Curious what Apple plans to use in the new datacenter. I was pretty sure all along that it wasn't going to be xserves.
You'd be amazed at how many Mac Minis fit in 1,000,000 square feet with high ceilings. They'll just pop in a new one every time someone signs up. Your own personal cloud server. It'll be built out like a robotic tape library, of course, so it's not like someone has to actually climb a ladder to install or service your server.
But for a departmental or small business server, why do you need the rack mounting? A Mac Mini or Mac Pro server will do the job just fine.
People like you have been saying that for 20 years.
Here's a clue: desktop app developers couldn't care less about the demise of the xserve. The xserve is designed for running big databases and server functions. They are, by and large, running the same things as Linux or Unix servers. They are NOT generally running desktop apps.
Might I suggest that you learn something before posting on a topic?
You can easily remotely manage a Mini and Mini Server comes stock with RAID (can be configured as either RAID 1 or 0).
So?
What part of "Apple is not interested in that market because it has become too commoditized and doesn't value Apple's core strengths' don't you understand?
BTW, you'd be a fool to try to do that with a Mini Server. Use a Mac Pro server. It won't handle 8 hard drives or 192 GB, but it's more than adequate for most users (I'd be surprised if HP can put 8 hard drives and 192 GB into a 1U server, either, btw).
Or, for $999, you can simply have a spare Mac Mini server lying around. If it breaks, you restore with Time Machine and you're ready to go.
I have to say, I am very surprised to learn that Apple dropping a not very successful product that's always been somewhat of an orphan in their lineup variously means that they'll shortly abandon desktop OSes altogether, OS X specifically, that developers will abandon the platform entirely (?), Apple's NC server farms will replace everyone's need for servers, and, of course, the perennial favorite of trolling asshats, they'll concentrate on making "disposable consumer products" (as if the computer industry in general was noted for its preservationist, never toss anything ways).
Oh yeah, and noting that Apple seems to be faring pretty well as of late which suggests that they probably had sound business reasons for the move (in that they're not given to willy-nilly suicidal gestures of the sort being ascribed to them) means you worship Jobs and cannot conceive of him being in error, the great argumentum ad douchebagum of Apple discussion.
Or, as has been pointed out, they made a business decision that they weren't selling enough Xserves to justify the expense. We need better trolls, these ones are broken.
This isn't clear for me... Why on the hardware that is intended to work as a server there is a video card with 1Gb of RAM ???? Looks like the new server standard for installing OS
So if you are using that you would need to have some kind of video card. We have an Xserve set up in a FCS system that is just doing that.
You'd be amazed at how many Mac Minis fit in 1,000,000 square feet with high ceilings. They'll just pop in a new one every time someone signs up. Your own personal cloud server. It'll be built out like a robotic tape library, of course, so it's not like someone has to actually climb a ladder to install or service your server.
Just working with round numbers 60 million.
4 sq ft rack foot print, 10' high each shelf holds front and back = 24 Minis for a total of 240 Minis per rack. 1 million divided by 4 x 240 = 60 million
4 sq ft rack foot print, 10' high each shelf holds front and back = 24 Minis for a total of 3,224 Minis per rack. 1 million divided by 4 x 3,224 = 806 million
Exactly, and if you go, say, 15' high, you can easily fit a billion in, although, you have to leave a little room for the robots. But, still, more than enough for one Mac Mini per customer. Just think of the economies of scale they will achieve on the Mini!
Exactly, and if you go, say, 15' high, you can easily fit a billion in, although, you have to leave a little room for the robots. But, still, more than enough for one Mac Mini per customer. Just think of the economies of scale they will achieve on the Mini!
Actually my math needs some work, slight mis calculation, but it would be better with real blades and virtualization anyway, you could probably serve way more customers in the same cubic space.
For those of us who have been running Apple's XServe for years, this news, while not entirely unexpected after Apple discontinuing the XRAID in 2008, is pretty damn bad. Mac Pros and (lol) Mac Minis are not an option in the data center.
We've been having an emergency meeting about this and we've decided that playing catch up with Apple's lack of stability and Steve Jobs' mood swings all the time (Classic->OSX, PPC->Intel, Software, software, software and now this) is just not worth the cost any more and we'll be transitioning to Windows in the next two years, on the client side as well.
I'm pretty sad about this, but the plus side is that we won't have to deal with Apple's (lack of) support anymore, which sort of makes it less painful.
