So bravely risk being indelibly tattooed on the forehead as a troll, and courageously call to Apple's attention bugs, UI quirks, features that would improve their products, which in turn would improve the reputation of the company and their products.
Knowing that Unix is the beating heart of Mac OS X (and an important person at Apple responded to a question I posed to him by assuring me that Mac OS X IS Unix, no matter how many countless times the technology press calls it "Unix-like, but not Unix."
Leopard and Snow Leopard are UNIX 03 certified. It's Unix through and through and allowed to use the UNIX trademark.
Quote:
If you can recommend me a "primer-like" Unix book I would appreciate it.
Sorry, I learned way back when on all the old O'Reilly animal books...Unix in a Nutshell was one of the more useful ones back then. I still have the Sys V and Solaris 2.0 book from the early 90s but lost the old berkley edition from the 80s.
I was one of those unix posers though...I used xemacs instead of vi.
Having been a consultant there's a bit of OJT going on all the time. If you tell the client that you aren't an expert in something but they want you anyway for whatever reason then learning as you go is expected.
Actually OJT isn't very nice, especially when you are charged for the activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
As I said, I don't believe that any competent unix admin would have any problems figuring out SLS for a small doctor's office.
Yes it is, although the GUI is very different. But SLS isn't the topic, the Mac Mini Server is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You also seem to ignore that there are dedicated professional Apple IT consultants out there already. Apple has a web site that enables you find some in your local area.
Actually there isn't any in the area I am in, you would have to pay for quite a bit of travel to get them in (three hour drive each way)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The receptionist machine is not a home computer. Neither is the doctor's computer despite the fact it's his/her home office.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
Here is goes again...
Quote:
Okay, maybe not the receptionist since you probably don't want that machine down either but essentially you want to replace one iMac somewhere in your setup with a Mini. That might just be the machine the dentist uses at home but this is simply not a show stopper with a little planning.
The machine the dentist uses at home, wouldn't that be their home computer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Nobody I know would recommend RAID 5 for any semi-important array.
I wouldn't even use RAID 5 for my movie library because of the insane amount of time it would take to re-rip all the DVDs.
ok, you'll have to explain this to me, I have a NAS sitting beside me, I have my movie library sitting on it, I copied them off my Mac after ripping them. Why would you have to re-rip them all to copy them to a RAID array (or any redundant disc array for that matter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Given the requirements of a doctor's office RAID 1 of the primary system drives in the server and daily incremental backups of external storage drive(s) with one cold spare is lower complexity than a RAID 5 setup and just as reliable. Reconstruction of a single drive from backup to the cold spare is faster than reconstructing a RAID 5 array and easier to do.
Again, cold spare? Mac Mini Server? You seem to be introducing unneccessary risks when installing this spare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Other than using Apple gear instead of HP gear I'm not getting the luxury argument. We're looking at around $5-6K total for 3 minis, 3 iPads, 1 TC and some external drives. This is assuming that the client software is available for the iPads which isn't likely today but swapping these out for low end iMacs ups the price to around $7-8K not including software.
You seem to be fixated on an Apple v. Someone else situation, that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about running your business on a home computer, for that is what a Mac Mini is, Apple sells other options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Wanna bet the medical office software licenses cost more than $7K?
Again, not sure of your point, except it goes against your other agrument that redundancy is too expensive for a small practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
CrashPlan is automatic remote backup and restore software. For consumers it also can back up to their servers like Carbonite. We use CrashPlan Pro for our needs.
That's nice, with data limits in some parts of the world it would be a difficult solution to implement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You're pretty fixated on drive arrays and I'm not sure why. It isn't a panacea and just another tool in the tool box.
If medical imaging is a requirement then a RAID 10 or 6 array might be desired. It depends on how long it needs to be kept whether keeping the film or the digital copy is better.
Nope, I am fixated on reducing the risk of running a business on a home computer.
Yes it is, although the GUI is very different. But SLS isn't the topic, the Mac Mini Server is.
SLS is part of the topic if you want to bring up ubuntu as an alternative.
"Not sure of your point here, it would be very easy to run a medical, dental, or law office with Ubuntu, what exactly is "magically" about OS X Server that makes it better than the other options?" are your words.
Quote:
Actually there isn't any in the area I am in, you would have to pay for quite a bit of travel to get them in (three hour drive each way)
Not knowing where you live that doesn't mean much.
Quote:
Did you actually read what you wrote?
Here is goes again...
The machine the dentist uses at home, wouldn't that be their home computer?
My work MBP is currently sitting here on the desk next to me at home because...I actually do use it to do some work at home. Does it make it a home computer? No. Have you heard of the term "home office" perhaps?
Can you show me how a MBP or iMac is more of business computer than a Mac Mini Server with a RAID 1 drive configuration and running SLS? Which components (CPU, GPU, drive, etc) are more "pro" in the MBP?
Or is your position that nothing but Mac Pros and XServes are business machines?
Quote:
ok, you'll have to explain this to me, I have a NAS sitting beside me, I have my movie library sitting on it, I copied them off my Mac after ripping them. Why would you have to re-rip them all to copy them to a RAID array (or any redundant disc array for that matter)
Because a double disk failure means the data goes poof. Depending on the size of your RAID 5 array the odds become higher the more drives you use. And cheap RAID 5 solutions have a way of going tits up in annoying ways.
Even in single disk failures recovery can fail if there are read problems on the remaining disks. There's a higher chance of an unrecoverable read error on larger disks. Even on a successful rebuild you can have significant data loss. Even when the files are recovered they are often orphaned. It all depends on what the machine as doing at the time of the failure.
RAID 5 IS NOT A BACKUP STRATEGY. All it does is increase data availability in some failure modes.
Quote:
Again, cold spare? Mac Mini Server? You seem to be introducing unneccessary risks when installing this spare.
Since when is having a spare drive introducing risk? It's a risk mitigation not an an additional risk. Is the jargon confusing you? Cold spare simply means "sits around in a box without power". Even with a RAID array it is smart to have a cold spare handy so you can quickly replace the failed drive and not leave the array in a degraded state for longer than it has to be.
"Installation" is plugging it into the firewire port and the outlet...
Quote:
You seem to be fixated on an Apple v. Someone else situation, that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about running your business on a home computer, for that is what a Mac Mini is, Apple sells other options.
Apple specifically targets the mini server for small businesses.
Why you think characterizing the mini as a "home computer" is some kind of compelling argument is beyond me given that it's every bit as "pro" as a 13" MBP or iMac.
No, it's not running a Xeon processor or SAS drives. Of course there are plenty of server solutions from HP, Dell, etc that don't either. And there are enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives with the same MTTF as SAS drives.
Quote:
Again, not sure of your point, except it goes against your other agrument that redundancy is too expensive for a small practice.
Given that I have been a proponent of designing the complete system to have multiple redundancies including offsite disaster recovery I have no idea why you think that. This doesn't necessitate significant increases in cost to achieve.
The point is straightforward. You need to consider total system costs and total system risks. Simply declaring that it's not "professional" because there isn't a RAID 5 in there is simplistic.
Quote:
That's nice, with data limits in some parts of the world it would be a difficult solution to implement.
Given that the US if far behind many other countries in terms of data rates and broadband availability that isn't a compelling statement.
There are power limits in some parts of the world too and it would be a difficult to implement any solution without electricity...
Quote:
Nope, I am fixated on reducing the risk of running a business on a home computer.
And yet you think Ubuntu and unknown open source medical apps on a (presumably cheap) HP server to be a LESS risky and "very easy" alternative?
There's a little booklet that comes with the Mini Server that is actually quite rich in technical information, explaining what each setup choice means etc. I was surprised by this since Apple usually try and put the least possible stuff in the box these days.
I wouldn't honestly recommend OS X Server to a non-technical user. When I was trying to set mine up, the setup assistant crashed near the end, and I wasn't trying to do anything exotic. I am a professional programmer (not sysadmin) and I was *just* comfortable enough to get it up and running. I think a layman would be confused in short order.
SLS is part of the topic if you want to bring up ubuntu as an alternative.
"Not sure of your point here, it would be very easy to run a medical, dental, or law office with Ubuntu, what exactly is "magically" about OS X Server that makes it better than the other options?" are your words.
A question you are still to answer, what extra benefit do you get from purchasing a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Not knowing where you live that doesn't mean much.
I'll give you a hand, it increases the support costs, a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
My work MBP is currently sitting here on the desk next to me at home because...I actually do use it to do some work at home. Does it make it a home computer? No. Have you heard of the term "home office" perhaps?
So it isn't you home computer, it is your work computer, so why reference the dentists (or doctor you keep changing) computer at home, if they have two work computers, isn't this increasing costs again, that thing you said they can't afford to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Can you show me how a MBP or iMac is more of business computer than a Mac Mini Server with a RAID 1 drive configuration and running SLS? Which components (CPU, GPU, drive, etc) are more "pro" in the MBP?
I centainly wouldn't run a MBP as a server, maybe you should come back with another example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Or is your position that nothing but Mac Pros and XServes are business machines?
We aren't talking about business machines, we are talking about servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Because a double disk failure means the data goes poof. Depending on the size of your RAID 5 array the odds become higher the more drives you use. And cheap RAID 5 solutions have a way of going tits up in annoying ways.
So you are saying you need to rerip all your DVDs to have a backup copy as well? Why don't you just backup the ones off the drive array?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Even in single disk failures recovery can fail if there are read problems on the remaining disks. There's a higher chance of an unrecoverable read error on larger disks. Even on a successful rebuild you can have significant data loss. Even when the files are recovered they are often orphaned. It all depends on what the machine as doing at the time of the failure.
RAID 5 IS NOT A BACKUP STRATEGY. All it does is increase data availability in some failure modes.
RAID 1 is not a backup strategy, no RAID solution is, and no where have I said it was
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Since when is having a spare drive introducing risk? It's a risk mitigation not an an additional risk. Is the jargon confusing you? Cold spare simply means "sits around in a box without power". Even with a RAID array it is smart to have a cold spare handy so you can quickly replace the failed drive and not leave the array in a degraded state for longer than it has to be.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the drives in a Mac Mini Server are, 1. 2.5" SATA, and 2. Internal. So if you try to replace one of the internal drives isn't there a chance you could break something in the process? On my drive array at home, I just open the door and slide out the disc, replace it and slide it back in, are you saying it is that easy on a Mac Mini Server?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
"Installation" is plugging it into the firewire port and the outlet...
Just a short term solution I hope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Apple specifically targets the mini server for small businesses.
