or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple frees Mac OS X Leopard Server to run in virtual machines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple frees Mac OS X Leopard Server to run in virtual machines

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
A clause in the license for the latest server edition of Mac OS X will let the software run outside of a fully native environment -- and developers are relishing the prospects of supporting virtual Macs for the first time.

The small but significant extension contained within the new software agreement (PDF) is the first sign that Apple is no longer insistent on a one-to-one ratio for Mac OS licenses to Macs, as it was with Tiger and all previous versions of the operating system. In the updated usage terms, a theoretically unlimited number of licenses can be in use as long as they remain valid.

"You may also Install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer," the new clause reads, "provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."

The agreement does not extend to the regular Leopard client and still requires a full paid license for each virtual machine, a move meant to discourage law-abiding users from running a multi-license copy of Mac OS X on a single computer.

Even with this restriction, the modification is already considered a watershed moment for Apple's efforts in business by its professional customers and those writing virtual machines, including Parallels developer SWSoft. The latter's Director of Corporate Communications, Ben Rudolph, notes that the ability to run one or more extra copies of Mac OS X on an Xserve computer could be a decisive factor for switching some Linux- and Windows-based server environments to the Mac.

Many of these businesses need to separate programs from the main operating system in the event of a malware infection or a crash, or else need a sandbox to test new software without buying an entirely separate computer. This is already commonplace with Virtual PC, VMware, and similar tools on most operating systems, but until now has been impossible with Apple hardware. This will change in the next several months when SWSoft intends to release Parallels with its first instance of Mac OS X virtualization support, Rudolph says.

"It is important to note that weve already begun the steps necessary to technically enable this new policy and Leopard Server is an important part of our Parallels Server roadmap," he explains. "We know from many of you that the 'holy grail' of Xserves is to run multiple, isolated, near-native instances of OS X Server on the same box, at the same time. Couple that with the ability to run Windows and Linux next to those instances of OS X via Parallels Server, and youve just made Xserves even more compelling for enterprises large and small, even non traditional Apple shops."

This has prompted speculation that Apple may be pressured to upgrade its Xserve rackmount system, which (along with the Mac Pro) has largely been left untouched since its debut in August of last year. Each virtual machine consumes a large amount of bandwidth, memory, and processor power, with more cores and memory often directly linked to more simultaneous copies. An eight-core or greater system could be essential to gaining a foothold in a business market that relies more and more on virtual operating systems, according to technology analyst and columnist John Welch.

"Apple doesn't yet make a box that's big enough to be an effective VM server for more than a handful of VMs if they're heavily loaded," Welch warns.
post #2 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A clause in the license for the latest server edition of Mac OS X will let the software run outside of a fully native environment -- and developers are relishing the prospects of supporting virtual Macs for the first time.

The small but significant extension contained within the new software agreement (PDF) is the first sign that Apple is no longer insistent on a one-to-one ratio for Mac OS licenses to Macs, as it was with Tiger and all previous versions of the operating system. In the updated usage terms, a theoretically unlimited number of licenses can be in use as long as they remain valid.

"You may also Install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer," the new clause reads, "provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."

The agreement does not extend to the regular Leopard client and still requires a full paid license for each virtual machine, a move meant to discourage law-abiding users from running a multi-license copy of Mac OS X on a single computer.

Even with this restriction, the modification is already considered a watershed moment for Apple's efforts in business by its professional customers and those writing virtual machines, including Parallels developer SWSoft. The latter's Director of Corporate Communications, Ben Rudolph, notes that the ability to run one or more extra copies of Mac OS X on an Xserve computer could be a decisive factor for switching some Linux- and Windows-based server environments to the Mac.

Many of these businesses need to separate programs from the main operating system in the event of a malware infection or a crash, or else need a sandbox to test new software without buying an entirely separate computer. This is already commonplace with Virtual PC, VMware, and similar tools on most operating systems, but until now has been impossible with Apple hardware. This will change in the next several months when SWSoft intends to release Parallels with its first instance of Mac OS X virtualization support, Rudolph says.

"It is important to note that weve already begun the steps necessary to technically enable this new policy and Leopard Server is an important part of our Parallels Server roadmap," he explains. "We know from many of you that the 'holy grail' of Xserves is to run multiple, isolated, near-native instances of OS X Server on the same box, at the same time. Couple that with the ability to run Windows and Linux next to those instances of OS X via Parallels Server, and youve just made Xserves even more compelling for enterprises large and small, even non traditional Apple shops."

This has prompted speculation that Apple may be pressured to upgrade its Xserve rackmount system, which (along with the Mac Pro) has largely been left untouched since its debut in August of last year. Each virtual machine consumes a large amount of bandwidth, memory, and processor power, with more cores and memory often directly linked to more simultaneous copies. An eight-core or greater system could be essential to gaining a foothold in a business market that relies more and more on virtual operating systems, according to technology analyst and columnist John Welch.

