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

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 50
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    it's easy to configure such a UPS through APC's site.



    I guess if you want to use your own rack space for UPS. Most data centers in the US provide centralized UPS supported by diesel generators. My rack is full of servers, no room for huge UPS.



    m
  • Reply 42 of 50
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


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



    I feel qualified to make a layman's observation - as anyone is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Currying favor by providing a useful feature? That sounds like anyone improving their product line is "currying favor".



    No, currying favour by doing what everyone else does which is hardly their hallmark.



    McD
  • Reply 43 of 50
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by McDave View Post


    I feel qualified to make a layman's observation - as anyone is.



    Except that folks have explained to you the usefulness of virtualization. If you persist in saying "it doesn't hold water" with nothing more than "layman's observation" well you're simply persisting in ignorance.



    Quote:

    No, currying favour by doing what everyone else does which is hardly their hallmark.



    McD



    And it's popular and widespread because it's USEFUL. Are you saying that Apple cannot implement anything useful if it has already been implemented by someone else in the market?



    And this is a licensing change. Not a significant technical change. There is no reason not to implement a zero cost change that makes XServes more competitive with 1U servers offered by other companies. I can now make the case "Hey, instead more of these 1U Dell pizza boxes why don't we also buy a couple XServes? We can always virtualize Linux, Windows and OSX on them as needed just like on the Dells."



    Not that we virtualize all THAT much on the 1U boxes but it is helpful occasionally and was simply another barrier to entry for Apple.



    That Leopard is (or soon will be) a full fledged Unix is also a plus. Are you going to whine about that as well because Sun had a real unix before Apple? Just pandering to the unix weenies and currying favor.
  • Reply 44 of 50
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,983member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by McDave View Post


    I feel qualified to make a layman's observation - as anyone is.



    Not qualified. That's the wrong term. Either you are qualified, or you aren't. You've already stated that you aren't.



    What you can do, as most people do, is to give us notice of your FEELINGS about this. People usually do that, but then think it's an opinion, which it's not.



    Quote:

    No, currying favour by doing what everyone else does which is hardly their hallmark.



    McD



    You lack understanding of what "currying favor" means if you say that. It means that someone, or some organization, will go out of their way to do, or say something, that in itself, is not in their best interests, in order to attempt to secure "favors" later, for something that, hopefully, is.



    A business decision to make a product, or service, that will result in potential customers considering that product, or service, for which they will pay, is anything but "currying favor". It's good business practice, something which Apple does not alway manage to understand.



    You should be happy that they seem to be opening up to this, as it will only lead to a stronger company, with the ability to produce even more innovative, and risky, products in the future.



    As both a customer, and a stockholder, I applaud it. It's past due.



    Now they must take further steps.
  • Reply 45 of 50
    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.



    It's a distributed resource tool that allows systems that use distcc or LLVM to leverage CPU cycles to build distributed compiles.



    These can be Render Farms, compiling OS X, Linux, any application source code that has been designed to leverage a grid computing set up.



    It can also be used to run distributed object systems like financial systems in the wild, scientific monitoring apparatuses that include Weather patterns, various modeling products in the many engineering fields, just add a few more.
  • Reply 46 of 50
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,983member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    It's a distributed resource tool that allows systems that use distcc or LLVM to leverage CPU cycles to build distributed compiles.



    These can be Render Farms, compiling OS X, Linux, any application source code that has been designed to leverage a grid computing set up.



    It can also be used to run distributed object systems like financial systems in the wild, scientific monitoring apparatuses that include Weather patterns, various modeling products in the many engineering fields, just add a few more.



    Yes, but that's all very similar work.



    It's not good for transactional processing for example, though it could be used for that.
  • Reply 47 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    For something that's supposedly practically nonexistent, it's easy to configure such a UPS through APC's site. Most servers can take 220 as-is, but I don't think it's necessarily the same as appliance 220. I've known people that operate servers at 220 for their employer.



    Power converters would be necessary for 220 but if you look at the grid around the globe:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nd_frequencies



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...gs_and_sockets



    The US and half of South America are the one's not conforming to the 230/240 nominal power standard.



    And yet, being the biggest pigs of power consumption you'd think we'd have been interested in standardizing it across the globe.
  • Reply 48 of 50
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Power converters would be necessary for 220 but if you look at the grid around the globe:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nd_frequencies



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...gs_and_sockets



    The US and half of South America are the one's not conforming to the 230/240 nominal power standard.



    And yet, being the biggest pigs of power consumption you'd think we'd have been interested in standardizing it across the globe.



    And Japan too I believe. Blame Edison. 240/50hz isn't exactly ideal either. I believe that Tesla's experiments showed 220-240/60Hz to be best in terms of efficiency.



    I've also read that because the US was ahead of Europe (which was also 110 VDC for Edison's lighting) it was too costly to move to 220 when it was finally decided it would be better. Berlin Electric Works paid for everyone in Berlin to switch from 110 to 220 in 1899. The difference in copper made it cost effective.
  • Reply 49 of 50
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,983member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    And Japan too I believe. Blame Edison. 240/50hz isn't exactly ideal either. I believe that Tesla's experiments showed 220-240/60Hz to be best in terms of efficiency.



    I've also read that because the US was ahead of Europe (which was also 110 VDC for Edison's lighting) it was too costly to move to 220 when it was finally decided it would be better. Berlin Electric Works paid for everyone in Berlin to switch from 110 to 220 in 1899. The difference in copper made it cost effective.



    That's about right. 60Hz is much more efficient in delivering power than is 50Hz?a poor decision for Europeans.



    The difference in voltage isn't significant, that is, from 220 to 240.



    But, The US WAS the first country to become significantly electrified. One of the reasons for 110-120 was the technology of the time. The mostly oil impregnated cotton insulation that was state of the art didn't work too well at higher voltages. It would break down too quickly. Also, old switches weren't reliable, the higher voltage could arc too easily, particularly when humidity levels were low.



    Higher voltages combined with high amperage is also more dangerous, even today.



    220-240 does allow for cheaper wiring though, because when one doubles the voltage, one halves the amperage to carry the same wattage, which is the measure of power. That allows for a smaller gauge of wire, which is easier to install, and uses less copper, so it's cheaper, especially in Europe which wasn't blessed with the same good fortune the US had in ores, though we import much of it today.
  • Reply 50 of 50
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    And Japan too I believe. Blame Edison.



    Interestingly, Japan has two standards: 220 and 110. On the eastern side of the country 110v is prevalent due to the American influence after WWII however in the western part of the country, 220 is the standard due to the use of Chinese made generating equipment.



    m
Sign In or Register to comment.