VMware vSphere 5 to add cloud virtualization support for Mac OS X Server

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Yeah right. They just spent a couple years in court over this and now they are going turn around and let people run it on generic hardware. I don't understand.



    Maybe:



    MacBook with Mac OS X 10.7 = $1000

    OS X 10.7 only no MacBook = $1000



    Here we go with the serial numbers and the activation BS.



    OS X isn't really any better than CentOS for 99.9% of serving tasks. I'm not sure why anyone would want to run it unless they are just Apple fans who only run Apple hardware. They are rumored to be working on a new rackmountable MacPro. This VMWare rumor sounds suspect.



    OS X Server provides more than just file sharing.



    Also, I think it is hypocritical for Mac fans to demand Mac desktops and laptops in the workplace, then turn around and dismiss the Mac IT people who would prefer to run OS X Server by telling them "well, you should know how to run Linux anyway".
  • Reply 22 of 33
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Yeah right. They just spent a couple years in court over this and now they are going turn around and let people run it on generic hardware. I don't understand.



    Maybe:



    MacBook with Mac OS X 10.7 = $1000

    OS X 10.7 only no MacBook = $1000



    Here we go with the serial numbers and the activation BS.



    OS X isn't really any better than CentOS for 99.9% of serving tasks. I'm not sure why anyone would want to run it unless they are just Apple fans who only run Apple hardware. They are rumored to be working on a new rackmountable MacPro. This VMWare rumor sounds suspect.



    In short, it's excellent.



    Of course, the iOS Ecosystem is the obvious reason people will run it, under a service warranty contract that covers from bumper to bumper their needs within the entire OS X /iOS Ecosystem in an Enterprise that has decided to deploy thousands of these iOS devices.



    Having CentOS and OS X on our back end I'll be sure to discover 10.7 and iOS Services to their fullest. I sure won't be deploying WebDAV services from CentOS to the iOS devices.
  • Reply 23 of 33
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    OS X Server provides more than just file sharing.



    Also, I think it is hypocritical for Mac fans to demand Mac desktops and laptops in the workplace, then turn around and dismiss the Mac IT people who would prefer to run OS X Server by telling them "well, you should know how to run Linux anyway".



    1) I don?t get how your first sentence addresses anything mstone stated.



    2) It?s not hypocritical for anyone to see a difference between client and server versions of OSes and their associated HW and costs for different tasks. It?s silly to expect that those that feel Mac OS X is the best option for a task should therefore think OS X Server is also the best option for a task.



    3) Apple?s business model of being the sole HW maker for their OS means it will never be ideal for the majority of client machines used in the enterprise.
  • Reply 24 of 33
    ddawson100ddawson100 Posts: 513member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by daveschroeder View Post


    (And yes, I do know a bit about this topic...)



    vSphere 5 on Mac OS hardware? Curious idea, indeed. I share your desire to see the licensing and technical tweaks to allow it on non-Apple hardware. I'd love to see the desktop version but if just the server version that's clearly a step in the right direction. I'm humbled, Dave Shroeder, by your activism and thanks a million for taking the time to create an account to post the info.
  • Reply 25 of 33
    blah64blah64 Posts: 993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Yeah right. They just spent a couple years in court over this and now they are going turn around and let people run it on generic hardware. I don't understand.



    Maybe:



    MacBook with Mac OS X 10.7 = $1000

    OS X 10.7 only no MacBook = $1000



    Here we go with the serial numbers and the activation BS.



    Nooooooooo!!



    That would be a deal-killer for me. No activated software, no how, no way. Ever. CS2 was the end of the road for me, and unless/until Adobe changes their tune on that, it's the last $ they'll ever get from me. I'll continue to use it until it doesn't run on my hardware and then switch to one of the (somewhat less-capable) competitors. Fortunately, my needs are not so sophisticated as to absolutely require Adobe tools.



    Don't even get me started on Windoze activation crap. I have no problem purchasing valid OS software, but then I hack it to avoid microsoft reaching their damn fingers into my machine. Obnoxious beyond belief.