"Apple doesn't yet make a box that's big enough to be an effective VM server for more than a handful of VMs if they're heavily loaded," Welch warns.

the $2,999.00 xserve with only 1gb of ram, no on board raid, only an 80gb HD will need to do a lot better and $999 for a 3 PORT raid card?? You can get high raid cards with raid 5 and 6 with lot more ports for that price.
post #3 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

the $2,999.00 xserve with only 1gb of ram, no on board raid, only an 80gb HD will need to do a lot better and $999 for a 3 PORT raid card?? You can get high raid cards with raid 5 and 6 with lot more ports for that price.

Your thinking is short sighted here Joe. A Server has many functions so typically no pre-built config is going to work out. Apple doesn't ship 0/0 configs so they have to have the bare minimum RAM and HDD to ship a working unit. If I'm going to connect to external Direct Attached Storage then the internal storage mean very little beyond housing the OS

The RAID card "does" support RAID5. The current Xserve wouldn't support RAID 6 because you need a minimum of 4 drives for the double striped parity. Also keep in mind this RAID card doesn't use a PCI Express port so that's still open to accept Fibre cards or whatever else you need to run.

The Virtualization of OS X Server is a good move on Apple's part. Next year there will be 16 Core 2-socket servers that appear to the OS like 32 logical processors. Now you will be able to virtualize multiple Server OS X version across this hardware. Couple that with the doubling of PCI -Express bandwidth and you some some very nice server consolidation features coming.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #4 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Also keep in mind this RAID card doesn't use a PCI Express port so that's still open to accept Fibre cards or whatever else you need to run.

You might want to explain that, since the card is required to occupy the top PCI Express slot, slot #4.
post #5 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Many of these businesses need to separate programs from the main operating system in the event of a malware infection or a crash, or else need a sandbox to test new software without buying an entirely separate computer. This is already commonplace with Virtual PC, VMware, and similar tools on most operating systems, but until now has been impossible with Apple hardware. This will change in the next several months when SWSoft intends to release Parallels with its first instance of Mac OS X virtualization support, Rudolph says.

I'm no server guy and I can understand the test environment argument but given the lack of malware and general crash resilience of OSX (apps aside) how significant is virtualisation to the server market outside of Windows? I always thought multiple servers were a necessity of Windows' original instability & insecurity and virtualisation was a way to consolidate physical resources whilst maintaining the logical benefits - assuming that the resource partitioning isn't hard & fast and allows resources to be redistributed on the fly. Surely with OSX & LINUX some form of system level resource management in the form of application/task prioritisation should suffice as running multiple OS instances must have some kind of overhead.

From my, somewhat simplistic & theoretical, point of view OSX seems to be behind the game it doesn't have to play in the first place. Have I got this wrong or is the purpose of the exercise to curry favour with enterprise?

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #6 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

From my, somewhat simplistic & theoretical, point of view OSX seems to be behind the game it doesn't have to play in the first place. Have I got this wrong or is the purpose of the exercise to curry favour with enterprise?

McD

Yes, i would like to know this as well. Can someone give a real world example why this is needed? If you have to increase the processors/ram/bandwidth anyway, why would you not just purchase another box? There has to be some overhead running in VM mode?

sorry in advance for the ignorance \
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
[CENTER]Diana Rein
Putting the Soul back into Rock 'n Roll
[/CENTER]

[CENTER]"The Back Room"

Diana Rein Available on iTunes for $8[/CENTER]
Reply
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

From my, somewhat simplistic & theoretical, point of view OSX seems to be behind the game it doesn't have to play in the first place. Have I got this wrong or is the purpose of the exercise to curry favour with enterprise?

McD

While I know less than you about it, I would imagine that having two or more Mac OS X operating systems running on the same machine would be an advantage for numerous reasons. Maybe one OS instance acts as an Email Server, while another a Web Server, while another a file server.

You can get more power from each virtual OS instance as opposed to having one machine run the all the services. It seems you can only get so much out of a computer, due to OS constraints (OS overhead), at one point in time. Having three separate instances of an OS running, you can get more performance and isolated security out of them because the OS has more resources to dedicate on the software side. Basically, I think that software is always behind hardware speeds allowing for this type of use to be valid.

That is how I see it. Maybe an knowledgeable person in IT can correct me and my misplaced ideas. I don't think I am doing a good job explaining though but VMWare and Paralells have white papers on this and they do a better job of describing why it is helpful.

I think it is a good thing. I just wish they didn't put a license per OS instance and just said, one copy of OSX per physical machine. Now that would be killer.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #8 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I just wish they didn't put a license per OS instance and just said, one copy of OSX per physical machine. Now that would be killer.

One license per instance = must have a valid license for each running copy. I think we're on the same page here but "one copy of OSX per physical machine"? That's exactly what it used to be and what they're moving away from to allow for virtualization.

Why is virtualization important? Because it allows you to move logical resources quickly amongst physical resources in the event something goes wrong. It can be used for redundancy, load balancing and many other "good" things. You can image servers (that don't store data anyways) so they can be replicated or moved to other machines. It allows you to isolate problems in your overall infrastructure easily and you can take down/replace an instance without disrupting the other services being offered on that platform (web, email, ftp, database, etc).

It's more secure and less vulnerable for web-hosting companies to offer virtualized shared hosting because changes in one users account aren't affected by other users and therefore doesn't affect other users - just their instance of the OS.