Exactly, and if you go, say, 15' high, you can easily fit a billion in, although, you have to leave a little room for the robots. But, still, more than enough for one Mac Mini per customer. Just think of the economies of scale they will achieve on the Mini!
Then, once they've achieved one to one parity for every customer, they announce the most ambitious distributed service ever conceived: they ship each Mini to its associated user so they can operated it right in their own home! Genius!
...not worth the cost any more and we'll be transitioning to Windows in the next two years, on the client side as well.
I'm pretty sad about this, but the plus side is that we won't have to deal with Apple's (lack of) support anymore, which sort of makes it less painful.
What kind of applications are you running? Wouldn't it be easier to stick with some unix flavor than to reinvent your whole software landscape to transition to Windows?
Actually my math needs some work, slight mis calculation, but it would be better with real blades and virtualization anyway, you could probably serve way more customers in the same cubic space.
Well, sure, but where's the fun in that, especially since there are no robots in that scenario?
Then, once they've achieved one to one parity for every customer, they announce the most ambitious distributed service ever conceived: they ship each Mini to its associated user so they can operated it right in their own home! Genius!
Boneheaded? Apple doesn't think so. And their record is pretty good since Jobs returned.
I really hoped that the Xserve would do well in the enterprise environment, but it never took off. My experience has been that the people who are running large enterprise server environments aren't likely to change. Furthermore, the value of Mac OS X Server is ease of use and ability for even non-geeks to use it effectively. That has no value at all to the geeks who run the Enterprise server rooms.
Mac OS X Server may do better in small business environments or in the departmental server market (where the rack mounted design is a negative rather than a positive). The success of the Mini server supports that.
It just doesn't look like customers were willing to buy a Mac in rack server format. Apple is smart enough to recognize that they can't win every battle.
But for a departmental or small business server, why do you need the rack mounting? A Mac Mini or Mac Pro server will do the job just fine.
The lights-out management, the dual power supplies perhaps? Let me guess, you don't know what lights-out management is, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Might I suggest that you learn something before posting on a topic?
You can easily remotely manage a Mini and Mini Server comes stock with RAID (can be configured as either RAID 1 or 0).
Oh man. RAID 0 and RAID 1 are for end users, not for data centers. Most data centers run with hybrid RAID 50 or 60 etc. We're not talking about your home office here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What part of "Apple is not interested in that market because it has become too commoditized and doesn't value Apple's core strengths' don't you understand?
I don't blame Apple for leaving a market they were competing badly in (mostly for lack of trying, IMO)). It would, however, have been nice if Apple had been a little bit more consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
BTW, you'd be a fool to try to do that with a Mini Server. Use a Mac Pro server. It won't handle 8 hard drives or 192 GB, but it's more than adequate for most users (I'd be surprised if HP can put 8 hard drives and 192 GB into a 1U server, either, btw).
You don't know how dumb you make yourself look with comments like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or, for $999, you can simply have a spare Mac Mini server lying around. If it breaks, you restore with Time Machine and you're ready to go.
Time Machine is an end user/home user backup tool. It's not something that you would use in a data center, where the requirements are at another level entirely.
Who the hell inferred anything about success in the enterprise.
I guess you're inferring that Jobs and his team make their decisions by throwing darts at a board.
No, you just dismiss the failures because of the successes, as if being successful at servers would be a bad thing.
They had a product in XServe, but never really realized it's potential. Shitty SLAs, blah hardware choices, and expensive. More of a hobby. I'm not saying they throw darts at a board, I'm saying they had a product that made people think they would evolve into the enterprise market, and failed at it.
You are saying "who cares", which I get, I just don't understand how you can say it in this thread. The thread is about the death of Xserves, Apple's only mediocre attempt at rack servers. Steve obviously knows how shitty of a job they were doing with them, and that's why they're dead.
No need to be a douche about it....I'm guessing your island is Manhattan?
Who needs servers when the Cloud thingy is coming.
How is the cloud formed again?
This is just verifying that Apple wants no part of 24x7 immediate support contracts. They want to sell simple hardware warranties, not enterprise level service contracts. Which is too bad, there is certainly money to be made in that respect.
Comments
Poor man's blade chassis.
Curious what Apple plans to use in the new datacenter. I was pretty sure all along that it wasn't going to be xserves.