Why you think characterizing the mini as a "home computer" is some kind of compelling argument is beyond me given that it's every bit as "pro" as a 13" MBP or iMac.
You seem to be getting way off track from my original question, what is so much better with a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
See, my original question is using the same hardware, you still haven't answered what is so much better with SLS over other solutions (on the same hardware). I haven't said it was going to fail as a solution, I haven't said it was never going to work, I just said, I hope you have all the risks identified in case anything does happen
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
No, it's not running a Xeon processor or SAS drives. Of course there are plenty of server solutions from HP, Dell, etc that don't either. And there are enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives with the same MTTF as SAS drives.
So, have you upgraded those two drives in the Mac Mini Server to these enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Given that I have been a proponent of designing the complete system to have multiple redundancies including offsite disaster recovery I have no idea why you think that. This doesn't necessitate significant increases in cost to achieve.
The point is straightforward. You need to consider total system costs and total system risks. Simply declaring that it's not "professional" because there isn't a RAID 5 in there is simplistic.
Again, we go back to the original question. In fact, this is the post I responded to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They're not?
Please show me where I can get a Windows server with unlimited client licenses for less than the $999 Mini server.
I asked why it has to be Windows, and I gave an example of a Mac Mini running Ubuntu (you know the Mac Mini, it is the computer you have been going on about), I believe I gave a perfect example of a server with unlimited client support for less than US$999
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Given that the US if far behind many other countries in terms of data rates and broadband availability that isn't a compelling statement.
Considering people in the US were complaining about their broadband was going to be capped at 250GB, I have just had mine increased by 50%, now it is 30GB, so you argument isn't really compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
And yet you think Ubuntu and unknown open source medical apps on a (presumably cheap) HP server to be a LESS risky and "very easy" alternative?
Right.
No, a question was asked, I gave a factual answer, an answer which for some reason you have taken offense to. You are the one that keeps adding "HP Server" to everything, you are aware you can run Ubuntu on Macs as well? I'm running my home server at the moment on a PPC Mac Mini running Ubuntu. You have thrown together a solution, a solution you are very happy with, and a solution you are trying very hard to defend. Someone else could put together a solution just as elegant, works just as well, has the same uptime, cost the same, maybe less, yet you would walk out saying it is risky, it is no more risky than what you have done.
One advantage of running OS X server over Ubuntu is that it provides some Mac specific services to your LAN.
iCal server, Address Book server, iChat server, Time Machine backup server, Spotlight server (if the server has loads of media files this is great), Software Update server. Also if your gateway is an Apple Airport or Time Capsule it will automatically configure it for you.
But if all you want is file/print/email there's probably no advantage.
A question you are still to answer, what extra benefit do you get from purchasing a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?.
Ease of use - and support after the sale. Not to mention the ability to find it in a local retail outlet.
Whether you like it or not, the majority of people considering a Mac server are comparing it to a Windows server, not a Ubuntu server.
But, in any event, none of that is relevant. The original claim was that everything Apple sells is grossly overpriced. If we look at small form factor servers:
Apple - Mac Mini $999
Windows - $2200 PLUS cost of hardware PLUS cost of server license ($2200 covers only client licenses)
Ubuntu - Cost of hardware. Since there isn't any hardware truly equal to the Mini's form factor, you'll have to choose something significantly larger and probably lower quality (Apple consistently rates #1). But let's say it's $500.
So, of the three options, the Mac is in the middle, and closer to the bottom than to the top of the price range - completely debunking the claim that the Mac was always grossly overpriced.
A question you are still to answer, what extra benefit do you get from purchasing a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
TCO is lower based on what I see from our IT dept.
Less likely to run into a fiasco like PulseAudio or regression in video drivers (like Jaunty had with Intel drivers)
Upgrading to OSX 10.7 from 10.6 is less of a risk than upgrading to Ubuntu 12.4 LTS from 10.4 LTS (anecdotal but Ubuntu upgrades are always borked for me...Jaunty required a wipe and reinstall...and then I had to f around with xorg to get the old intrepid intel drivers again).
OSX is a desktop unix that doesn't suck. Less of a concern for a machine designated as a server.
Despite the LTS moniker, Ubuntu is not enterprise ready in comparison to SLS, RHEL or SLES.
Package/Application management insanely better in OSX than Linux...whether you compare to Synaptic, apt-get, yum, rpm, whatever.
Remote access server provides iOS device support so you can do push notifications to iphones, provide reverse proxy SSL for email and ect. - not surprisingly, iPhone/iPad support on SLS much better than Ubuntu with that and the Address Book Server and iCal server. CalDav is borked on current Ubuntus...although there are other WebDAV calendar options. Given these services work pretty much out of the box on SLS vs figuring out how to do this in Ubuntu it's much easier and more stable.
SLS isn't running in bootcamp mode...and the SLS drivers are far better than the Ubuntu drivers for the mini.
I could do more but for a real Analysis of Alternatives my rates start around $200/hr.
Quote:
I'll give you a hand, it increases the support costs, a lot.
What I meant was without knowing where you are, I can't confirm the validity of that statement.
In any case, i can say with nearly 100% certainty that the folks in backtomac's area has Mac support available in their area...
Quote:
So it isn't you home computer, it is your work computer, so why reference the dentists (or doctor you keep changing) computer at home, if they have two work computers, isn't this increasing costs again, that thing you said they can't afford to do.
Because it's a dental office but I have doctor office on the brain. Sorry....
When did I say they could or couldn't afford to do something? Yes, it's a work computer at home. Does that increase cost? It depends on whether or not that was part of the plan anyway and whether it replaces a home office machine the dentist otherwise would have anyway.
Quote:
I centainly wouldn't run a MBP as a server, maybe you should come back with another example.
Why not answer the question as oppose to dodge it? What makes a mini a "home" machine vs a "pro" or "server" machine.
Quote:
We aren't talking about business machines, we are talking about servers.
So what makes the mini server not a "real" server?
Quote:
So you are saying you need to rerip all your DVDs to have a backup copy as well? Why don't you just backup the ones off the drive array?
What I'm saying is that I don't trust RAID 5 to be reliable enough vs RAID 10.
The backup for all the ripped DVDs are the DVDs themselves...you're seriously going to back those up to another array? The only time to do this is if you don't actually have the DVDs anymore...
Quote:
RAID 1 is not a backup strategy, no RAID solution is, and no where have I said it was
So explain instead why a RAID 5 array is a desired component in a dental office?
Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the drives in a Mac Mini Server are, 1. 2.5" SATA, and 2. Internal. So if you try to replace one of the internal drives isn't there a chance you could break something in the process? On my drive array at home, I just open the door and slide out the disc, replace it and slide it back in, are you saying it is that easy on a Mac Mini Server?
Yes, replacing the internal drive is harder than your array. Replacing external firewire drives easier. You aren't booting directly from your array so you also have internal drives. A couple external FW drives is easier than managing a RAID 5 array for a small office without dedicated IT support.
The risk of damage is higher in replacing the internal drives of a mini server vs most towers (how much higher depends on which drive failed). On the other hand, nobody in a dental office should be doing either replacement anyway.
Quote:
Just a short term solution I hope?
Why? Given it's probably an exact replacement for the failed external drive you just buy another as a cold spare.
in Backtomac's scenario of booting from an external drive copy, yes, that's not optimal and you do want to replace the internal drives.
Quote:
You seem to be getting way off track from my original question, what is so much better with a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
Woah...didn't you just say in your last post that this isn't about SLS?
"But SLS isn't the topic, the Mac Mini Server is."
My list of why SLS is better than Ubuntu is above. In any case I'd not likely every deploy Ubuntu LTS as a server vs SLES or RHEL or SLS. Novel, RedHat and Apple have far greater enterprise experience than Canonical and even Apple has more of an Enterprise focus than Canonical.
Their current primary corporate focus is OEM support for netbook/laptop makers and of all the three major distros the one with a primarily desktop focus.
Quote:
See, my original question is using the same hardware, you still haven't answered what is so much better with SLS over other solutions (on the same hardware). I haven't said it was going to fail as a solution, I haven't said it was never going to work, I just said, I hope you have all the risks identified in case anything does happen
So why did you bring up RAID as a requirement in post #186? And then switching to hardware failure recovery in #189?
Quote:
So, have you upgraded those two drives in the Mac Mini Server to these enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives?
There's no real need to but it is available. Google's experience indicates consumer grade drives are pretty much fine...and given we're using a RAID 1 configuration in the mini server more than fine.
I'd probably swap them for the new hybrid drives or SSDs over "real" enterprise drives instead.
Quote:
Again, we go back to the original question. In fact, this is the post I responded to.
You also responded to other posts addressing other issues and those are what I responded to.
In any case...SLS is essentially "free" as well. Upgrading the base mini to 2.66Ghz, 500GB HDD and 4 GB ram increases the price to $1049. The HDD upgrade is a bit overpriced from Apple but not the RAM upgrade...so if you lop of the $50 delta between NewEgg and Apple's 500GB HDD you're back down to $999...
You lose the superdrive of course in the mini server but gain another drive...a wash for a server install and the MBA superdrive is $100. I'd probably buy all mini servers for desktops vs any iMacs and have one shared MBA superdrive.
Quote:
I asked why it has to be Windows, and I gave an example of a Mac Mini running Ubuntu (you know the Mac Mini, it is the computer you have been going on about), I believe I gave a perfect example of a server with unlimited client support for less than US$999
If you really think running Ubuntu in bootcamp with Ubuntu drivers on Apple hardware is lower risk than SLS...I don't know what to say.
Quote:
No, a question was asked, I gave a factual answer, an answer which for some reason you have taken offense to. You are the one that keeps adding "HP Server" to everything, you are aware you can run Ubuntu on Macs as well?
Yes, but it would be idiotic to do so vs a HP server that is cheaper and has better driver support in Ubuntu than the mini does. I was giving you the benefit of hardware that is more in line with what linux is geared to run on...given that the Proliants are CERTIFIED by Canonical for Ubuntu.
Cheaper to buy than a mini too...but I bet that the mini's TCO is still lower. Probably is based on electricity alone.
Quote:
I'm running my home server at the moment on a PPC Mac Mini running Ubuntu. You have thrown together a solution, a solution you are very happy with, and a solution you are trying very hard to defend.
So you are seriously saying that a cobbled together solution of Ubuntu on a mini is a better than SLS on a mini. Really? Based on your experience of running Ubuntu at home on your PPC mini?
Mkay.