The biggest benefit to a small developer/or company like me is that I can use 1 physical server to run what appears to be multiple single-purpose servers. The beauty in that is that I can start off with one physical server to host my entire system but as the application, user base and/or load increases I can then move those instances on to other servers.

For example, let assume I'm building a complex website. I start with one instance of OS X for Apache (to serve the pages) and another instance for a MySQL server (to store data). Later when the site gets busy I can move the instance with MySQL to another physical server to eliminate the load off the first server. I can then install another instance of OS X running Apache on the first server for load balancing/redundancy (not the best solution but it works) and be able to serve more pages faster while the MySQL server just feeds data to both Apache instances. If one of the instances of OS X went down on the first server I would still be serving web pages. So from the users perspective the site might seem slower but the don't notice any downtime.

In short, it allows me to have dedicated instances of a server so I can pretend they're separate and later when I need to I can actually make them seperate with very little effort in comparison.
post #9 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGuess View Post

One license per instance = must have a valid license for each running copy. I think we're on the same page here but "one copy of OSX per physical machine"? That's exactly what it used to be and what they're moving away from to allow for virtualization.

Yes, we are on the same page and I see the fault in my words. I did a horrible job of describing that. What they are doing, is killer.

I just wish I could do a better job of describing how running two virtual servers is less load on each OS compared to running everything in one OS. Eventually, the OS can't take it and is overloaded not due to hardware constraints, but due to OS constraints.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #10 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGuess View Post

In short, it allows me to have dedicated instances of a server so I can pretend they're separate and later when I need to I can actually make them seperate with very little effort in comparison.

Very interesting post. Thanks for the details. bwik
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

the $2,999.00 xserve with only 1gb of ram, no on board raid, only an 80gb HD will need to do a lot better and $999 for a 3 PORT raid card?? You can get high raid cards with raid 5 and 6 with lot more ports for that price.

Actually, Apple's XServe's with their software licenses are considered to be much cheaper than Windows based models. The more clients served, the cheaper it gets.
post #12 of 51
Both aplnub and iGuess have most of it down.

The other big reason is that larger servers, which the XServe is not, often have a number of cores sitting idle. By virtualizing the OS, all cores can be put to work.

This is a problem with expensive models. Businesses don't like to have part of their hardware loafing around (or their flesh and blood employees either).

To me, this could mean that Apple might be coming out with the 2U server business has been asking for for years now. One reason why more Xserves aren't in larger businesses is because there is no upgrade path. It's cheaper, and more space and power efficient to have one large server than two small ones.

As far as the 3 drive limit, it's just not that important. Business with more capacity needs will use models such as Apple's XServe Raid witch is very popular, even with businesses without Apple's XServes.
post #13 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

You might want to explain that, since the card is required to occupy the top PCI Express slot, slot #4.

What are you smoking?







post #14 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I just wish I could do a better job of describing how running two virtual servers is less load on each OS compared to running everything in one OS. Eventually, the OS can't take it and is overloaded not due to hardware constraints, but due to OS constraints.

I can see the logic in what you're trying to describe but remember that each virtualized OS has a greater amount of overhead as well. At the operating system level (the virtualization engine) each instance is given a set time with the processor and other resources. With multi-core processors this isn't so much an issue because the processes can run in parallel (or seemingly so - I'm haven't gotten indepth with Intel's multi-core architectures). The only main issue with most multi-core architectures today (from my understanding) is the way they share resources (memory, I/O, etc) because they can't be accessed simultaneously by the separate cores. Am I wrong?

So although the theory that you can lessen the load on each instance of an OS by spreading the load along multiple instances with the same purpose holds true...it's impact on the hardware resources are more severe.

Virtualization allows you to grow. As melgross pointed out it also allows you to fully utilize the hardware because each instance of the OS puts more demands on the hardware. It helps keep critical components separate for portability in case of excessive load or trauma. It's the Object Oriented approach to network design and web development. The objects physical location is irrelevant. It helps bring things down to their most simple form (single-purpose) and makes them easier to manage.

Of course as with any technology the intended design is not always the only mode of operation. Virtualization is a technology which allows for more flexibility and I for one am glad Apple is supporting it. Enterprises will love it. Now they just need to take on Exchange/Blackberry Enterprise Server and they'll find a new home amongst more business customers. I am waiting for the day when Apple provides the perfect integration between Desktop, Server and [wink wink] the iPhone so I can tell all my Microsoft fanboy friends where to shove their Windows Mobile DoodooPhone.
post #15 of 51
That is one big ass screen shot.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #16 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

You might want to explain that, since the card is required to occupy the top PCI Express slot, slot #4.

From the config page

Quote:
RAID Card
Enhance storage performance and data protection by configuring your system with the Xserve RAID card and multiple SAS or SATA hard drives. The Xserve RAID card replaces the built-in SATA/SAS controller board and does not use a PCI Express slot. Please note that when you select the RAID card you must choose either all SATA or SAS drives in drive bays 1 through 3.

I guess what I'm saying is that the card doesn't require using up "another" PCI slot since I have no idea what type of card the SATA/SAS base controller is.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #17 of 51
Also here's a good selling pont of virtualization.

iGuess has covered the flexibility of running virtualized NOS well enough.