    On the more optimistic side, activation really doesn't seem to be Apple's mindset. I hope Steve has laid down the law that writing good software is the road to success, not saddling it with bullshit hurdles that do nothing but annoy the paying masses. Fortunately, as long as OS X requires Apple hardware, there's far less reason to believe they care about activation garbage.
  • Reply 26 of 33
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 238member
    Mac OS X specific apps: Final Cut Server, Open Directory, Podcast Producer, iCal server, etc...



    FreeBSD is a better choice then Linux on the server end. Too bad Apple hasn't ported apps over.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    OS X isn't really any better than CentOS for 99.9% of serving tasks. I'm not sure why anyone would want to run it unless they are just Apple fans who only run Apple hardware. They are rumored to be working on a new rackmountable MacPro. This VMWare rumor sounds suspect.



  • Reply 27 of 33
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by daveschroeder View Post


    There is a lot of unwarranted jumping to conclusions here.



    First, vSphere 5 will only support Mac OS X Server on Apple-labeled hardware; vSphere 5 (aka ESXi) simply now runs on certain Apple hardware.



    Second, since Lion Server is now a "part" of Lion, it is not yet known whether the Lion/Lion Server EULA will allow any form of virtualization at all.



    Lastly, with the Xserve now gone, there really isn't any hardware suitable on which to even deploy this solution in an enterprise datacenter environment.



    (And yes, I do know a bit about this topic...)



    Dave,

    Your comment infers that VSphere runs on Apple hardware. I tried finding information on that at VMWare and couldn't. Is that what you're saying? If so, which Apple hardware can I install ESXi on to? I thought this was a low-level, hardware-based OS that required modifications to the server to run.
  • Reply 28 of 33
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post


    Mac OS X specific apps: Final Cut Server, Open Directory, Podcast Producer, iCal server, etc...



    FreeBSD is a better choice then Linux on the server end. Too bad Apple hasn't ported apps over.





    The Apple specific uses you mention are the the tiny fraction of a percent I allowed in my unscientific guesstimate. I can see a very small Mac centric office using iCal but most medium to large enterprise organizations are using Exchange and Outlook. Fortunately iOS work perfectly with those services. Also really big enterprise customers have a variety of servers for different tasks. I don't see them running jsp, php or Oracle on a Mac OS X Server mostly because there is no point. SAP, Oracle and other heavy weight applications are not usually supported on OS X even if you can get them to run on it.



    I like CentOS better because it has official support being an exact copy of a very well hardened version of Redhat ES. FreeBSD I view as mostly an enthusiast distro of UNIX. My second choice would be Solaris.
  • Reply 29 of 33
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    I sure won't be deploying WebDAV services from CentOS to the iOS devices.



    What sort of DAV services to you currently offer?
  • Reply 30 of 33
    Don't read too much into my post. Using publicly-available information, it can be deduced that:



    1. vSphere 5 supports Mac OS X Server 10.6 (Snow Leopard) as a guest OS.



    2. Since the EULA for Mac OS X Server 10.6 (Snow Leopard) only allows for it to be run on Apple-labeled hardware, it can be inferred that vSphere 5 itself therefore runs on Apple hardware. This is not a massive engineering undertaking, and can be done without Apple's knowledge or blessing. Of course, the death of the Xserve kills any realistic enterprise datacenter applications.



    Please also note that nothing is said about Lion/Lion Server; only Snow Leopard Server.
  • Reply 31 of 33
    ddawson100ddawson100 Posts: 513member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by daveschroeder View Post


    Don't read too much into my post. Using publicly-available information, it can be deduced that:



    1. vSphere 5 supports Mac OS X Server 10.6 (Snow Leopard) as a guest OS.



    2. Since the EULA for Mac OS X Server 10.6 (Snow Leopard) only allows for it to be run on Apple-labeled hardware, it can be inferred that vSphere 5 itself therefore runs on Apple hardware. This is not a massive engineering undertaking, and can be done without Apple's knowledge or blessing. Of course, the death of the Xserve kills any realistic enterprise datacenter applications.