You'd be amazed at how many Mac Minis fit in 1,000,000 square feet with high ceilings. They'll just pop in a new one every time someone signs up. Your own personal cloud server. It'll be built out like a robotic tape library, of course, so it's not like someone has to actually climb a ladder to install or service your server.
xserve's don't scale up
HP/Dell servers can take more hard drives and RAM. with Apple you have to buy more servers which is a lot more expensive
and profit margins are dropping on servers. the profits are in services now.
Hard drives and Ram is not scaling.
But for a departmental or small business server, why do you need the rack mounting? A Mac Mini or Mac Pro server will do the job just fine.
People like you have been saying that for 20 years.
Here's a clue: desktop app developers couldn't care less about the demise of the xserve. The xserve is designed for running big databases and server functions. They are, by and large, running the same things as Linux or Unix servers. They are NOT generally running desktop apps.
Might I suggest that you learn something before posting on a topic?
You can easily remotely manage a Mini and Mini Server comes stock with RAID (can be configured as either RAID 1 or 0).
So?
What part of "Apple is not interested in that market because it has become too commoditized and doesn't value Apple's core strengths' don't you understand?
BTW, you'd be a fool to try to do that with a Mini Server. Use a Mac Pro server. It won't handle 8 hard drives or 192 GB, but it's more than adequate for most users (I'd be surprised if HP can put 8 hard drives and 192 GB into a 1U server, either, btw).
Or, for $999, you can simply have a spare Mac Mini server lying around. If it breaks, you restore with Time Machine and you're ready to go.
Correct.
I have to say, I am very surprised to learn that Apple dropping a not very successful product that's always been somewhat of an orphan in their lineup variously means that they'll shortly abandon desktop OSes altogether, OS X specifically, that developers will abandon the platform entirely (?), Apple's NC server farms will replace everyone's need for servers, and, of course, the perennial favorite of trolling asshats, they'll concentrate on making "disposable consumer products" (as if the computer industry in general was noted for its preservationist, never toss anything ways).
Oh yeah, and noting that Apple seems to be faring pretty well as of late which suggests that they probably had sound business reasons for the move (in that they're not given to willy-nilly suicidal gestures of the sort being ascribed to them) means you worship Jobs and cannot conceive of him being in error, the great argumentum ad douchebagum of Apple discussion.
Or, as has been pointed out, they made a business decision that they weren't selling enough Xserves to justify the expense. We need better trolls, these ones are broken.
A call for better trolls
.
This isn't clear for me... Why on the hardware that is intended to work as a server there is a video card with 1Gb of RAM ???? Looks like the new server standard for installing OS
So if you are using that you would need to have some kind of video card. We have an Xserve set up in a FCS system that is just doing that.
You'd be amazed at how many Mac Minis fit in 1,000,000 square feet with high ceilings. They'll just pop in a new one every time someone signs up. Your own personal cloud server. It'll be built out like a robotic tape library, of course, so it's not like someone has to actually climb a ladder to install or service your server.
Just working with round numbers 60 million.
4 sq ft rack foot print, 10' high each shelf holds front and back = 24 Minis for a total of 240 Minis per rack. 1 million divided by 4 x 240 = 60 million
just a guess check my math
Just working with round numbers 806 million.
4 sq ft rack foot print, 10' high each shelf holds front and back = 24 Minis for a total of 3,224 Minis per rack. 1 million divided by 4 x 3,224 = 806 million
Exactly, and if you go, say, 15' high, you can easily fit a billion in, although, you have to leave a little room for the robots. But, still, more than enough for one Mac Mini per customer. Just think of the economies of scale they will achieve on the Mini!
Exactly, and if you go, say, 15' high, you can easily fit a billion in, although, you have to leave a little room for the robots. But, still, more than enough for one Mac Mini per customer. Just think of the economies of scale they will achieve on the Mini!
Actually my math needs some work, slight mis calculation, but it would be better with real blades and virtualization anyway, you could probably serve way more customers in the same cubic space.
We've been having an emergency meeting about this and we've decided that playing catch up with Apple's lack of stability and Steve Jobs' mood swings all the time (Classic->OSX, PPC->Intel, Software, software, software and now this) is just not worth the cost any more and we'll be transitioning to Windows in the next two years, on the client side as well.
I'm pretty sad about this, but the plus side is that we won't have to deal with Apple's (lack of) support anymore, which sort of makes it less painful.