So lets say I'm trying to sell a potential client on Virtualization. Not only do you talk about the flexibility that iGuess speaks of but you also establish that with server consolidation you get to piggyback on expensive LAN and WAN links.

Think about about now. Sure you could add more physical servers but each server then requires additional ports on your switch, additional HBA for SCSI or Fibre cards additional lights out cards for server diagonostic/remote access, additional rack and cooling space.

With Virtualization I just sell a beefed up server I add my expensive HBA knowing that all OS will use it (so I go large here with 4Gb Fibre and fast SAS HBA) I add the Lights Out managemeent because I only have to do that per server and not per server OS.

The cost savings become quite significant. This is why Blade Systems are desired. You reduce rack footprint, you reduce management costs and wiring costs. Your costs for implementing failover reduce as well.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

Have I got this wrong or is the purpose of the exercise to curry favour with enterprise?

McD


Yea, maybe they are trying to spice things up a bit.
post #19 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

From the config page



I guess what I'm saying is that the card doesn't require using up "another" PCI slot since I have no idea what type of card the SATA/SAS base controller is.

Thanks. I've been hyped about the new a la carte availability of the Mac Pro RAID card, which requires slot 4.
post #20 of 51
I can't imagine a scenario where I would want to run multiple copies of OS X on the same box. When I think of virtualization, the notion of having OS X, Windows and Unix all running on the same server might be more appealing.

In terms of maximizing resource utilization as Mel mentioned, I prefer to have plenty of reserve capacity to handle unpredictable demand rather than trying to squeeze the last bit of performance out of a given machine.

The new blade server concept is quite attractive because the servers are discreet machines which can be serviced/upgraded without bringing down the entire complex, unlike a virtualization environment. The one down side to IBM's blades is the installation expense for 220v power requirements, but that aside I like the management benefits of the shared chassis consolidation.

But without more compelling benefits, I would not see our business being significantly enhanced by OS X virtualization.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #21 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
Have I got this wrong or is the purpose of the exercise to curry favour with enterprise?

McD

Your term " curry favor" is way out of place.

The correct interpretation, is that they are finally, after several years, delivering a product that medium, large business, universities, and government have been telling Apple they need.

This is supplying a product that they should have been supplying.

Offering potential customers products they need for their business is simply the proper way to do business.
post #22 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiMiC View Post

Yes, i would like to know this as well. Can someone give a real world example why this is needed? If you have to increase the processors/ram/bandwidth anyway, why would you not just purchase another box? There has to be some overhead running in VM mode?

There is some overhead. You're running several copies of the OS, so obviously, there's some seemingly unnecessary duplication going on.

What it's also useful for is allowing you to provision one server into virtual servers, so each client gets their own server, configure the OS how they like and it doesn't alter the configuration of other servers. But if it costs $499 or $999 for each virtual server, I'm not sure how attractive that would be. Sure, it's competitive with Windows, but most of the virtual server host services I've seen offer Linux or BSD - which don't have a per-instance license fee.
post #23 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I can't imagine a scenario where I would want to run multiple copies of OS X on the same box. When I think of virtualization, the notion of having OS X, Windows and Unix all running on the same server might be more appealing.

In terms of maximizing resource utilization as Mel mentioned, I prefer to have plenty of reserve capacity to handle unpredictable demand rather than trying to squeeze the last bit of performance out of a given machine.

The new blade server concept is quite attractive because the servers are discreet machines which can be serviced/upgraded without bringing down the entire complex, unlike a virtualization environment. The one down side to IBM's blades is the installation expense for 220v power requirements, but that aside I like the management benefits of the shared chassis consolidation.

But without more compelling benefits, I would not see our business being significantly enhanced by OS X virtualization.

We have both blades and virtualization servers and both have benefits and drawbacks.

The primary advantage of virtualization the ability to configure a number of VMs on a 4-way or larger machine. Each are independently configured and isolated from each other. A 4U 4 Processor virtualization server can represent a good number of boxes.

A blade server gives you higher density but without virtualization each blade may or may not be overkill for any particular application/service. Plus the blade enclosure represents a much higher up front cost than traditional servers...in addition to the 220 power requirements. An IBM BladeCenter enclosure is the cost of several servers by itself.

If you don't need the compute density then going with virtualization is much less expensive and gives you greater flexibility over blades. For downtime, you can always move the VMs to another machine and fail over to them.

Multiple instances of OSX Server is useful if you want to have say a production environment and a development environment or multiple development environments on the same XServe.

And you can't get OSX on a blade anyway.
post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


And you can't get OSX on a blade anyway.

For now.....muahhahahahahahahahaha

j/k I don't know if Apple will ever design a Blade Server but I sure do love to
dream about it. I'd love for them to develop a Media Blade system focused on
their clients with HPC and Media Production needs.