Also are you confusing me with backtomac? I haven't deployed any SLS systems so I have no need to defend that other than for fun...but I would be far more comfortable to do so than any ubuntu solution based on my own experience with Ubuntu vs RHEL and OSX.
Quote:
Someone else could put together a solution just as elegant, works just as well, has the same uptime, cost the same, maybe less, yet you would walk out saying it is risky, it is no more risky than what you have done.
Ubuntu Server on the mini via bootcamp is elegant? Really? Mucking with grub hacks and a monitor dummy to get the mini to booting linux headless is elegant?
Risky? Sure as hell more risky vs SLS given the difference in drivers.
"Ubuntu will not work seamlessly on the new Mac mini (model MacMini3,1 with 5 USB ports). This is based on the release version of Ubuntu 10.04.
Wireless does not work right after installation, so Ethernet is needed, at least for bootstrapping. Once the system gains Internet access, it offers to install a Broadcom STA wireless driver which offers good performance. Grub 2 will get stuck and not show the boot menu about one times in five. This is uncomfortable if you're planning to use your Mini as a server that sits somewhere far away. For desktop usage, you'll probably want to install the nVidia proprietary drivers. On the open-source nouveau drivers, my screen doesn't get recognized when using mini-Display Port, but it works reasonably well when connected via the mini-DVI port. Sound doesn't work out of the box, and you'll need to hack your configuration files to get it to work (see below)."
Somehow I don't think the even newer 4 USB port mini is any better...
So far you've shown no risk in using SLS at all...and given that it's UNIX 03 certified and Apple has XServes running SLS in the enterprise I have zero reservations about using SLS on the mini for a small office.
"Ubuntu will not work seamlessly on the new Mac mini (model MacMini3,1 with 5 USB ports). This is based on the release version of Ubuntu 10.04.
Wireless does not work right after installation, so Ethernet is needed, at least for bootstrapping. Once the system gains Internet access, it offers to install a Broadcom STA wireless driver which offers good performance. Grub 2 will get stuck and not show the boot menu about one times in five. This is uncomfortable if you're planning to use your Mini as a server that sits somewhere far away. For desktop usage, you'll probably want to install the nVidia proprietary drivers. On the open-source nouveau drivers, my screen doesn't get recognized when using mini-Display Port, but it works reasonably well when connected via the mini-DVI port. Sound doesn't work out of the box, and you'll need to hack your configuration files to get it to work (see below)."
Somehow I don't think the even newer 4 USB port mini is any better...
So far you've shown no risk in using SLS at all...and given that it's UNIX 03 certified and Apple has XServes running SLS in the enterprise I have zero reservations about using SLS on the mini for a small office.
The only thing there that would matter to a server is the bootloader problem. No one cares about wireless, sound, or video on a server.
The only thing there that would matter to a server is the bootloader problem. No one cares about wireless, sound, or video on a server.
Not having your display working during setup would be "mildly annoying".
Also if you read the comments there are gnome desktop crashes, freezes that require reboots and BT keyboards not working. And there's the long known workaround of using a dongle so you can boot headless. That grub hangs 1 in 4 times is really annoying and certainly NOT ready for real use as a server.
And stating that no one cares about wireless, sound or video on a server is really lame when the OP is claiming that Ubuntu is "just as elegant" and "works just as well" on the Mini.
One advantage of running OS X server over Ubuntu is that it provides some Mac specific services to your LAN.
iCal server, Address Book server, iChat server, Time Machine backup server, Spotlight server (if the server has loads of media files this is great), Software Update server. Also if your gateway is an Apple Airport or Time Capsule it will automatically configure it for you.
But if all you want is file/print/email there's probably no advantage.
Thank you, a nice plan answer. Also, iCal server isn't a mac specific service.
Windows - $2200 PLUS cost of hardware PLUS cost of server license ($2200 covers only client licenses)
Ubuntu - Cost of hardware. Since there isn't any hardware truly equal to the Mini's form factor, you'll have to choose something significantly larger and probably lower quality (Apple consistently rates #1). But let's say it's $500.
So, of the three options, the Mac is in the middle, and closer to the bottom than to the top of the price range - completely debunking the claim that the Mac was always grossly overpriced.
This is the bit that confuses me, each time you mention Ubuntu and choosing hardware for it, you go on with a large speech about nothing, just run it on a Mac if you prefer that hardware the best, it is that simple.
TCO is lower based on what I see from our IT dept.
Less likely to run into a fiasco like PulseAudio or regression in video drivers (like Jaunty had with Intel drivers)
Upgrading to OSX 10.7 from 10.6 is less of a risk than upgrading to Ubuntu 12.4 LTS from 10.4 LTS (anecdotal but Ubuntu upgrades are always borked for me...Jaunty required a wipe and reinstall...and then I had to f around with xorg to get the old intrepid intel drivers again).
OSX is a desktop unix that doesn't suck. Less of a concern for a machine designated as a server.
Despite the LTS moniker, Ubuntu is not enterprise ready in comparison to SLS, RHEL or SLES.
Package/Application management insanely better in OSX than Linux...whether you compare to Synaptic, apt-get, yum, rpm, whatever.
Remote access server provides iOS device support so you can do push notifications to iphones, provide reverse proxy SSL for email and ect. - not surprisingly, iPhone/iPad support on SLS much better than Ubuntu with that and the Address Book Server and iCal server. CalDav is borked on current Ubuntus...although there are other WebDAV calendar options. Given these services work pretty much out of the box on SLS vs figuring out how to do this in Ubuntu it's much easier and more stable.
SLS isn't running in bootcamp mode...and the SLS drivers are far better than the Ubuntu drivers for the mini.
Thank you, a list. A couple of small times, you keep referring to enterprises, you are in a dentists office, that isn't an enterprise, and to be fair, how many enterprises run on SLS? iPhone integration, this doesn't worry me, and won't worry most people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Why not answer the question as oppose to dodge it? What makes a mini a "home" machine vs a "pro" or "server" machine.
Apple throws on that Pro word to charge more, that shows more now with only one MacBook model now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
So what makes the mini server not a "real" server?
I haven't said it isn't a real server, I said I wouldn't risk my business on it. You throw the enterprise word around quite a bit, the Mac Mini isn't an enterprise quality computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The backup for all the ripped DVDs are the DVDs themselves...you're seriously going to back those up to another array? The only time to do this is if you don't actually have the DVDs anymore...
I back up my drive array to an external disk, I find that is fine for home. Now didn't you say you did that for a business, so why would you have to backup your home array to another array?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
So explain instead why a RAID 5 array is a desired component in a dental office?
An external array is easier to access reducing risk of damage in cases of needing to replace drives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Yes, replacing the internal drive is harder than your array. Replacing external firewire drives easier. You aren't booting directly from your array so you also have internal drives. A couple external FW drives is easier than managing a RAID 5 array for a small office without dedicated IT support.
Are you mirroring across firewire drives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The risk of damage is higher in replacing the internal drives of a mini server vs most towers (how much higher depends on which drive failed). On the other hand, nobody in a dental office should be doing either replacement anyway.
All the servers I have seen with hot swap drives have been easily access from the front, didn't matter which drive dies they are all easy to access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
in Backtomac's scenario of booting from an external drive copy, yes, that's not optimal and you do want to replace the internal drives.
Are you referring to the Apple service, or something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
My list of why SLS is better than Ubuntu is above. In any case I'd not likely every deploy Ubuntu LTS as a server vs SLES or RHEL or SLS. Novel, RedHat and Apple have far greater enterprise experience than Canonical and even Apple has more of an Enterprise focus than Canonical.
I only used Ubuntu as an example to building a server for under $999, if you feel like it replace with whatever distro you feel like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
So why did you bring up RAID as a requirement in post #186? And then switching to hardware failure recovery in #189?
I didn't, I added that as an additional question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
In any case...SLS is essentially "free" as well. Upgrading the base mini to 2.66Ghz, 500GB HDD and 4 GB ram increases the price to $1049. The HDD upgrade is a bit overpriced from Apple but not the RAM upgrade...so if you lop of the $50 delta between NewEgg and Apple's 500GB HDD you're back down to $999...
You lose the superdrive of course in the mini server but gain another drive...a wash for a server install and the MBA superdrive is $100. I'd probably buy all mini servers for desktops vs any iMacs and have one shared MBA superdrive.
Sorry, all that US pricing is no good to me, or the 50% of Apple purchasers that live outside the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
If you really think running Ubuntu in bootcamp with Ubuntu drivers on Apple hardware is lower risk than SLS...I don't know what to say.
I have never said it was, I answered a question how how to build a unlimted user server for less than US$999, I answer that question, and gave the answer which would work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
So you are seriously saying that a cobbled together solution of Ubuntu on a mini is a better than SLS on a mini. Really? Based on your experience of running Ubuntu at home on your PPC mini?
No, I have never said that, that is something you have made up I'm afraid. I said it was possible, and said it because you were busy defending your cobbled together solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Ubuntu Server on the mini via bootcamp is elegant? Really? Mucking with grub hacks and a monitor dummy to get the mini to booting linux headless is elegant?
What monitor hack? My mini is headless and I did nothing to get it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Wireless does not work right after installation, so Ethernet is needed, at least for bootstrapping. Once the system gains Internet access, it offers to install a Broadcom STA wireless driver which offers good performance. Grub 2 will get stuck and not show the boot menu about one times in five. This is uncomfortable if you're planning to use your Mini as a server that sits somewhere far away. For desktop usage, you'll probably want to install the nVidia proprietary drivers. On the open-source nouveau drivers, my screen doesn't get recognized when using mini-Display Port, but it works reasonably well when connected via the mini-DVI port. Sound doesn't work out of the box, and you'll need to hack your configuration files to get it to work (see below)."
I think someone else answered this as well, but you don't need wireless on a server, you don't need video, you don't need sound
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
So far you've shown no risk in using SLS at all...and given that it's UNIX 03 certified and Apple has XServes running SLS in the enterprise I have zero reservations about using SLS on the mini for a small office.
Apple has x-serves in the enterprise, but you are talking about the Mini, and a small business, big difference. But in saying that, I don't care if you run a Mini with SLS in a business, I just hope you have identified risks and cater for them, the same thing you would need to do in an enterprise.
And stating that no one cares about wireless, sound or video on a server is really lame when the OP is claiming that Ubuntu is "just as elegant" and "works just as well" on the Mini.
This is the bit that confuses me, each time you mention Ubuntu and choosing hardware for it, you go on with a large speech about nothing, just run it on a Mac if you prefer that hardware the best, it is that simple.