    Please also note that nothing is said about Lion/Lion Server; only Snow Leopard Server.



    Interesting leak noted at virtualization.info. Frankly, nothing is final with any product until the product is released so I'm not counting on anything until it's official. Knowing the potential road map is definitely interesting.



    I'd like to see a licensing change from Apple. I can imagine it's possible that some Apple hardware meets the HCL and would meet some data center requirements (enough RAM, CPU and drives) but it's certainly risky committing to Apple on vSphere until Apple either 1) allows the flexibility of Mac on non-Mac hardware, (best) or 2) partner with VMware to certify hardware for potential vSphere customers which means non-Mac OS on Apple hardware. (acceptable)
  • Reply 32 of 33
    badtuxbadtux Posts: 40member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post


    I need to look through the Lion EULA again but I don't remember seeing any change to the requirement that even OS X Server has to be run on Apple hardware.



    My VMware rep came in and gave a talk to the company about ESXi5.0 and mentioned that this limitation was still in force until Apple decided otherwise. He said ESXi5 runs on Xserve hardware and possibly on other hardware, he didn't have the final platform list with him, but it wasn't on *all* Apple hardware, just on a select set of Apple hardware that ESXi5 had drivers for. He said that making Snow Leopard Server run on non-Apple hardware required Hackintoshing it (he didn't use that term but that's what he meant) and that VMware did not support such violations of Apple's license.



    It's all in Apple's court. If they want to officially support the ESXi virtual hardware platform, the VMware guys will be happy to accomodate them. If not... well. VMware can't *force* them to do so.



    BTW, I just have one question: Why? Linux has better performance for server tasks than MacOS because, well, it's been optimized for that, while MacOS has been optimized for UI responsiveness. That's one reason why Linux sucks as a desktop OS -- it just isn't optimized for that use, as a result its UI is clunky, slow, and has irritating pauses and delays when the OS is under any load at all. But if you want to serve a bunch of web pages or shuffle huge amounts of email from point A to point B, Linux blows MacOS out of the water on the performance tests I've seen, mostly because MacOS doesn't handle multithreading I/O on high-performance hardware as well as Linux does (it appears that MacOS single-threads disk I/O, for example, while Linux will give you one thread per Apache process when you do the VFS kernel call to grab a page out of the cache, and while fetching data from disk is pretty much single-threaded by the nature of a disk, most-used data generally ends up cached in Linux). Not to mention the disgustingly slow HFS+ filesystem... if you're streaming large files to (or from) customers, XFS makes HFS+ look like a Model T racing a modern Corvette, it was specifically designed for that application (streaming large files) and it shows.



    Which doesn't make MacOS Server a bad OS for home or small office use where its ease of administration will make it more useful than Linux for many (especially in Mac-centric environments), just makes it a poor match for the vSphere cloud concept, which is all about optimizing server tasks via server consolidation and managing server instances across a datacenter. I just don't see the point, and when I pressed my VMware rep for a use case, he didn't have one either.



    Oh yeah, regarding a new VMware Workstation/Fusion -- there was no update on that. He was focused on ESXi 5. The implication was that updates to Workstation/Fusion/Player would happen sometime after ESXi 5 is officially release because currently all of their efforts from engineering all the way to sales reps are behind the ESXi 5 release project, either getting out bugs or training on it or writing materials for marketing it or whatever. You'd think that VMware has enough thousands of employees that they could do two things at once, but apparently not...
  • Reply 33 of 33
    The vSphere 5 official stuff has confirmed what badtux said. This article raised everyone's hopes for nothing. It's just the first time vSphere has supported Apple Xserve hardware. Kind of late to the party. Very odd, considering it was already defunct.



    It should be supporting Mac Pro Servers. They've got a bit on the logic board which identifies them as a Server rather than a workstation. The Mac mini Server has one too. This is just an ID bit though. Anyone with AASP access can use the software which sets the server bit.
Sign In or Register to comment.