On the OS level, OS X server is far superior to windows server. Windows and the Unix/Linux variants are just available in configurations to suit the client instead of the manufacturer.
Not unless there is a change in leadership or Apple actually does buy Sun.
No blades either. The xServe is a great machine, but it also shows how little Apple's current leadership understands the server market.
Hell even Cisco is getting into Blades with Project California.
Hell it's never too late to deliver that Apple homegrown iSCSI initiator.
Its funny, how this forum is full of people praising OSX server, yet every other one has threads full of admins saying how Leopard server 10.5.0 was of pre-beta quality. Nothing worked in it (except apache), and Apple completely ignored OSX server customer complaints until at least 10.5.3. And yes, I worked at an apple premium reseller, and yes, Apple forum was full of complaints. Last version I tried until I quit, was 10.5.5.
Some VERY common complaints were:
- DNS config gui would screw up the config regularly
- Software update server redownloaded all the data constantly without giving the user feedback costing businesses thousands
- Anything that used kerberos/open directory was intermittant.
- Caldav had so many problems.
- Apple Fax modem caused kernel panics on many xserve's
- RAID didn't work well either.
- Radius could have worked way awesome..... Its a pity it only worked intermittantly. So WPA Enterprise was a no-no.
None were fixed as of 10.5.3, maybe some started working a bit better 10.5.4. But Apple have proven that when push comes to shove, they would rather release server software which is totally buggy to meet deadlines, and focus on fixing bugs on OSX client, before releasing a stable server.
OSX server at the time to me seemed like a godsend, and it would have easily SH** on Windows server, had everything worked. I strongly urge any admin who is considering to set up Snow Leopard server, to wait, a few weeks, and see the feedback in the forums. Because, if history is anything to go by, Snow Leopard server may only be semi-usable by 10.6.5.
I personally, would NEVER set up another OSX server. It cost many of our clients thousands of dollars, and it should have never been released in that condition. It was NOT production ready. In fact, Windows 7 beta is more production ready then Leopard server was (and its due in 10 months)
As BenRoethig said a 1U high end server is getting to be a datacenter anathema. I rarely worked on 1U server deals even a couple of years ago. Anyone with serious needs was buying at least a 2U but often 4U quad socket servers for the RAM mating them up to their SAN and using or at least investigating vmware or something like it.
I'm certainly not hating on Apple here. In a way I wish they'd simply create smaller 1U server with some of the more power efficient Xeon 3000 sequence procs for small business owners and for the love of deity please work with Promise to deliver an affordable iSCSI NAS/SAN solution.
Apple doesn't have to create the hardware infrastructure they need to partner with some solid companies to deliver the right products. Co-opt the support and R&D.
Apple hasnt decided what the Xserve is. It's too anemic for the datacenter bread & butters, and with virtualization having taken over, we can buy a 4U server that outperforms 4 Xserves, at a much smaller initial outlay, let alone the ongoing cost of operating 4 servers. But yet it's pathetically expensive for a 1U, given what you get. I guess in a way it's a metaphor for Apple's desktop line, but that's another rant?
Also the software is really lacking. There's VMWare Workstation, which is in a class by itself. But on top of that, there's just simple things like utilities--where's BackupExec? Where's the security products? Client compliance/management? For a modern day 1U fileserver, all of these things are staples (except VMWare), but they're not available for Mac OS X Server. Not totally Apple's fault, but there's a definite lack of enthusiasm (when was the Xserve last updated even?)
Its funny, how this forum is full of people praising OSX server, yet every other one has threads full of admins saying how Leopard server 10.5.0 was of pre-beta quality. Nothing worked in it (except apache), and Apple completely ignored OSX server customer complaints until at least 10.5.3.
I think that was Leopard in general. They put most of the Mac OS X team to work on the iPhone, so it ended up being late and very buggy and took a while to correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79
Apple hasnt decided what the Xserve is. It's too anemic for the datacenter bread & butters, and with virtualization having taken over, we can buy a 4U server that outperforms 4 Xserves, at a much smaller initial outlay, let alone the ongoing cost of operating 4 servers. But yet it's pathetically expensive for a 1U, given what you get. I guess in a way it's a metaphor for Apple's desktop line, but that's another rant…
I think they've decided what it is, they just understand the market. Jobs sees things in very simple black and white terms. There's a generic consumer, a generic professional, and a generic enterprise server user.
I can't believe I forgot about that one, That has been a big issue for us, I would love to have isci included in snow leopard.
hear hear, I put my vote in for that one as well. Having iSCSI would incline me to extend our Schema & actually move our Mac home folders to an AFP share off our OS X server. We currently use the magic triangle & they sync to a windows share. It works ok but there are a lot of issues with certain file types & Apple doesn't really support the home folder sync to smb.
I use 10.4 Server and am generally happy with it. I have tons of Macs and PCs authenticating against my OD Master. But it does have its limitations. For example I cannot let certain non-administrators manage other groups like I could in 10.5.
I stayed away from 10.5 due to the fact that the OpenDirectory database was corruptable in the 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 days. Although this was fixed 10.4.3 I didn't want to go through something like that again with 10.5. Thankfully I read forums and read about some of the horrors of Leopard Server.