The Mac mini (old & new) would not have any problems and would sell like mad were it not for one thing: the price of a display. This is its "Achilles heel." "Samson's hairdo."
The cheapest display Apple offers is $899. Apple offers a lot of third party software and hardware on both its online store and at its physical stores (though Adobe recently complained that Apple wouldn't carry Lightroom).
If Apple would only offer on its online store and in its physical stores an inexpensive flat-screen display (or two) from HP or NEC or Asus or Compaq or LG or Acer or Samsung or ViewSonic or DELL (come on now, how could selling a Dell display hurt Apple? Dell is as weak as a little girl), the total cost of a Mac mini with display would make it SO much more competitive and attractive a buying decision.
I know Apple is not known for compromising on quality, and the particular models I'm referring to may be lower quality than an Apple branded display (but I don't know; almost all have some pretty impressive specs like brightness, contrast ratio, ms refresh rates, viewing angles), and yes, the models I'm referring to are either 20" or 19", not the 24" of Apple's $899 display (but the low-end iMac's display is only 21.5"), yet these displays all offer at least full HDTV resolution and aspect ratio, and all cost $119.99 -- to you and me, but not to Apple! -- I think the Mac mini would have been, and the new Mac mini would be as hard to keep in stock as iPhone 4s and iPads.
IMHO, if Apple sold a third party display or two to be paired with the Mac mini, they may not make the same money as they would on their low-end display, the $899, 24" model, but I would venture to guess that not too many people buy a Mac mini paired with Apple's $899 display.
Those are iMac buyers.
But I theorize that through exponential unit sales volume increases, net, net, Apple would make FAR more and move more Mac minis.
Apple's offering for sale an inexpensive third party monitor would be strictly a strategic move aimed at catalyzing the sale of more Mac mini units.
If Apple could swallow its pride and lower themselves enough to suggest an inexpensive third party monitor be paired with the Mac mini, IMHO, Apple would greatly benefit.
Also, the Mac mini is among other things a strategic tool that works over the long-term for Apple. By that I mean if Apple makes precious little profit off each Mac mini, they will still have gained a customer and Mac user.
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard any complaints from Mac mini owners, so I'm inclined to think they will be satisfied customers also; and satisfied customers = loyal customers.
So the Mac mini is comparable to a long term investment with a distinct ROI sometime in the future.
So if Apple makes a slim margin on the sale of a Mac mini, but they've gained a customer -- a customer who will invest their time and energies acquiring computer skills specific to the MAC. By that fact, the likelihood increases that the next computer they buy will be a Mac -- maybe a top-of-the-line iMac. But as a necessary ingredient, it is not enough to be a customer, they must be a satisfied customer = a loyal customer = a repeat Apple customer.
Is this unreasonable?
This would be utterly impossible to do, but it would be interesting (at least to me) if there were a way to quantify how the purchase of a customer's first Mac relates to making their next purchase of a computer a Mac also -- and how many times they continue to buy Macs. Impossible, but food for thought.
BTW, I didn't intend to confine Apple products to Macs, so customer satisfaction with a Mac could translate into loyalty to Apple and a predisposition toward buying any of Apple's products.
defender
P.S. I forgot to mention: if a Mac mini owner wants a better display sometime down the road, and larger, brighter, higher resolution displays continue to plummet in price, they could always upgrade to a larger display -- which -- many months from today will still be riding the current continuum of price decline.
Heck, if they saved their pennies, maybe they might buy Apple's low-end $899, 24" display with its stereo speakers and iSight camera.
Buying an external, attached display doesn't preclude you from upgrading to a better one in the future. Elementary.
Thank you, a list. A couple of small times, you keep referring to enterprises, you are in a dentists office, that isn't an enterprise, and to be fair, how many enterprises run on SLS? iPhone integration, this doesn't worry me, and won't worry most people.
The Apple Enterprise sales group is relatively small but there are enterprise deployments. We have a large number of OSX users. You see larger deployments in education and the entertainment industry.
But here's a clue of their quiet penetration...getting UNIX certification is expensive and no one cares about it except for large enterprise users and government agencies. The small business user is a benefactor of Apple's spending to meet the requirements of large customer and the $999 mini has a world class server operating system.
Only Sun/Oracle, IBM, HP and Apple have UNIX 03 certification. in of itself it doesn't mean anything...but it does show a heavy investment in enterprise needs and reliability.
Quote:
I haven't said it isn't a real server, I said I wouldn't risk my business on it. You throw the enterprise word around quite a bit, the Mac Mini isn't an enterprise quality computer.
You keep calling it a "home computer". Yes, I use the word enterprise because in my opinion OSX is an enterprise class OS in the same league as HPUX, Solaris and AIX.
The mini server hardware is a consumer grade computer well suited for the small business user given the ease of use and administration of the OS, the low power usage and the many services OSX server provides.
Quote:
I back up my drive array to an external disk, I find that is fine for home. Now didn't you say you did that for a business, so why would you have to backup your home array to another array?
Size.
I have 1.5TB of storage that I back up to an older 1TB external. There's no real point in doing a 2TB RAID 5 setup so the smallest really worth doing is 6TB. Since you have a NAS, it sure isn't for speed.
Yes I could try to back that up to three 2TB external drives but frankly just getting a 2nd array is easier and do JBOD. But really... you don't want a 6TB (2TB x 4) RAID-5 setup. At those sizes you want at least RAID-6.
So anyone advocating RAID-5 for all small business users because "it's easier to replace the drives" really doesn't know what risks exist or how to mitigate them.
Quote:
An external array is easier to access reducing risk of damage in cases of needing to replace drives.
Except that external drives are even less risky still since no one has to handle a bare drive...
Quote:
Are you mirroring across firewire drives?
No. Time capsule and backups provide the needed redundancy. The only mirrored drives are inside the Mini itself.
Quote:
All the servers I have seen with hot swap drives have been easily access from the front, didn't matter which drive dies they are all easy to access.
You haven't seen that many servers then. Tower servers like the low end Proliants are just towers. High end blades often have two internal drives inside the blade itself.
Rack mounted 2U and 4U servers often have hot swap drive bays in the front but you don't use them in a small office because they tend to be noisier than towers, require a rack, etc.
Quote:
I only used Ubuntu as an example to building a server for under $999, if you feel like it replace with whatever distro you feel like.
Except those distros cost money and it's no longer a $999 solution. You could use centos but there's essentially no support.
Quote:
Sorry, all that US pricing is no good to me, or the 50% of Apple purchasers that live outside the US.
...
I have never said it was, I answered a question how how to build a unlimted user server for less than US$999, I answer that question, and gave the answer which would work.
Amusing...US pricing is no good to you but you continue in the next sentence with a $999 solution.
Except that you didn't provide an answer that would work for less than $999. The cheaper mini has less memory and less hard drive space. To get to the same memory and hard drive space costs MORE than $999.
Since you seem to unable to grasp this concept with $ rather than £ here are the prices from the UK Apple site:
Mini Server: 2.66Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (dual 500GB in RAID 1) - £929.00
Mini: 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (no RAID but you get a DVD drive) - £932.01
Snow Leopard Server is essentially free.
Also, no Linux distro has a decent Mac drivers as Apple only provides their drivers for Windows so your solution fails on technical merits as well.
Unless you feel a 1 in 5 failure rate in booting is acceptable...
Quote:
No, I have never said that, that is something you have made up I'm afraid. I said it was possible, and said it because you were busy defending your cobbled together solution.
Right, so you agree that Ubuntu on the mini is more risky than SLS?
Quote:
What monitor hack? My mini is headless and I did nothing to get it that way.
Your PPC Mini. Your very old PPC mini which is internally nothing like the current mini...
Quote:
I think someone else answered this as well, but you don't need wireless on a server, you don't need video, you don't need sound
Booting is kinda nice don't you think?
And the inability to have wireless, video or sound seems less elegant than "it just works". Lets face it. If you can't get something as simple as sound working you start wondering what else is silently broken.
Like running a database such as PostgreSQL is 3 times as fast on OSX than on Ubuntu because Ubuntu uses ext4 which is borked (performance wise) with current kernels and databases.
But hey, I'm sure you don't need database performance either in a server.
Quote:
Apple has x-serves in the enterprise, but you are talking about the Mini, and a small business, big difference. But in saying that, I don't care if you run a Mini with SLS in a business, I just hope you have identified risks and cater for them, the same thing you would need to do in an enterprise.
I believe that I have a better understanding of OSX and Linux than you do and I perceive the risks and TCO are lower in a SLS deployment than in a Linux deployment for a small business.
So anyone advocating RAID-5 for all small business users because "it's easier to replace the drives" really doesn't know what risks exist or how to mitigate them.
I haven't said anything about RAID-5 for a small business, I said an external drive array, there is a significant difference in those statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Except that external drives are even less risky still since no one has to handle a bare drive...
No. Time capsule and backups provide the needed redundancy. The only mirrored drives are inside the Mini itself.
So what happens when one of the internal Mini drives fail? Since you don't want anyone to "handle the bare drive" do you just go without your mirroring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You haven't seen that many servers then. Tower servers like the low end Proliants are just towers. High end blades often have two internal drives inside the blade itself.
Rack mounted 2U and 4U servers often have hot swap drive bays in the front but you don't use them in a small office because they tend to be noisier than towers, require a rack, etc.
yes, we have had tonnes of those low end proliants at places I have been, they had all been upgrade to handle hot swap drives, a small cost to add a significant support advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Except those distros cost money and it's no longer a $999 solution. You could use centos but there's essentially no support.
Everything costs money, even your free SLS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Amusing...US pricing is no good to you but you continue in the next sentence with a $999 solution.
I wasn't the one who brought up the $999 statement originally, I just answered a question as to how to get a server with unlimited client support for less than that, what part of that statement confuses you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Except that you didn't provide an answer that would work for less than $999. The cheaper mini has less memory and less hard drive space. To get to the same memory and hard drive space costs MORE than $999.
Again, you seem to be confused, the original person why asked the question didn't include references to the RAM or HDD configurations, they purely asked about unlimited client support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Since you seem to unable to grasp this concept with $ rather than £ here are the prices from the UK Apple site:
Mini Server: 2.66Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (dual 500GB in RAID 1) - £929.00
Mini: 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (no RAID but you get a DVD drive) - £932.01
Since you have trouble with the fact there are multiple countries in the world that use the $, I'm afraid the £ prices mean nothing to me. And to say again, the original question said nothing about memory or hard drives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Right, so you agree that Ubuntu on the mini is more risky than SLS?