Exactly, and if you go, say, 15' high, you can easily fit a billion in, although, you have to leave a little room for the robots. But, still, more than enough for one Mac Mini per customer. Just think of the economies of scale they will achieve on the Mini!
Then, once they've achieved one to one parity for every customer, they announce the most ambitious distributed service ever conceived: they ship each Mini to its associated user so they can operated it right in their own home! Genius!
...not worth the cost any more and we'll be transitioning to Windows in the next two years, on the client side as well.
I'm pretty sad about this, but the plus side is that we won't have to deal with Apple's (lack of) support anymore, which sort of makes it less painful.
What kind of applications are you running? Wouldn't it be easier to stick with some unix flavor than to reinvent your whole software landscape to transition to Windows?
Actually my math needs some work, slight mis calculation, but it would be better with real blades and virtualization anyway, you could probably serve way more customers in the same cubic space.
Well, sure, but where's the fun in that, especially since there are no robots in that scenario?
Then, once they've achieved one to one parity for every customer, they announce the most ambitious distributed service ever conceived: they ship each Mini to its associated user so they can operated it right in their own home! Genius!
Only if I get a robot, too.
Boneheaded? Apple doesn't think so. And their record is pretty good since Jobs returned.
I really hoped that the Xserve would do well in the enterprise environment, but it never took off. My experience has been that the people who are running large enterprise server environments aren't likely to change. Furthermore, the value of Mac OS X Server is ease of use and ability for even non-geeks to use it effectively. That has no value at all to the geeks who run the Enterprise server rooms.
Mac OS X Server may do better in small business environments or in the departmental server market (where the rack mounted design is a negative rather than a positive). The success of the Mini server supports that.
It just doesn't look like customers were willing to buy a Mac in rack server format. Apple is smart enough to recognize that they can't win every battle.
Has anyone told you about OpenCL?
But for a departmental or small business server, why do you need the rack mounting? A Mac Mini or Mac Pro server will do the job just fine.
The lights-out management, the dual power supplies perhaps? Let me guess, you don't know what lights-out management is, do you?
Might I suggest that you learn something before posting on a topic?
You can easily remotely manage a Mini and Mini Server comes stock with RAID (can be configured as either RAID 1 or 0).
Oh man. RAID 0 and RAID 1 are for end users, not for data centers. Most data centers run with hybrid RAID 50 or 60 etc. We're not talking about your home office here.
What part of "Apple is not interested in that market because it has become too commoditized and doesn't value Apple's core strengths' don't you understand?
I don't blame Apple for leaving a market they were competing badly in (mostly for lack of trying, IMO)). It would, however, have been nice if Apple had been a little bit more consistent.
BTW, you'd be a fool to try to do that with a Mini Server. Use a Mac Pro server. It won't handle 8 hard drives or 192 GB, but it's more than adequate for most users (I'd be surprised if HP can put 8 hard drives and 192 GB into a 1U server, either, btw).
You don't know how dumb you make yourself look with comments like that.
Or, for $999, you can simply have a spare Mac Mini server lying around. If it breaks, you restore with Time Machine and you're ready to go.
Time Machine is an end user/home user backup tool. It's not something that you would use in a data center, where the requirements are at another level entirely.
Who the hell inferred anything about success in the enterprise.
I guess you're inferring that Jobs and his team make their decisions by throwing darts at a board.
No, you just dismiss the failures because of the successes, as if being successful at servers would be a bad thing.
They had a product in XServe, but never really realized it's potential. Shitty SLAs, blah hardware choices, and expensive. More of a hobby. I'm not saying they throw darts at a board, I'm saying they had a product that made people think they would evolve into the enterprise market, and failed at it.
You are saying "who cares", which I get, I just don't understand how you can say it in this thread. The thread is about the death of Xserves, Apple's only mediocre attempt at rack servers. Steve obviously knows how shitty of a job they were doing with them, and that's why they're dead.
No need to be a douche about it....I'm guessing your island is Manhattan?
No, you just dismiss the failures because of the successes, as if being successful at servers would be a bad thing.
No need to be a douche about it....I'm guessing your island is Manhattan?
... and who is calling who names...
You're dismissed...
... and who is calling who names...
You're dismissed...
Who needs servers when the Cloud thingy is coming.
How is the cloud formed again?
This is just verifying that Apple wants no part of 24x7 immediate support contracts. They want to sell simple hardware warranties, not enterprise level service contracts. Which is too bad, there is certainly money to be made in that respect.