Did anyone else notice the new Mac Pro configuration on the Apple Store? It's called the "Server" and comes with 2 x HD and OS X server, similar to the Mini of the same name.
Why? No GPU swap so you have to buy the kit separately for extra, no ability to drop to one Apple drive so you're wasting money on an extra terabyte.
...
Servers are about hosting and managing files, not rendering images or playing games. This new server configuration of the Mac Pro has substantially more capacity than can to added to the 1U Xserve. An extra terabyte? Wasted? How is a terabyte wasted in a server?
No it's not. I need LOM, redundant power supplies, hardware RAID & SAS support. This is all kinds of screwing our future deployments up. Xsans need 2 metadata controllers. Are we expected to use 12U of rack space? Minis have no Fiber card options, we'd have no choice but to go with Mac Pros.
This sucks.
Mark my words, next to go is Xsan if they don't have a server replacement in the wings in January.
Four bays instead of three. OOOOOH. Oh, and you can't use SSDs with the Apple RAID card.
When you could buy three terabytes in one bay for the cost of that worthless second standard drive.
Render farms were not always constructed of servers. I've built a Linux cluster out from PC parts. They ain't all that. Rack-mountable servers are an efficient way to stack processing power. Storage capacity is not much of a consideration for a render farm. OTOH, you rant and rave about SSD on a server? Not a good choice for this application.
Comments
but it is actually quite a brilliant idea IMO.
Why? No GPU swap so you have to buy the kit separately for extra, no ability to drop to one Apple drive so you're wasting money on an extra terabyte.
Horrible idea. Worthless solution to killing their last hope of gaining business ground.
Why? No GPU swap so you have to buy the kit separately for extra, no ability to drop to one Apple drive so you're wasting money on an extra terabyte.
...
Servers are about hosting and managing files, not rendering images or playing games. This new server configuration of the Mac Pro has substantially more capacity than can to added to the 1U Xserve. An extra terabyte? Wasted? How is a terabyte wasted in a server?
but it is actually quite a brilliant idea IMO.
No it's not. I need LOM, redundant power supplies, hardware RAID & SAS support. This is all kinds of screwing our future deployments up. Xsans need 2 metadata controllers. Are we expected to use 12U of rack space? Minis have no Fiber card options, we'd have no choice but to go with Mac Pros.
This sucks.
Mark my words, next to go is Xsan if they don't have a server replacement in the wings in January.
Servers are about hosting and managing files, not rendering images or playing games.
Or, you know, rendering.
This new server configuration of the Mac Pro has substantially more capacity than can to added to the 1U Xserve.
Four bays instead of three. OOOOOH. Oh, and you can't use SSDs with the Apple RAID card.
An extra terabyte? Wasted? How is a terabyte wasted in a server?
When you could buy three terabytes in one bay for the cost of that worthless second standard drive.
Or, you know, rendering.
Four bays instead of three. OOOOOH. Oh, and you can't use SSDs with the Apple RAID card.
When you could buy three terabytes in one bay for the cost of that worthless second standard drive.
Render farms were not always constructed of servers. I've built a Linux cluster out from PC parts. They ain't all that. Rack-mountable servers are an efficient way to stack processing power. Storage capacity is not much of a consideration for a render farm. OTOH, you rant and rave about SSD on a server? Not a good choice for this application.