I will agree to no such thing, I am not running Ubuntu server, or any other Linux server product on any of my Machines, I have no experience with those particular products, non I am running, or have ever run SLS on any machines, so I cannot compare the risk or running one or the other on any machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
And the inability to have wireless, video or sound seems less elegant than "it just works". Lets face it. If you can't get something as simple as sound working you start wondering what else is silently broken.
Again, wireless, sound and video are not needed for a "server", you know the thing you are going on about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
But hey, I'm sure you don't need database performance either in a server.
It depends, you don't need to be running a database on every server you own
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
I believe that I have a better understanding of OSX and Linux than you do and I perceive the risks and TCO are lower in a SLS deployment than in a Linux deployment for a small business.
You may very well do, but you still seem to be confused about the initial question, can you get a unlimited user server for less that $999, yes you can. That is a simple fact, it doesn't matter how much better, or how better SLS performs over ubuntu, or Suse, or RH or whatever, the simple fact still exists, you can do it.
Not having your display working during setup would be "mildly annoying".
Also if you read the comments there are gnome desktop crashes, freezes that require reboots and BT keyboards not working. And there's the long known workaround of using a dongle so you can boot headless. That grub hangs 1 in 4 times is really annoying and certainly NOT ready for real use as a server.
And stating that no one cares about wireless, sound or video on a server is really lame when the OP is claiming that Ubuntu is "just as elegant" and "works just as well" on the Mini.
I thought we were talking about servers. And no, no one cares about any of those things on a server.
Real servers never have monitors plugged into them, nor do they ever run any sort of desktop environment.
The bootloader problem is a killer, on that I agree. A server that can't be remotely restarted may as well go in the trash.
Comments
So bravely risk being indelibly tattooed on the forehead as a troll, and courageously call to Apple's attention bugs, UI quirks, features that would improve their products, which in turn would improve the reputation of the company and their products.
Or, look up 'Appleseed' to see if you can get in.
Knowing that Unix is the beating heart of Mac OS X (and an important person at Apple responded to a question I posed to him by assuring me that Mac OS X IS Unix, no matter how many countless times the technology press calls it "Unix-like, but not Unix."
Leopard and Snow Leopard are UNIX 03 certified. It's Unix through and through and allowed to use the UNIX trademark.
If you can recommend me a "primer-like" Unix book I would appreciate it.
Sorry, I learned way back when on all the old O'Reilly animal books...Unix in a Nutshell was one of the more useful ones back then. I still have the Sys V and Solaris 2.0 book from the early 90s but lost the old berkley edition from the 80s.
I was one of those unix posers though...I used xemacs instead of vi.
Having been a consultant there's a bit of OJT going on all the time. If you tell the client that you aren't an expert in something but they want you anyway for whatever reason then learning as you go is expected.
Actually OJT isn't very nice, especially when you are charged for the activity.
As I said, I don't believe that any competent unix admin would have any problems figuring out SLS for a small doctor's office.
Yes it is, although the GUI is very different. But SLS isn't the topic, the Mac Mini Server is.
You also seem to ignore that there are dedicated professional Apple IT consultants out there already. Apple has a web site that enables you find some in your local area.
http://consultants.apple.com/
Actually there isn't any in the area I am in, you would have to pay for quite a bit of travel to get them in (three hour drive each way)
The receptionist machine is not a home computer. Neither is the doctor's computer despite the fact it's his/her home office.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
Here is goes again...
Okay, maybe not the receptionist since you probably don't want that machine down either but essentially you want to replace one iMac somewhere in your setup with a Mini. That might just be the machine the dentist uses at home but this is simply not a show stopper with a little planning.
The machine the dentist uses at home, wouldn't that be their home computer?
Nobody I know would recommend RAID 5 for any semi-important array.
I wouldn't even use RAID 5 for my movie library because of the insane amount of time it would take to re-rip all the DVDs.
ok, you'll have to explain this to me, I have a NAS sitting beside me, I have my movie library sitting on it, I copied them off my Mac after ripping them. Why would you have to re-rip them all to copy them to a RAID array (or any redundant disc array for that matter)
Given the requirements of a doctor's office RAID 1 of the primary system drives in the server and daily incremental backups of external storage drive(s) with one cold spare is lower complexity than a RAID 5 setup and just as reliable. Reconstruction of a single drive from backup to the cold spare is faster than reconstructing a RAID 5 array and easier to do.
Again, cold spare? Mac Mini Server? You seem to be introducing unneccessary risks when installing this spare.
Other than using Apple gear instead of HP gear I'm not getting the luxury argument. We're looking at around $5-6K total for 3 minis, 3 iPads, 1 TC and some external drives. This is assuming that the client software is available for the iPads which isn't likely today but swapping these out for low end iMacs ups the price to around $7-8K not including software.
You seem to be fixated on an Apple v. Someone else situation, that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about running your business on a home computer, for that is what a Mac Mini is, Apple sells other options.
Wanna bet the medical office software licenses cost more than $7K?
Again, not sure of your point, except it goes against your other agrument that redundancy is too expensive for a small practice.
CrashPlan is automatic remote backup and restore software. For consumers it also can back up to their servers like Carbonite. We use CrashPlan Pro for our needs.
That's nice, with data limits in some parts of the world it would be a difficult solution to implement.
You're pretty fixated on drive arrays and I'm not sure why. It isn't a panacea and just another tool in the tool box.
If medical imaging is a requirement then a RAID 10 or 6 array might be desired. It depends on how long it needs to be kept whether keeping the film or the digital copy is better.
Nope, I am fixated on reducing the risk of running a business on a home computer.
Yes it is, although the GUI is very different. But SLS isn't the topic, the Mac Mini Server is.
SLS is part of the topic if you want to bring up ubuntu as an alternative.
"Not sure of your point here, it would be very easy to run a medical, dental, or law office with Ubuntu, what exactly is "magically" about OS X Server that makes it better than the other options?" are your words.
Actually there isn't any in the area I am in, you would have to pay for quite a bit of travel to get them in (three hour drive each way)
Not knowing where you live that doesn't mean much.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
Here is goes again...
The machine the dentist uses at home, wouldn't that be their home computer?
My work MBP is currently sitting here on the desk next to me at home because...I actually do use it to do some work at home. Does it make it a home computer? No. Have you heard of the term "home office" perhaps?
Can you show me how a MBP or iMac is more of business computer than a Mac Mini Server with a RAID 1 drive configuration and running SLS? Which components (CPU, GPU, drive, etc) are more "pro" in the MBP?
Or is your position that nothing but Mac Pros and XServes are business machines?
ok, you'll have to explain this to me, I have a NAS sitting beside me, I have my movie library sitting on it, I copied them off my Mac after ripping them. Why would you have to re-rip them all to copy them to a RAID array (or any redundant disc array for that matter)
Because a double disk failure means the data goes poof. Depending on the size of your RAID 5 array the odds become higher the more drives you use. And cheap RAID 5 solutions have a way of going tits up in annoying ways.
Even in single disk failures recovery can fail if there are read problems on the remaining disks. There's a higher chance of an unrecoverable read error on larger disks. Even on a successful rebuild you can have significant data loss. Even when the files are recovered they are often orphaned. It all depends on what the machine as doing at the time of the failure.
RAID 5 IS NOT A BACKUP STRATEGY. All it does is increase data availability in some failure modes.
Again, cold spare? Mac Mini Server? You seem to be introducing unneccessary risks when installing this spare.
Since when is having a spare drive introducing risk? It's a risk mitigation not an an additional risk. Is the jargon confusing you? Cold spare simply means "sits around in a box without power". Even with a RAID array it is smart to have a cold spare handy so you can quickly replace the failed drive and not leave the array in a degraded state for longer than it has to be.
"Installation" is plugging it into the firewire port and the outlet...
You seem to be fixated on an Apple v. Someone else situation, that's not what I am talking about, I am talking about running your business on a home computer, for that is what a Mac Mini is, Apple sells other options.
Apple specifically targets the mini server for small businesses.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/server/
Why you think characterizing the mini as a "home computer" is some kind of compelling argument is beyond me given that it's every bit as "pro" as a 13" MBP or iMac.
No, it's not running a Xeon processor or SAS drives. Of course there are plenty of server solutions from HP, Dell, etc that don't either. And there are enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives with the same MTTF as SAS drives.
Again, not sure of your point, except it goes against your other agrument that redundancy is too expensive for a small practice.
Given that I have been a proponent of designing the complete system to have multiple redundancies including offsite disaster recovery I have no idea why you think that. This doesn't necessitate significant increases in cost to achieve.
The point is straightforward. You need to consider total system costs and total system risks. Simply declaring that it's not "professional" because there isn't a RAID 5 in there is simplistic.
That's nice, with data limits in some parts of the world it would be a difficult solution to implement.
Given that the US if far behind many other countries in terms of data rates and broadband availability that isn't a compelling statement.
There are power limits in some parts of the world too and it would be a difficult to implement any solution without electricity...
Nope, I am fixated on reducing the risk of running a business on a home computer.
And yet you think Ubuntu and unknown open source medical apps on a (presumably cheap) HP server to be a LESS risky and "very easy" alternative?
Right.
I wouldn't honestly recommend OS X Server to a non-technical user. When I was trying to set mine up, the setup assistant crashed near the end, and I wasn't trying to do anything exotic. I am a professional programmer (not sysadmin) and I was *just* comfortable enough to get it up and running. I think a layman would be confused in short order.
SLS is part of the topic if you want to bring up ubuntu as an alternative.
"Not sure of your point here, it would be very easy to run a medical, dental, or law office with Ubuntu, what exactly is "magically" about OS X Server that makes it better than the other options?" are your words.
A question you are still to answer, what extra benefit do you get from purchasing a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
Not knowing where you live that doesn't mean much.
I'll give you a hand, it increases the support costs, a lot.
My work MBP is currently sitting here on the desk next to me at home because...I actually do use it to do some work at home. Does it make it a home computer? No. Have you heard of the term "home office" perhaps?
So it isn't you home computer, it is your work computer, so why reference the dentists (or doctor you keep changing) computer at home, if they have two work computers, isn't this increasing costs again, that thing you said they can't afford to do.
Can you show me how a MBP or iMac is more of business computer than a Mac Mini Server with a RAID 1 drive configuration and running SLS? Which components (CPU, GPU, drive, etc) are more "pro" in the MBP?