I could just imagine a time 5 years from now when Final Cut Studio production would
consist of a small team all hooked up to a Media Blade system editing and processing
4k video, multitrack audio and Motion Graphics simulataneously over 10G connections
and banks of Xserve RAID.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

For now.....muahhahahahahahahahaha

j/k I don't know if Apple will ever design a Blade Server but I sure do love to
dream about it. I'd love for them to develop a Media Blade system focused on
their clients with HPC and Media Production needs.

I could just imagine a time 5 years from now when Final Cut Studio production would
consist of a small team all hooked up to a Media Blade system editing and processing
4k video, multitrack audio and Motion Graphics simulataneously over 10G connections
and banks of Xserve RAID.

Well you can get that big stack-o-minis that I've seen pictures of...oh here it is:



http://www.macminicolo.net/

too bad it really looks like this:



There is something Star Warsish about that picture...

For a small team a stack of 1U servers is cheaper than any blade server. How many did you want? You can stack 7 in the space of a blade enclosure. That's only half the density of a blade server but hey...

How loud is an XServe? We don't have one...
post #26 of 51
I don't understand the use of 'first time'. It seems to me that the only restriction was the license agreement. There weren't any technological restrictions. So why is this a big deal? It's not like license agreements hold any importance.
post #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

We have both blades and virtualization servers and both have benefits and drawbacks.

The primary advantage of virtualization the ability to configure a number of VMs on a 4-way or larger machine. Each are independently configured and isolated from each other. A 4U 4 Processor virtualization server can represent a good number of boxes.

A blade server gives you higher density but without virtualization each blade may or may not be overkill for any particular application/service. Plus the blade enclosure represents a much higher up front cost than traditional servers...in addition to the 220 power requirements. An IBM BladeCenter enclosure is the cost of several servers by itself.

If you don't need the compute density then going with virtualization is much less expensive and gives you greater flexibility over blades. For downtime, you can always move the VMs to another machine and fail over to them.

Multiple instances of OSX Server is useful if you want to have say a production environment and a development environment or multiple development environments on the same XServe.

And you can't get OSX on a blade anyway.

Really? 220? You mean a business will have to add a separate 220V line draw? Gee. You have to do that if you want a washer/dryer, any useful machining, wood/metal lathes, welding and much more.

Of course, this would be a non-issue if the US was 220 to the like 90% of the world.

It costs me 1400 t go from 200W panel to a 400W panel upgrade.

If I'm buying Blade Servers I'm expecting to generate a ROI. That power upgrade will be an infrastructure expense that I'll write down or slowly disperse back into the cost of my business services.
post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazkid View Post

I don't understand the use of 'first time'. It seems to me that the only restriction was the license agreement. There weren't any technological restrictions. So why is this a big deal? It's not like license agreements hold any importance.

Maybe because MS is saying you have to have a licensed copy for every VM you have with their OS on it. Apple says you don't?? I may be reading that all wrong but that is what I get from it. It shows Apple is not squeezing VM owners like MS is. I think...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Your term " curry favor" is way out of place.

The correct interpretation, is that they are finally, after several years, delivering a product that medium, large business, universities, and government have been telling Apple they need.

This is supplying a product that they should have been supplying.

Offering potential customers products they need for their business is simply the proper way to do business.

If that were Apple's way they would have licensed OSX for general PCs or produced another Windows PC - isn't that what business 'needs'?

Apple isn't renown for pandering to popular perceptions of right & wrong in IT hence no low end Macs, the bundled iLife software to coerce usage, no expandable mini-towers. While the switch to Intel sounded plausible on the basis of supply, performance-per-watt & technology roadmap you can't deny a convenient symptom was the hardware-specification-obsessed general public's ability to make a more direct comparison of Macs to current PCs (even to the point of justifying the performance enhancements by publishing generic SPEC benches whilst ignoring the SIMD and real world work). I'm not lamenting the PPC's demise it's more the commercial mechanics of the switch which hints that Apple has changed tactics and has adopted a stance of patronage like everyone else.

As I say, I'm no server tech but the arguments above still don't seem to hold water. The point that virtualisation gives you the opportunity to build two server instances up front just in case you need to expand later & the idea that running two OS instances use less resources than one don't make sense to me. The perceived security benefits are fine when selling hosted services but are they really necessary for a relatively secure & stable platform? Wouldn't standard user-based security be OK. The point about allocating resources seems fine but in securing resources for each instance do the virtualisation solutions fully utilise all spare/available resources?

On the topic of scalable web servers, surely Apple would have been better to make these services/apps (in fact most services/apps) Xgrid aware so you could bolt on extra Xserves as you would plug in extra HDs? And maybe an advanced version of process wizard for sys admins to allocate resources across applications/users would negate the need for load balancing virtual machines.

This isn't intended to sound like judgement, I'm in no way qualified to give it. However, the observation that they appear to be currying favour, albeit to improve much needed credibility in the server space, still stands.

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #30 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

If that were Apple's way they would have licensed OSX for general PCs or produced another Windows PC - isn't that what business 'needs'?