I don't know where to take my organization next. I'm kind of leaning toward a Windows Server 2008 solution with the script to add the Open Directory schema into the Active Directory and skip OS X Server all together...except to use the existing Xserves I have as home directory servers. We'll see.
Comments
On the OS level, OS X server is far superior to windows server. Windows and the Unix/Linux variants are just available in configurations to suit the client instead of the manufacturer.
Not unless there is a change in leadership or Apple actually does buy Sun.
No blades either. The xServe is a great machine, but it also shows how little Apple's current leadership understands the server market.
Hell even Cisco is getting into Blades with Project California.
Hell it's never too late to deliver that Apple homegrown iSCSI initiator.
There's some nice 3rd party iSCSI stuff out there
Thecus N7700 7-Bay w ZFS support
And spec wise my favorite
QNAP TS-809 8 Bay with Core2 Duo procs and iSCSI
Some VERY common complaints were:
- DNS config gui would screw up the config regularly
- Software update server redownloaded all the data constantly without giving the user feedback costing businesses thousands
- Anything that used kerberos/open directory was intermittant.
- Caldav had so many problems.
- Apple Fax modem caused kernel panics on many xserve's
- RAID didn't work well either.
- Radius could have worked way awesome..... Its a pity it only worked intermittantly. So WPA Enterprise was a no-no.
None were fixed as of 10.5.3, maybe some started working a bit better 10.5.4. But Apple have proven that when push comes to shove, they would rather release server software which is totally buggy to meet deadlines, and focus on fixing bugs on OSX client, before releasing a stable server.
OSX server at the time to me seemed like a godsend, and it would have easily SH** on Windows server, had everything worked. I strongly urge any admin who is considering to set up Snow Leopard server, to wait, a few weeks, and see the feedback in the forums. Because, if history is anything to go by, Snow Leopard server may only be semi-usable by 10.6.5.
I personally, would NEVER set up another OSX server. It cost many of our clients thousands of dollars, and it should have never been released in that condition. It was NOT production ready. In fact, Windows 7 beta is more production ready then Leopard server was (and its due in 10 months)
As BenRoethig said a 1U high end server is getting to be a datacenter anathema. I rarely worked on 1U server deals even a couple of years ago. Anyone with serious needs was buying at least a 2U but often 4U quad socket servers for the RAM mating them up to their SAN and using or at least investigating vmware or something like it.
I'm certainly not hating on Apple here. In a way I wish they'd simply create smaller 1U server with some of the more power efficient Xeon 3000 sequence procs for small business owners and for the love of deity please work with Promise to deliver an affordable iSCSI NAS/SAN solution.
Apple doesn't have to create the hardware infrastructure they need to partner with some solid companies to deliver the right products. Co-opt the support and R&D.
Apple hasnt decided what the Xserve is. It's too anemic for the datacenter bread & butters, and with virtualization having taken over, we can buy a 4U server that outperforms 4 Xserves, at a much smaller initial outlay, let alone the ongoing cost of operating 4 servers. But yet it's pathetically expensive for a 1U, given what you get. I guess in a way it's a metaphor for Apple's desktop line, but that's another rant?
Also the software is really lacking. There's VMWare Workstation, which is in a class by itself. But on top of that, there's just simple things like utilities--where's BackupExec? Where's the security products? Client compliance/management? For a modern day 1U fileserver, all of these things are staples (except VMWare), but they're not available for Mac OS X Server. Not totally Apple's fault, but there's a definite lack of enthusiasm (when was the Xserve last updated even?)
Its funny, how this forum is full of people praising OSX server, yet every other one has threads full of admins saying how Leopard server 10.5.0 was of pre-beta quality. Nothing worked in it (except apache), and Apple completely ignored OSX server customer complaints until at least 10.5.3.
I think that was Leopard in general. They put most of the Mac OS X team to work on the iPhone, so it ended up being late and very buggy and took a while to correct.
Apple hasnt decided what the Xserve is. It's too anemic for the datacenter bread & butters, and with virtualization having taken over, we can buy a 4U server that outperforms 4 Xserves, at a much smaller initial outlay, let alone the ongoing cost of operating 4 servers. But yet it's pathetically expensive for a 1U, given what you get. I guess in a way it's a metaphor for Apple's desktop line, but that's another rant…
I think they've decided what it is, they just understand the market. Jobs sees things in very simple black and white terms. There's a generic consumer, a generic professional, and a generic enterprise server user.
I can't believe I forgot about that one, That has been a big issue for us, I would love to have isci included in snow leopard.
hear hear, I put my vote in for that one as well. Having iSCSI would incline me to extend our Schema & actually move our Mac home folders to an AFP share off our OS X server. We currently use the magic triangle & they sync to a windows share. It works ok but there are a lot of issues with certain file types & Apple doesn't really support the home folder sync to smb.
I stayed away from 10.5 due to the fact that the OpenDirectory database was corruptable in the 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 days. Although this was fixed 10.4.3 I didn't want to go through something like that again with 10.5. Thankfully I read forums and read about some of the horrors of Leopard Server.
I don't know where to take my organization next. I'm kind of leaning toward a Windows Server 2008 solution with the script to add the Open Directory schema into the Active Directory and skip OS X Server all together...except to use the existing Xserves I have as home directory servers. We'll see.