I centainly wouldn't run a MBP as a server, maybe you should come back with another example.
Or is your position that nothing but Mac Pros and XServes are business machines?
We aren't talking about business machines, we are talking about servers.
Because a double disk failure means the data goes poof. Depending on the size of your RAID 5 array the odds become higher the more drives you use. And cheap RAID 5 solutions have a way of going tits up in annoying ways.
So you are saying you need to rerip all your DVDs to have a backup copy as well? Why don't you just backup the ones off the drive array?
Even in single disk failures recovery can fail if there are read problems on the remaining disks. There's a higher chance of an unrecoverable read error on larger disks. Even on a successful rebuild you can have significant data loss. Even when the files are recovered they are often orphaned. It all depends on what the machine as doing at the time of the failure.
RAID 5 IS NOT A BACKUP STRATEGY. All it does is increase data availability in some failure modes.
RAID 1 is not a backup strategy, no RAID solution is, and no where have I said it was
Since when is having a spare drive introducing risk? It's a risk mitigation not an an additional risk. Is the jargon confusing you? Cold spare simply means "sits around in a box without power". Even with a RAID array it is smart to have a cold spare handy so you can quickly replace the failed drive and not leave the array in a degraded state for longer than it has to be.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the drives in a Mac Mini Server are, 1. 2.5" SATA, and 2. Internal. So if you try to replace one of the internal drives isn't there a chance you could break something in the process? On my drive array at home, I just open the door and slide out the disc, replace it and slide it back in, are you saying it is that easy on a Mac Mini Server?
"Installation" is plugging it into the firewire port and the outlet...
Just a short term solution I hope?
Apple specifically targets the mini server for small businesses.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/server/
Why you think characterizing the mini as a "home computer" is some kind of compelling argument is beyond me given that it's every bit as "pro" as a 13" MBP or iMac.
You seem to be getting way off track from my original question, what is so much better with a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
See, my original question is using the same hardware, you still haven't answered what is so much better with SLS over other solutions (on the same hardware). I haven't said it was going to fail as a solution, I haven't said it was never going to work, I just said, I hope you have all the risks identified in case anything does happen
No, it's not running a Xeon processor or SAS drives. Of course there are plenty of server solutions from HP, Dell, etc that don't either. And there are enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives with the same MTTF as SAS drives.
So, have you upgraded those two drives in the Mac Mini Server to these enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives?
Given that I have been a proponent of designing the complete system to have multiple redundancies including offsite disaster recovery I have no idea why you think that. This doesn't necessitate significant increases in cost to achieve.
The point is straightforward. You need to consider total system costs and total system risks. Simply declaring that it's not "professional" because there isn't a RAID 5 in there is simplistic.
Again, we go back to the original question. In fact, this is the post I responded to.
Originally Posted by jragosta
They're not?
Please show me where I can get a Windows server with unlimited client licenses for less than the $999 Mini server.
I asked why it has to be Windows, and I gave an example of a Mac Mini running Ubuntu (you know the Mac Mini, it is the computer you have been going on about), I believe I gave a perfect example of a server with unlimited client support for less than US$999
Given that the US if far behind many other countries in terms of data rates and broadband availability that isn't a compelling statement.
Considering people in the US were complaining about their broadband was going to be capped at 250GB, I have just had mine increased by 50%, now it is 30GB, so you argument isn't really compelling.
And yet you think Ubuntu and unknown open source medical apps on a (presumably cheap) HP server to be a LESS risky and "very easy" alternative?
Right.
No, a question was asked, I gave a factual answer, an answer which for some reason you have taken offense to. You are the one that keeps adding "HP Server" to everything, you are aware you can run Ubuntu on Macs as well? I'm running my home server at the moment on a PPC Mac Mini running Ubuntu. You have thrown together a solution, a solution you are very happy with, and a solution you are trying very hard to defend. Someone else could put together a solution just as elegant, works just as well, has the same uptime, cost the same, maybe less, yet you would walk out saying it is risky, it is no more risky than what you have done.
iCal server, Address Book server, iChat server, Time Machine backup server, Spotlight server (if the server has loads of media files this is great), Software Update server. Also if your gateway is an Apple Airport or Time Capsule it will automatically configure it for you.
But if all you want is file/print/email there's probably no advantage.
A question you are still to answer, what extra benefit do you get from purchasing a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?.
Ease of use - and support after the sale. Not to mention the ability to find it in a local retail outlet.
Whether you like it or not, the majority of people considering a Mac server are comparing it to a Windows server, not a Ubuntu server.
But, in any event, none of that is relevant. The original claim was that everything Apple sells is grossly overpriced. If we look at small form factor servers:
Apple - Mac Mini $999
Windows - $2200 PLUS cost of hardware PLUS cost of server license ($2200 covers only client licenses)
Ubuntu - Cost of hardware. Since there isn't any hardware truly equal to the Mini's form factor, you'll have to choose something significantly larger and probably lower quality (Apple consistently rates #1). But let's say it's $500.
So, of the three options, the Mac is in the middle, and closer to the bottom than to the top of the price range - completely debunking the claim that the Mac was always grossly overpriced.
A question you are still to answer, what extra benefit do you get from purchasing a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
- TCO is lower based on what I see from our IT dept.
- Less likely to run into a fiasco like PulseAudio or regression in video drivers (like Jaunty had with Intel drivers)
- Upgrading to OSX 10.7 from 10.6 is less of a risk than upgrading to Ubuntu 12.4 LTS from 10.4 LTS (anecdotal but Ubuntu upgrades are always borked for me...Jaunty required a wipe and reinstall...and then I had to f around with xorg to get the old intrepid intel drivers again).
- OSX is a desktop unix that doesn't suck. Less of a concern for a machine designated as a server.
- Despite the LTS moniker, Ubuntu is not enterprise ready in comparison to SLS, RHEL or SLES.
- Package/Application management insanely better in OSX than Linux...whether you compare to Synaptic, apt-get, yum, rpm, whatever.
- Remote access server provides iOS device support so you can do push notifications to iphones, provide reverse proxy SSL for email and ect. - not surprisingly, iPhone/iPad support on SLS much better than Ubuntu with that and the Address Book Server and iCal server. CalDav is borked on current Ubuntus...although there are other WebDAV calendar options. Given these services work pretty much out of the box on SLS vs figuring out how to do this in Ubuntu it's much easier and more stable.
- SLS isn't running in bootcamp mode...and the SLS drivers are far better than the Ubuntu drivers for the mini.
I could do more but for a real Analysis of Alternatives my rates start around $200/hr.I'll give you a hand, it increases the support costs, a lot.
What I meant was without knowing where you are, I can't confirm the validity of that statement.
In any case, i can say with nearly 100% certainty that the folks in backtomac's area has Mac support available in their area...
So it isn't you home computer, it is your work computer, so why reference the dentists (or doctor you keep changing) computer at home, if they have two work computers, isn't this increasing costs again, that thing you said they can't afford to do.
Because it's a dental office but I have doctor office on the brain. Sorry....
When did I say they could or couldn't afford to do something? Yes, it's a work computer at home. Does that increase cost? It depends on whether or not that was part of the plan anyway and whether it replaces a home office machine the dentist otherwise would have anyway.
I centainly wouldn't run a MBP as a server, maybe you should come back with another example.
Why not answer the question as oppose to dodge it? What makes a mini a "home" machine vs a "pro" or "server" machine.
We aren't talking about business machines, we are talking about servers.
So what makes the mini server not a "real" server?
So you are saying you need to rerip all your DVDs to have a backup copy as well? Why don't you just backup the ones off the drive array?
What I'm saying is that I don't trust RAID 5 to be reliable enough vs RAID 10.
The backup for all the ripped DVDs are the DVDs themselves...you're seriously going to back those up to another array? The only time to do this is if you don't actually have the DVDs anymore...
RAID 1 is not a backup strategy, no RAID solution is, and no where have I said it was
So explain instead why a RAID 5 array is a desired component in a dental office?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the drives in a Mac Mini Server are, 1. 2.5" SATA, and 2. Internal. So if you try to replace one of the internal drives isn't there a chance you could break something in the process? On my drive array at home, I just open the door and slide out the disc, replace it and slide it back in, are you saying it is that easy on a Mac Mini Server?
Yes, replacing the internal drive is harder than your array. Replacing external firewire drives easier. You aren't booting directly from your array so you also have internal drives. A couple external FW drives is easier than managing a RAID 5 array for a small office without dedicated IT support.
The risk of damage is higher in replacing the internal drives of a mini server vs most towers (how much higher depends on which drive failed). On the other hand, nobody in a dental office should be doing either replacement anyway.
Just a short term solution I hope?
Why? Given it's probably an exact replacement for the failed external drive you just buy another as a cold spare.
in Backtomac's scenario of booting from an external drive copy, yes, that's not optimal and you do want to replace the internal drives.
You seem to be getting way off track from my original question, what is so much better with a Mac Mini Server over a Mac Mini running Ubuntu?
Woah...didn't you just say in your last post that this isn't about SLS?
"But SLS isn't the topic, the Mac Mini Server is."
My list of why SLS is better than Ubuntu is above. In any case I'd not likely every deploy Ubuntu LTS as a server vs SLES or RHEL or SLS. Novel, RedHat and Apple have far greater enterprise experience than Canonical and even Apple has more of an Enterprise focus than Canonical.
Their current primary corporate focus is OEM support for netbook/laptop makers and of all the three major distros the one with a primarily desktop focus.
See, my original question is using the same hardware, you still haven't answered what is so much better with SLS over other solutions (on the same hardware). I haven't said it was going to fail as a solution, I haven't said it was never going to work, I just said, I hope you have all the risks identified in case anything does happen
So why did you bring up RAID as a requirement in post #186? And then switching to hardware failure recovery in #189?
So, have you upgraded those two drives in the Mac Mini Server to these enterprise class 2.5" SATA drives?
There's no real need to but it is available. Google's experience indicates consumer grade drives are pretty much fine...and given we're using a RAID 1 configuration in the mini server more than fine.
I'd probably swap them for the new hybrid drives or SSDs over "real" enterprise drives instead.
Again, we go back to the original question. In fact, this is the post I responded to.
You also responded to other posts addressing other issues and those are what I responded to.
In any case...SLS is essentially "free" as well. Upgrading the base mini to 2.66Ghz, 500GB HDD and 4 GB ram increases the price to $1049. The HDD upgrade is a bit overpriced from Apple but not the RAM upgrade...so if you lop of the $50 delta between NewEgg and Apple's 500GB HDD you're back down to $999...