Apple isn't renown for pandering to popular perceptions of right & wrong in IT hence no low end Macs, the bundled iLife software to coerce usage, no expandable mini-towers. While the switch to Intel sounded plausible on the basis of supply, performance-per-watt & technology roadmap you can't deny a convenient symptom was the hardware-specification-obsessed general public's ability to make a more direct comparison of Macs to current PCs (even to the point of justifying the performance enhancements by publishing generic SPEC benches whilst ignoring the SIMD and real world work). I'm not lamenting the PPC's demise it's more the commercial mechanics of the switch which hints that Apple has changed tactics and has adopted a stance of patronage like everyone else.

As I say, I'm no server tech but the arguments above still don't seem to hold water. The point that virtualisation gives you the opportunity to build two server instances up front just in case you need to expand later & the idea that running two OS instances use less resources than one don't make sense to me. The perceived security benefits are fine when selling hosted services but are they really necessary for a relatively secure & stable platform? Wouldn't standard user-based security be OK. The point about allocating resources seems fine but in securing resources for each instance do the virtualisation solutions fully utilise all spare/available resources?

On the topic of scalable web servers, surely Apple would have been better to make these services/apps (in fact most services/apps) Xgrid aware so you could bolt on extra Xserves as you would plug in extra HDs? And maybe an advanced version of process wizard for sys admins to allocate resources across applications/users would negate the need for load balancing virtual machines.

This isn't intended to sound like judgement, I'm in no way qualified to give it. However, the observation that they appear to be currying favour, albeit to improve much needed credibility in the server space, still stands.

McD

First of all, a company has choices as to where they decide their customers are. They can choose to go to a particular market or not.

Your statements notwithstanding, all companies make these choices. Don't pick on Apple.

IBM just sold their PC division. Are you going to scold them as well?

Sun doesn't make home machines. How about them?

Where should we go with this?

Apple sees their customers as being outside the medium/large corporations, and also government.

It's just possible that they are seeing an advantage to slowly moving in that direction. This could be a very cheap move in that direction. It it works out well, Apple could take another asked for step. We don't know.

I, for one, am very excited by this development.

If you don't understand the way larger servers are used, then you should do some research before commenting. What you are saying is incorrect.

Manufacturers of larger servers charge by the core count. But, these servers aren't always fully utilized. When paying for leasing and service, the cost is too high to allow any of the system to remain idle.

Larger servers are also upgradable. A larger machine may come with 4 cores, but can be upgraded to 16, or even, sometimes, 32.

It's much cheaper to upgrade the mainframe of the unit than to buy numerous smaller units. It's also easier to administer.

This is a complex subject, and others here have offered good explanations of the purpose.

The fact is that with your own admitted lack of knowledge, you can't really understand what's being said, your comments are inappropriate.
post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

First of all, a company has choices as to where they decide their customers are. They can choose to go to a particular market or not.

Your statements notwithstanding, all companies make these choices. Don't pick on Apple.

IBM just sold their PC division. Are you going to scold them as well?

Sun doesn't make home machines. How about them?

Where should we go with this?

Apple sees their customers as being outside the medium/large corporations, and also government.

It's just possible that they are seeing an advantage to slowly moving in that direction. This could be a very cheap move in that direction. It it works out well, Apple could take another asked for step. We don't know.

I, for one, am very excited by this development.

If you don't understand the way larger servers are used, then you should do some research before commenting. What you are saying is incorrect.

Manufacturers of larger servers charge by the core count. But, these servers aren't always fully utilized. When paying for leasing and service, the cost is too high to allow any of the system to remain idle.

Larger servers are also upgradable. A larger machine may come with 4 cores, but can be upgraded to 16, or even, sometimes, 32.

It's much cheaper to upgrade the mainframe of the unit than to buy numerous smaller units. It's also easier to administer.

This is a complex subject, and others here have offered good explanations of the purpose.

The fact is that with your own admitted lack of knowledge, you can't really understand what's being said, your comments are inappropriate.

I'm not aware that I said Apple shouldn't go for this or any market, I'm just saying toeing the line isn't characteristic of Apple. Their approach to the consumer market hasn't exactly been one of compliance with popular trends in fact, they seem to fly in the face of them. My point is there are a few recent instances where they appear have conceded; the Intel switch, running Windows on a Mac, porting iTunes to Windows to improve popularity and gain new footholds. If this is how they're looking to improve ratings in the server market fine! But unusual - they don't seem to have a point of difference with this one, they are just another box doing what others do but much later - more of a Microsoft tactic than Apple.

I suppose a licensing change is a cheaper way to quick gains than any development but maybe that's the server market - less innovation, more stability hence the change of tack.

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

I'm not aware that I said Apple shouldn't go for this or any market, I'm just saying toeing the line isn't characteristic of Apple. Their approach to the consumer market hasn't exactly been one of compliance with popular trends in fact, they seem to fly in the face of them. My point is there are a few recent instances where they appear have conceded; the Intel switch, running Windows on a Mac, porting iTunes to Windows to improve popularity and gain new footholds. If this is how they're looking to improve ratings in the server market fine! But unusual - they don't seem to have a point of difference with this one, they are just another box doing what others do but much later - more of a Microsoft tactic than Apple.

I suppose a licensing change is a cheaper way to quick gains than any development but maybe that's the server market - less innovation, more stability hence the change of tack.

