do some act as web HTTP servers?
-- with associated connection to high-bandwidth internet hardware?
-- with access to static pages/files through networked File servers
-- with access to dynamic pages through networked Application servers
-- with access to data bases through networked DB servers

3) Do some act as networked File servers?
-- with access to lots of RAID storage for files and static pages

4) Do some act as networked Application servers?
-- with access to RAID storage for dynamic Applications/Scripts
-- with access to the web servers
-- with access to the File servers
-- with access to the DB servers

5) Do some act as networked DB servers?
-- with access to lots of RAID storage

Set aside, for the moment: Dedicated Hosting; Co-locating, Load-balancing / Fail over; Backup; Administration, etc.

6) Are most of the servers dedicated to a specific function -- web serving; application serving; File serving; DB Serving. etc.?


What I am trying to determine is:

7) Is every server loaded up with max CPU Cores/ GHz, RAM, HDD storage, etc.-- so they can do anything?

8) Or are servers configured lean-and-mean according to their specific function/role in the server farm?

9) How is the XServe used in the server farm -- dedicated function or general-purpose?

10) If the answers are what I think they are -- XServes are not used much in the server farms, True?


That leaves SMBs and Hosting services as potential users of XServes.

11) Except for dedicated hosting and co-locating, wouldn't anyone tend to use servers configured for, and dedicated to specific functions (just like the big server farms)?


If the answers to the above are, mostly, true -- then, by discontinuing the XServe, Apple has had little effect of the use of servers, except in a few customer solutions.

Yeah, Minis aren't able to handle heavy use;

Yeah, Mac Pros aren't as easy to maintain (hot swappable components).

But, they are alternatives.

12) Is it really a big deal to discontinue the XServe?

.

How is it done on the XServe?

.

With that kind of answer, I think it is just about time to start calling you a troll.

z3ro above linked to a petition - there are a number of very cogent comments from pro and DC users there. For anyone who really wants to understand the impact of the cancellation, take a read:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/applepros/signatures

I have done it using the Server Monitor app that Apple provides. It uses the LOM to supply all sorts of info regarding the status of the Xserve. It also offers the ability to restart, power off etc. I run the app on on old G5 that is my office computer. I can check the status of the two Xserves without going into the machine room. In theory I could do this form home if I wanted, but the Xserves are behind a firewall and we don't allow them to accessed from outside our internal LAN.

You (or anybody) can check my posts -- I have checked yours!

I stand on my record!

You?

.

I skim read (will read in more detail, later).

It appears that a major concern is the continued availability of OS X Server -- virtualized or licensed to other hardware such as IBM, Oracle...

I hope that Apple allows this -- it could get them:

-- continued support in SMB and smaller providers
-- increased penetration in in large server farms

It would be interesting to know the number of XServe Customers.

It would be interesting to know the install base of XServes.

It would be interesting to know what XServes will be replaced with the next upgrade.


Here are my SWAG guesses:

° <= 5,000 XServe Customers
° <= 100,000 XServe Install Base
° next upgrade replacements -- 33% Mac Minis; 33% Mac Pros; 33% Competitive

.

Specifically: How do you (within the firewall) Remote Power ON an XServe that is completely Powered OFF?

.

We've both said it - it's LOM, and it's what's not on the MM and MP, and one of several key reasons why they can't replace an Xserve where it was intended to be used, along with redundant secure power and hot-swap parts, out-of-band SNMP, etc.

By having the gall to suggest MM and MP as alternatives to the Xserve, Apple's pretty much told every professional Apple IT admin and corporate protagonist that they're a f..king idiot. It won't go down well.

.




I know that discontinuing the XServe is a "big deal" to existing users -- but they don't appear to be a notable player in the bigger scheme of things.

.

Nobody has said they are - it's about a potential market, not the current state of affairs. And it's about not being respectful of your current customers, no matter how few.

I understand where you are coming from -- it's a feeling of betrayal! I worked for IBM for 16 1/2 years -- but left before their layoffs -- my fellow IBMers had a similar feeling.

However, from the Company's perspective, if they continue making/supporting products that don't make sense -- the cumulative effect will be that the were the best supplier of buggywhips that ever was in business.


From the reading I've done, the XServe still consumes power when it is off -- so that is the equivalent of any Mac (including the Mini) running in sleep state.

I believe the XServe draws more power when off than the Mini does, idling.

A current Mac in sleep mode will periodically wake up and broadcast its Bonjour address.

A current Mac in sleep mode is LOM startable (waken up) by sending a wake up ethernet sequence.

For many -- that will be good enough!

If that's not good enough, you can buy a LOM power strip. that can be similarly controlled, and set the Mac to reboot after power off.

.

People keep saying that, but no one has been able to say how many 'many' is. Except Apple who says that 'Many' is not enough to justify the product line.

I wonder know knows the Xserve sales level better - Apple or these AI trolls?