You lose the superdrive of course in the mini server but gain another drive...a wash for a server install and the MBA superdrive is $100. I'd probably buy all mini servers for desktops vs any iMacs and have one shared MBA superdrive.
I asked why it has to be Windows, and I gave an example of a Mac Mini running Ubuntu (you know the Mac Mini, it is the computer you have been going on about), I believe I gave a perfect example of a server with unlimited client support for less than US$999
If you really think running Ubuntu in bootcamp with Ubuntu drivers on Apple hardware is lower risk than SLS...I don't know what to say.
No, a question was asked, I gave a factual answer, an answer which for some reason you have taken offense to. You are the one that keeps adding "HP Server" to everything, you are aware you can run Ubuntu on Macs as well?
Yes, but it would be idiotic to do so vs a HP server that is cheaper and has better driver support in Ubuntu than the mini does. I was giving you the benefit of hardware that is more in line with what linux is geared to run on...given that the Proliants are CERTIFIED by Canonical for Ubuntu.
Cheaper to buy than a mini too...but I bet that the mini's TCO is still lower. Probably is based on electricity alone.
I'm running my home server at the moment on a PPC Mac Mini running Ubuntu. You have thrown together a solution, a solution you are very happy with, and a solution you are trying very hard to defend.
So you are seriously saying that a cobbled together solution of Ubuntu on a mini is a better than SLS on a mini. Really? Based on your experience of running Ubuntu at home on your PPC mini?
Mkay.
Also are you confusing me with backtomac? I haven't deployed any SLS systems so I have no need to defend that other than for fun...but I would be far more comfortable to do so than any ubuntu solution based on my own experience with Ubuntu vs RHEL and OSX.
Someone else could put together a solution just as elegant, works just as well, has the same uptime, cost the same, maybe less, yet you would walk out saying it is risky, it is no more risky than what you have done.
Ubuntu Server on the mini via bootcamp is elegant? Really? Mucking with grub hacks and a monitor dummy to get the mini to booting linux headless is elegant?
Risky? Sure as hell more risky vs SLS given the difference in drivers.
Look here for warnings for Ubuntu 10.4 on mini:
http://blog.costan.us/2009/03/ubuntu...-mac-mini.html
"Ubuntu will not work seamlessly on the new Mac mini (model MacMini3,1 with 5 USB ports). This is based on the release version of Ubuntu 10.04.
Wireless does not work right after installation, so Ethernet is needed, at least for bootstrapping. Once the system gains Internet access, it offers to install a Broadcom STA wireless driver which offers good performance. Grub 2 will get stuck and not show the boot menu about one times in five. This is uncomfortable if you're planning to use your Mini as a server that sits somewhere far away. For desktop usage, you'll probably want to install the nVidia proprietary drivers. On the open-source nouveau drivers, my screen doesn't get recognized when using mini-Display Port, but it works reasonably well when connected via the mini-DVI port. Sound doesn't work out of the box, and you'll need to hack your configuration files to get it to work (see below)."
Somehow I don't think the even newer 4 USB port mini is any better...
So far you've shown no risk in using SLS at all...and given that it's UNIX 03 certified and Apple has XServes running SLS in the enterprise I have zero reservations about using SLS on the mini for a small office.
"Ubuntu will not work seamlessly on the new Mac mini (model MacMini3,1 with 5 USB ports). This is based on the release version of Ubuntu 10.04.
Wireless does not work right after installation, so Ethernet is needed, at least for bootstrapping. Once the system gains Internet access, it offers to install a Broadcom STA wireless driver which offers good performance. Grub 2 will get stuck and not show the boot menu about one times in five. This is uncomfortable if you're planning to use your Mini as a server that sits somewhere far away. For desktop usage, you'll probably want to install the nVidia proprietary drivers. On the open-source nouveau drivers, my screen doesn't get recognized when using mini-Display Port, but it works reasonably well when connected via the mini-DVI port. Sound doesn't work out of the box, and you'll need to hack your configuration files to get it to work (see below)."
Somehow I don't think the even newer 4 USB port mini is any better...
So far you've shown no risk in using SLS at all...and given that it's UNIX 03 certified and Apple has XServes running SLS in the enterprise I have zero reservations about using SLS on the mini for a small office.
The only thing there that would matter to a server is the bootloader problem. No one cares about wireless, sound, or video on a server.
The only thing there that would matter to a server is the bootloader problem. No one cares about wireless, sound, or video on a server.
Not having your display working during setup would be "mildly annoying".
Also if you read the comments there are gnome desktop crashes, freezes that require reboots and BT keyboards not working. And there's the long known workaround of using a dongle so you can boot headless. That grub hangs 1 in 4 times is really annoying and certainly NOT ready for real use as a server.
And stating that no one cares about wireless, sound or video on a server is really lame when the OP is claiming that Ubuntu is "just as elegant" and "works just as well" on the Mini.
One advantage of running OS X server over Ubuntu is that it provides some Mac specific services to your LAN.
iCal server, Address Book server, iChat server, Time Machine backup server, Spotlight server (if the server has loads of media files this is great), Software Update server. Also if your gateway is an Apple Airport or Time Capsule it will automatically configure it for you.
But if all you want is file/print/email there's probably no advantage.
Thank you, a nice plan answer. Also, iCal server isn't a mac specific service.
Apple - Mac Mini $999
Windows - $2200 PLUS cost of hardware PLUS cost of server license ($2200 covers only client licenses)
Ubuntu - Cost of hardware. Since there isn't any hardware truly equal to the Mini's form factor, you'll have to choose something significantly larger and probably lower quality (Apple consistently rates #1). But let's say it's $500.
So, of the three options, the Mac is in the middle, and closer to the bottom than to the top of the price range - completely debunking the claim that the Mac was always grossly overpriced.
This is the bit that confuses me, each time you mention Ubuntu and choosing hardware for it, you go on with a large speech about nothing, just run it on a Mac if you prefer that hardware the best, it is that simple.
Thank you, a list. A couple of small times, you keep referring to enterprises, you are in a dentists office, that isn't an enterprise, and to be fair, how many enterprises run on SLS? iPhone integration, this doesn't worry me, and won't worry most people.
Why not answer the question as oppose to dodge it? What makes a mini a "home" machine vs a "pro" or "server" machine.
Apple throws on that Pro word to charge more, that shows more now with only one MacBook model now.
So what makes the mini server not a "real" server?
I haven't said it isn't a real server, I said I wouldn't risk my business on it. You throw the enterprise word around quite a bit, the Mac Mini isn't an enterprise quality computer.
The backup for all the ripped DVDs are the DVDs themselves...you're seriously going to back those up to another array? The only time to do this is if you don't actually have the DVDs anymore...
I back up my drive array to an external disk, I find that is fine for home. Now didn't you say you did that for a business, so why would you have to backup your home array to another array?
So explain instead why a RAID 5 array is a desired component in a dental office?
An external array is easier to access reducing risk of damage in cases of needing to replace drives.
Yes, replacing the internal drive is harder than your array. Replacing external firewire drives easier. You aren't booting directly from your array so you also have internal drives. A couple external FW drives is easier than managing a RAID 5 array for a small office without dedicated IT support.
Are you mirroring across firewire drives?
The risk of damage is higher in replacing the internal drives of a mini server vs most towers (how much higher depends on which drive failed). On the other hand, nobody in a dental office should be doing either replacement anyway.
All the servers I have seen with hot swap drives have been easily access from the front, didn't matter which drive dies they are all easy to access.
in Backtomac's scenario of booting from an external drive copy, yes, that's not optimal and you do want to replace the internal drives.
Are you referring to the Apple service, or something else?
My list of why SLS is better than Ubuntu is above. In any case I'd not likely every deploy Ubuntu LTS as a server vs SLES or RHEL or SLS. Novel, RedHat and Apple have far greater enterprise experience than Canonical and even Apple has more of an Enterprise focus than Canonical.
I only used Ubuntu as an example to building a server for under $999, if you feel like it replace with whatever distro you feel like.
So why did you bring up RAID as a requirement in post #186? And then switching to hardware failure recovery in #189?
I didn't, I added that as an additional question.
In any case...SLS is essentially "free" as well. Upgrading the base mini to 2.66Ghz, 500GB HDD and 4 GB ram increases the price to $1049. The HDD upgrade is a bit overpriced from Apple but not the RAM upgrade...so if you lop of the $50 delta between NewEgg and Apple's 500GB HDD you're back down to $999...
You lose the superdrive of course in the mini server but gain another drive...a wash for a server install and the MBA superdrive is $100. I'd probably buy all mini servers for desktops vs any iMacs and have one shared MBA superdrive.
Sorry, all that US pricing is no good to me, or the 50% of Apple purchasers that live outside the US.
If you really think running Ubuntu in bootcamp with Ubuntu drivers on Apple hardware is lower risk than SLS...I don't know what to say.
I have never said it was, I answered a question how how to build a unlimted user server for less than US$999, I answer that question, and gave the answer which would work.
So you are seriously saying that a cobbled together solution of Ubuntu on a mini is a better than SLS on a mini. Really? Based on your experience of running Ubuntu at home on your PPC mini?
No, I have never said that, that is something you have made up I'm afraid. I said it was possible, and said it because you were busy defending your cobbled together solution.
Ubuntu Server on the mini via bootcamp is elegant? Really? Mucking with grub hacks and a monitor dummy to get the mini to booting linux headless is elegant?
What monitor hack? My mini is headless and I did nothing to get it that way.
Wireless does not work right after installation, so Ethernet is needed, at least for bootstrapping. Once the system gains Internet access, it offers to install a Broadcom STA wireless driver which offers good performance. Grub 2 will get stuck and not show the boot menu about one times in five. This is uncomfortable if you're planning to use your Mini as a server that sits somewhere far away. For desktop usage, you'll probably want to install the nVidia proprietary drivers. On the open-source nouveau drivers, my screen doesn't get recognized when using mini-Display Port, but it works reasonably well when connected via the mini-DVI port. Sound doesn't work out of the box, and you'll need to hack your configuration files to get it to work (see below)."
I think someone else answered this as well, but you don't need wireless on a server, you don't need video, you don't need sound
So far you've shown no risk in using SLS at all...and given that it's UNIX 03 certified and Apple has XServes running SLS in the enterprise I have zero reservations about using SLS on the mini for a small office.
Apple has x-serves in the enterprise, but you are talking about the Mini, and a small business, big difference. But in saying that, I don't care if you run a Mini with SLS in a business, I just hope you have identified risks and cater for them, the same thing you would need to do in an enterprise.