McD

Apple's been "toeing the line" for a bunch of years now. In fact, once Jobs came back, and tried to continue moving Apple in the closed fashion he, and others did before, he released that remaining proprietary wasn't working, he began a big effort to turn the company around by dropping those proprietary standards and products. Once they began to drop their proprietary standards, they began to "toe the line".

Did you prefer their special cables? Their own software standards no one else would support? HDD's with their own ROMS on board?

The fact that they gave in to their customers by allowing any old CD/DVD burner to work? That was bad?

How about OS X, which is filled with, and based on, open software, leaving their old System software behind?

Where do you want to start with this? And where do you want to end.

You have to understand good corporate policy. That means looking for a profitable customer base, and then doing what needs to be done to win them over.

Apple has ignored the 50% of the market too long. It's about time they release that and do something about it. It's the proper way to go.

It has nothing to do with "toeing the line".

Your example of Apple moving to standards (Intel, etc.) are thrown out as though they are minor changes. They are not. They are intended to move Apple's marketshare up to higher levels, and it's working.

They do have closed machines, but that's different.

They still connect to USB, which many Apple fans thought would NEVER happen. They dropped their own serial ports for that. More "toeing the line".

Companies don't want innovation in the server market. They want known values, and stability. If Apple can offer that to them, then part of the battle will be won.

The rest, they don't seem to be prepared to give in to yet, though I'm sure hoping they do, and soon!
post #33 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

They do have closed machines, but that's different.

How? At what point do you think compliance becomes significant? I think the adoption of those standards was good thing except for being standards based and standards compliant are two very different things - a bit like saying missing the bus by 20 seconds is better than 2 minutes. Macs may use the same technologies but how they are used makes all the difference - they are not 'standard' PCs and that difference hasn't been conceded. Yes they adopted USB but the wholesale approach and elimination of the old ports was very Apple and very different to the clutter that late 90's PCs had with 9-way, 25-way, PS2 & the odd USB port. Their prescriptive approach may sound harsh but customers ultimately benefited.

Apple still have their points of difference but server virtualisation isn't an example of them. I don't think for a minute that 're-inventing the server' would go down well in a conservative area of the market but I would have expected them to leverage their tried & tested server technologies such as Xgrid to provide something new. "More clients? Need a faster web server? Plug in, switch on and upgrade with zero configuration". Though I suppose that would go down as well with infrastructure divisions as 'switch to Mac desktops and let half your level 1&2 staff go!' Hardly in keeping with CIO's empire-building!

Are they learning about how to address markets or are they throwing in the towel on basic principles - have you noticed that silver boxes are really grey boxes with shiny finish?

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

How? At what point do you think compliance becomes significant? I think the adoption of those standards was good thing except for being standards based and standards compliant are two very different things - a bit like saying missing the bus by 20 seconds is better than 2 minutes. Macs may use the same technologies but how they are used makes all the difference - they are not 'standard' PCs and that difference hasn't been conceded. Yes they adopted USB but the wholesale approach and elimination of the old ports was very Apple and very different to the clutter that late 90's PCs had with 9-way, 25-way, PS2 & the odd USB port. Their prescriptive approach may sound harsh but customers ultimately benefited.

Apple still have their points of difference but server virtualisation isn't an example of them. I don't think for a minute that 're-inventing the server' would go down well in a conservative area of the market but I would have expected them to leverage their tried & tested server technologies such as Xgrid to provide something new. "More clients? Need a faster web server? Plug in, switch on and upgrade with zero configuration". Though I suppose that would go down as well with infrastructure divisions as 'switch to Mac desktops and let half your level 1&2 staff go!' Hardly in keeping with CIO's empire-building!

Are they learning about how to address markets or are they throwing in the towel on basic principles - have you noticed that silver boxes are really grey boxes with shiny finish?

McD

By closed, I mean that you can't add boards, easily change CPU's GPU's, etc.

That's different from standards. There are no standards in that area. Other companies offer machines that are closed in that way.

Based on standards, and standard compliant, are pretty much the same thing from the users standpoint.

What is a "standard PC"?

Is it one that runs Windows exclusively? Because that's the vast majority of machines out there. It's a defacto "standard". So therefore, you are right, the Mac isn't standard.

But what about the Mac Pro? What about the fact that almost no portable machines allow easy interchangeability of their internals?

As far as XGrid goes, that's very specialized. Third party software companies must rewrite their programs to work with that. Scientific programs, which it was designed for, often do support it now, as do some 3D rendering programs.

What more do you expect? It doesn't work well for web servers, or transactional machines.

I don't understand you last sentence. What have I been saying?
post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

By closed, I mean that you can't add boards, easily change CPU's GPU's, etc.

That's different from standards. There are no standards in that area. Other companies offer machines that are closed in that way.

Based on standards, and standard compliant, are pretty much the same thing from the users standpoint.

What is a "standard PC"?

Is it one that runs Windows exclusively? Because that's the vast majority of machines out there. It's a defacto "standard". So therefore, you are right, the Mac isn't standard.

But what about the Mac Pro? What about the fact that almost no portable machines allow easy interchangeability of their internals?

As far as XGrid goes, that's very specialized. Third party software companies must rewrite their programs to work with that. Scientific programs, which it was designed for, often do support it now, as do some 3D rendering programs.

