One more step on the long march towards a unified OSX with iOS. Eventually iOS will be it. Lion will be the last OSX major release.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Here's an out-there hypothesis, that is almost certainly not true, but fun to think about.
If I recall correctly, it's been the case for a while now that the biggest customer for Apple Xserve is Apple itself, they use more than anyone else. That's interesting, because what is Apple doing right now? Deploying a billion dollar data centre presumably stuffed full of servers. If Apple is the biggest customer of Xserves, and Apple require a lot of servers to put in one of the biggest data centres on the planet, might that possibly be a reason for a drastically reduced supply of Xserves in the coming months? Reason enough to actually choke off the supply of Xserves to other customers? Could this discontinuation actually be a temporary glitch while Apple turn their server manufacturing clout inwards, perhaps to be resumed once the data centre is operational?
If Apple, the dictionary definition of a vertically integrated company, has expanding server needs then it seems crazy that they'd stop producing their own servers.
Food for thought.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
Just what happen if Next Mac Pro can be Rackmounted with some magic?
The most important question is what will Apple use for their Own Datacenter. They Definitely wont be using their old Xserve. A Pile a Mac Mini, or something big coming up?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson
Mein Gott. This is laughable. It appears Apple has completely given up all hope of enterprise/datacenter inroads, and is strictly going for the SMB market with the MMS and MPS. Unless they license out OS X Server, probably on a specific platform (VMware? Parallels?), this is it for OS X in the server room.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keda
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.
1. Some ignorant loud-mouth was complaining that the Mac Mini didn't have RAID. I was simply pointing out that they were wrong.
2. What part of "the Mac Mini is not meant for enterprise server farms" don't you understand? The point you keep missing is that Apple wasn't doing well in the Enterprise market because their key strengths weren't of value to the market so they dropped it.
The Mini is meant for an entirely different market and is apparently doing well.
NO ONE has ever suggested that the Mini was a replacement for large enterprise server farms (except the mindless trolls).
Of course I do. Now, please explain why you can't manage a Mini remotely.
Who ever said you could? The point I've been making repeatedly is that the departmental/small business/home server market is entirely unlike the enterprise market. Apple's offerings are great for the departmental/small business/home server market, but not for the enterprise market.
Do you get it YET?
Of course. But Theolein is too busy pretending that he's someone important or at least remotely informed on these topics to think rationally.
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:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
<snip>
12) Is it really a big deal to discontinue the XServe?
.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Specifically: How do you (within the firewall) Remote Power ON an XServe that is completely Powered OFF?
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.
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 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.
Comments
One more step on the long march towards a unified OSX with iOS. Eventually iOS will be it. Lion will be the last OSX major release.
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.
Here's an out-there hypothesis, that is almost certainly not true, but fun to think about.
If I recall correctly, it's been the case for a while now that the biggest customer for Apple Xserve is Apple itself, they use more than anyone else. That's interesting, because what is Apple doing right now? Deploying a billion dollar data centre presumably stuffed full of servers. If Apple is the biggest customer of Xserves, and Apple require a lot of servers to put in one of the biggest data centres on the planet, might that possibly be a reason for a drastically reduced supply of Xserves in the coming months? Reason enough to actually choke off the supply of Xserves to other customers? Could this discontinuation actually be a temporary glitch while Apple turn their server manufacturing clout inwards, perhaps to be resumed once the data centre is operational?
If Apple, the dictionary definition of a vertically integrated company, has expanding server needs then it seems crazy that they'd stop producing their own servers.
Food for thought.
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.
Just what happen if Next Mac Pro can be Rackmounted with some magic?
The most important question is what will Apple use for their Own Datacenter. They Definitely wont be using their old Xserve. A Pile a Mac Mini, or something big coming up?
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.
Mein Gott. This is laughable. It appears Apple has completely given up all hope of enterprise/datacenter inroads, and is strictly going for the SMB market with the MMS and MPS. Unless they license out OS X Server, probably on a specific platform (VMware? Parallels?), this is it for OS X in the server room.
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.
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.
XServe is (was) awesome.
*SIGH* the burdens of iOS/mobile success.
Naughty Apple! Naughty!
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.
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.
1. Some ignorant loud-mouth was complaining that the Mac Mini didn't have RAID. I was simply pointing out that they were wrong.
2. What part of "the Mac Mini is not meant for enterprise server farms" don't you understand? The point you keep missing is that Apple wasn't doing well in the Enterprise market because their key strengths weren't of value to the market so they dropped it.
The Mini is meant for an entirely different market and is apparently doing well.
NO ONE has ever suggested that the Mini was a replacement for large enterprise server farms (except the mindless trolls).
Of course I do. Now, please explain why you can't manage a Mini remotely.
Who ever said you could? The point I've been making repeatedly is that the departmental/small business/home server market is entirely unlike the enterprise market. Apple's offerings are great for the departmental/small business/home server market, but not for the enterprise market.
Do you get it YET?
Of course. But Theolein is too busy pretending that he's someone important or at least remotely informed on these topics to think rationally.
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/
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.
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.
.
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?
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?
.
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.
How is it done on the XServe?
.
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!
With that kind of answer, I think it is just about time to start calling you a troll.
.
It's been about 10 years since I did any heavy web development, so my limited knowledge of server farms is rusty.
<snip>
12) Is it really a big deal to discontinue the XServe?
.
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
How is it done on the XServe?
.
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.
With that kind of answer, I think it is just about time to start calling you a troll.
You (or anybody) can check my posts -- I have checked yours!
I stand on my record!
You?
.
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 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
.
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.
Specifically: How do you (within the firewall) Remote Power ON an XServe that is completely Powered OFF?
.
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.
.
.
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.
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 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.
.