What more do you expect? It doesn't work well for web servers, or transactional machines.

I don't understand you last sentence. What have I been saying?

I think the opposite on standards-based & standards-compliant. Just because WMV was based on MPEG-4/ASP doesn't help the consumer when MPEG-4 players can't play the content. Being standards based only helps developers in literal terms (aside from reduced development costs if they find their way to the consumer).

My point about Xgrid is that unspecialising it would have been an example of innovation. Factor it into OSX services & apps and you have the ability to expand a logical OS instance across multiple physical servers in the same what you can across multiple cores within a server - unvirtualisation if you will. Surely this would have answered iGuess's dilemma of expanding requirements more effectively than silo-ing apps in virtual servers up front. Wouldn't that be more like what we expect from Apple? Hence the point about whether they are really becoming another grey box, with a splash of glitter.

I'd like to see Apple do well in all their markets and bring something to them that I like about Apple in mine but concession is a two-way street and that could bring mediocrity back the other way.

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

I think the opposite on standards-based & standards-compliant. Just because WMV was based on MPEG-4/ASP doesn't help the consumer when MPEG-4 players can't play the content. Being standards based only helps developers in literal terms (aside from reduced development costs if they find their way to the consumer).

My point about Xgrid is that unspecialising it would have been an example of innovation. Factor it into OSX services & apps and you have the ability to expand a logical OS instance across multiple physical servers in the same what you can across multiple cores within a server - unvirtualisation if you will. Surely this would have answered iGuess's dilemma of expanding requirements more effectively than silo-ing apps in virtual servers up front. Wouldn't that be more like what we expect from Apple? Hence the point about whether they are really becoming another grey box, with a splash of glitter.

I'd like to see Apple do well in all their markets and bring something to them that I like about Apple in mine but concession is a two-way street and that could bring mediocrity back the other way.

McD

XGrid was specifically designed as a rendering tool. It can be used outside that box to a limited extent, but not to the extent you believe.

I really do think you are missing what is actually going on.
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

XGrid was specifically designed as a rendering tool. It can be used outside that box to a limited extent, but not to the extent you believe.

I really do think you are missing what is actually going on.

Story of my life Mel. I just never had Apple down as perpetuating status quo that's all. More reading for me I think.

Speaking of threads running elsewhere, I've had enough of this one.

Cheers & good night.

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Really? 220? You mean a business will have to add a separate 220V line draw? Gee. You have to do that if you want a washer/dryer, any useful machining, wood/metal lathes, welding and much more.

Of course, this would be a non-issue if the US was 220 to the like 90% of the world.

It costs me 1400 t go from 200W panel to a 400W panel upgrade.

If I'm buying Blade Servers I'm expecting to generate a ROI. That power upgrade will be an infrastructure expense that I'll write down or slowly disperse back into the cost of my business services.

Yes, and a few server rooms aren't provisioned for 220 power to all locations in the center. Which mean electricians to run power to where you want it. Not a big deal but a potential annoyance. Not too many wood lathes or washer/dryers in a server room either.

If you're buying blade servers you need the density. If you don't need the density you won't get an ROI over other alternatives. That's the point.
post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

As I say, I'm no server tech but the arguments above still don't seem to hold water.

Then why do you feel qualified to say it doesn't hold water?

Quote:
The point that virtualisation gives you the opportunity to build two server instances up front just in case you need to expand later & the idea that running two OS instances use less resources than one don't make sense to me.

Because it allows you to move things around later easier. Which about everyone that has been burned once by a monolithic install appreciates.

Quote:
The perceived security benefits are fine when selling hosted services but are they really necessary for a relatively secure & stable platform? Wouldn't standard user-based security be OK. The point about allocating resources seems fine but in securing resources for each instance do the virtualisation solutions fully utilise all spare/available resources?

Not just security but stability. Do virtualization solutions FULLY utilise all resources? Nope, but it provides finer grain configuration options.

Quote:
This isn't intended to sound like judgement, I'm in no way qualified to give it. However, the observation that they appear to be currying favour, albeit to improve much needed credibility in the server space, still stands.

McD

Currying favor by providing a useful feature? That sounds like anyone improving their product line is "currying favor".
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Really? 220? You mean a business will have to add a separate 220V line draw? Gee. You have to do that if you want a washer/dryer, any useful machining, wood/metal lathes, welding and much more.

220v is not normally available in a data center environment and the expense of bonded certified data center electricians is many fold higher than your garden variety garage/shop example. Furthermore, you need to consider the 220v UPS requirements which for the most part is nonexistent in the data center.

I just got a single leopard server up and running last week. I can see that maybe in a situation where a company has a couple of small departments, each with their own web masters who need complete control of the OS X system, virtualization might make sense. For our organization, a single department controls all web deployments so it is not so much of an advantage.

I have long been a proponent of multiple small servers over large multi-use deployments, so I still prefer a diverse collection of Linux, Solaris, Windows and now OS X boxes. That, to me offers the best diversification to handle any unexpected requests for specialized applications.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple frees Mac OS X Leopard Server to run in virtual machines