And stating that no one cares about wireless, sound or video on a server is really lame when the OP is claiming that Ubuntu is "just as elegant" and "works just as well" on the Mini.
I never said anything like that.
This is the bit that confuses me, each time you mention Ubuntu and choosing hardware for it, you go on with a large speech about nothing, just run it on a Mac if you prefer that hardware the best, it is that simple.
The Mac mini (old & new) would not have any problems and would sell like mad were it not for one thing: the price of a display. This is its "Achilles heel." "Samson's hairdo."
The cheapest display Apple offers is $899. Apple offers a lot of third party software and hardware on both its online store and at its physical stores (though Adobe recently complained that Apple wouldn't carry Lightroom).
If Apple would only offer on its online store and in its physical stores an inexpensive flat-screen display (or two) from HP or NEC or Asus or Compaq or LG or Acer or Samsung or ViewSonic or DELL (come on now, how could selling a Dell display hurt Apple? Dell is as weak as a little girl), the total cost of a Mac mini with display would make it SO much more competitive and attractive a buying decision.
I know Apple is not known for compromising on quality, and the particular models I'm referring to may be lower quality than an Apple branded display (but I don't know; almost all have some pretty impressive specs like brightness, contrast ratio, ms refresh rates, viewing angles), and yes, the models I'm referring to are either 20" or 19", not the 24" of Apple's $899 display (but the low-end iMac's display is only 21.5"), yet these displays all offer at least full HDTV resolution and aspect ratio, and all cost $119.99 -- to you and me, but not to Apple! -- I think the Mac mini would have been, and the new Mac mini would be as hard to keep in stock as iPhone 4s and iPads.
IMHO, if Apple sold a third party display or two to be paired with the Mac mini, they may not make the same money as they would on their low-end display, the $899, 24" model, but I would venture to guess that not too many people buy a Mac mini paired with Apple's $899 display.
Those are iMac buyers.
But I theorize that through exponential unit sales volume increases, net, net, Apple would make FAR more and move more Mac minis.
Apple's offering for sale an inexpensive third party monitor would be strictly a strategic move aimed at catalyzing the sale of more Mac mini units.
If Apple could swallow its pride and lower themselves enough to suggest an inexpensive third party monitor be paired with the Mac mini, IMHO, Apple would greatly benefit.
Also, the Mac mini is among other things a strategic tool that works over the long-term for Apple. By that I mean if Apple makes precious little profit off each Mac mini, they will still have gained a customer and Mac user.
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard any complaints from Mac mini owners, so I'm inclined to think they will be satisfied customers also; and satisfied customers = loyal customers.
So the Mac mini is comparable to a long term investment with a distinct ROI sometime in the future.
So if Apple makes a slim margin on the sale of a Mac mini, but they've gained a customer -- a customer who will invest their time and energies acquiring computer skills specific to the MAC. By that fact, the likelihood increases that the next computer they buy will be a Mac -- maybe a top-of-the-line iMac. But as a necessary ingredient, it is not enough to be a customer, they must be a satisfied customer = a loyal customer = a repeat Apple customer.
Is this unreasonable?
This would be utterly impossible to do, but it would be interesting (at least to me) if there were a way to quantify how the purchase of a customer's first Mac relates to making their next purchase of a computer a Mac also -- and how many times they continue to buy Macs. Impossible, but food for thought.
BTW, I didn't intend to confine Apple products to Macs, so customer satisfaction with a Mac could translate into loyalty to Apple and a predisposition toward buying any of Apple's products.
defender
P.S. I forgot to mention: if a Mac mini owner wants a better display sometime down the road, and larger, brighter, higher resolution displays continue to plummet in price, they could always upgrade to a larger display -- which -- many months from today will still be riding the current continuum of price decline.
Heck, if they saved their pennies, maybe they might buy Apple's low-end $899, 24" display with its stereo speakers and iSight camera.
Buying an external, attached display doesn't preclude you from upgrading to a better one in the future. Elementary.
Viva Mac!
Thank you, a list. A couple of small times, you keep referring to enterprises, you are in a dentists office, that isn't an enterprise, and to be fair, how many enterprises run on SLS? iPhone integration, this doesn't worry me, and won't worry most people.
The Apple Enterprise sales group is relatively small but there are enterprise deployments. We have a large number of OSX users. You see larger deployments in education and the entertainment industry.
But here's a clue of their quiet penetration...getting UNIX certification is expensive and no one cares about it except for large enterprise users and government agencies. The small business user is a benefactor of Apple's spending to meet the requirements of large customer and the $999 mini has a world class server operating system.
Only Sun/Oracle, IBM, HP and Apple have UNIX 03 certification. in of itself it doesn't mean anything...but it does show a heavy investment in enterprise needs and reliability.
I haven't said it isn't a real server, I said I wouldn't risk my business on it. You throw the enterprise word around quite a bit, the Mac Mini isn't an enterprise quality computer.
You keep calling it a "home computer". Yes, I use the word enterprise because in my opinion OSX is an enterprise class OS in the same league as HPUX, Solaris and AIX.
The mini server hardware is a consumer grade computer well suited for the small business user given the ease of use and administration of the OS, the low power usage and the many services OSX server provides.
I back up my drive array to an external disk, I find that is fine for home. Now didn't you say you did that for a business, so why would you have to backup your home array to another array?
Size.
I have 1.5TB of storage that I back up to an older 1TB external. There's no real point in doing a 2TB RAID 5 setup so the smallest really worth doing is 6TB. Since you have a NAS, it sure isn't for speed.
Yes I could try to back that up to three 2TB external drives but frankly just getting a 2nd array is easier and do JBOD. But really... you don't want a 6TB (2TB x 4) RAID-5 setup. At those sizes you want at least RAID-6.
So anyone advocating RAID-5 for all small business users because "it's easier to replace the drives" really doesn't know what risks exist or how to mitigate them.
An external array is easier to access reducing risk of damage in cases of needing to replace drives.
Except that external drives are even less risky still since no one has to handle a bare drive...
Are you mirroring across firewire drives?
No. Time capsule and backups provide the needed redundancy. The only mirrored drives are inside the Mini itself.
All the servers I have seen with hot swap drives have been easily access from the front, didn't matter which drive dies they are all easy to access.
You haven't seen that many servers then. Tower servers like the low end Proliants are just towers. High end blades often have two internal drives inside the blade itself.
Rack mounted 2U and 4U servers often have hot swap drive bays in the front but you don't use them in a small office because they tend to be noisier than towers, require a rack, etc.
I only used Ubuntu as an example to building a server for under $999, if you feel like it replace with whatever distro you feel like.
Except those distros cost money and it's no longer a $999 solution. You could use centos but there's essentially no support.
Sorry, all that US pricing is no good to me, or the 50% of Apple purchasers that live outside the US.
...
I have never said it was, I answered a question how how to build a unlimted user server for less than US$999, I answer that question, and gave the answer which would work.
Amusing...US pricing is no good to you but you continue in the next sentence with a $999 solution.
Except that you didn't provide an answer that would work for less than $999. The cheaper mini has less memory and less hard drive space. To get to the same memory and hard drive space costs MORE than $999.
Since you seem to unable to grasp this concept with $ rather than £ here are the prices from the UK Apple site:
Mini Server: 2.66Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (dual 500GB in RAID 1) - £929.00
Mini: 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (no RAID but you get a DVD drive) - £932.01
Snow Leopard Server is essentially free.
Also, no Linux distro has a decent Mac drivers as Apple only provides their drivers for Windows so your solution fails on technical merits as well.
Unless you feel a 1 in 5 failure rate in booting is acceptable...
No, I have never said that, that is something you have made up I'm afraid. I said it was possible, and said it because you were busy defending your cobbled together solution.
Right, so you agree that Ubuntu on the mini is more risky than SLS?
What monitor hack? My mini is headless and I did nothing to get it that way.
Your PPC Mini. Your very old PPC mini which is internally nothing like the current mini...
I think someone else answered this as well, but you don't need wireless on a server, you don't need video, you don't need sound
Booting is kinda nice don't you think?
And the inability to have wireless, video or sound seems less elegant than "it just works". Lets face it. If you can't get something as simple as sound working you start wondering what else is silently broken.
Like running a database such as PostgreSQL is 3 times as fast on OSX than on Ubuntu because Ubuntu uses ext4 which is borked (performance wise) with current kernels and databases.
But hey, I'm sure you don't need database performance either in a server.
Apple has x-serves in the enterprise, but you are talking about the Mini, and a small business, big difference. But in saying that, I don't care if you run a Mini with SLS in a business, I just hope you have identified risks and cater for them, the same thing you would need to do in an enterprise.
I believe that I have a better understanding of OSX and Linux than you do and I perceive the risks and TCO are lower in a SLS deployment than in a Linux deployment for a small business.
So anyone advocating RAID-5 for all small business users because "it's easier to replace the drives" really doesn't know what risks exist or how to mitigate them.
I haven't said anything about RAID-5 for a small business, I said an external drive array, there is a significant difference in those statements.
Except that external drives are even less risky still since no one has to handle a bare drive...
No. Time capsule and backups provide the needed redundancy. The only mirrored drives are inside the Mini itself.
So what happens when one of the internal Mini drives fail? Since you don't want anyone to "handle the bare drive" do you just go without your mirroring.
You haven't seen that many servers then. Tower servers like the low end Proliants are just towers. High end blades often have two internal drives inside the blade itself.
Rack mounted 2U and 4U servers often have hot swap drive bays in the front but you don't use them in a small office because they tend to be noisier than towers, require a rack, etc.
yes, we have had tonnes of those low end proliants at places I have been, they had all been upgrade to handle hot swap drives, a small cost to add a significant support advantage.
Except those distros cost money and it's no longer a $999 solution. You could use centos but there's essentially no support.
Everything costs money, even your free SLS.
Amusing...US pricing is no good to you but you continue in the next sentence with a $999 solution.
I wasn't the one who brought up the $999 statement originally, I just answered a question as to how to get a server with unlimited client support for less than that, what part of that statement confuses you?
Except that you didn't provide an answer that would work for less than $999. The cheaper mini has less memory and less hard drive space. To get to the same memory and hard drive space costs MORE than $999.
Again, you seem to be confused, the original person why asked the question didn't include references to the RAM or HDD configurations, they purely asked about unlimited client support.
Since you seem to unable to grasp this concept with $ rather than £ here are the prices from the UK Apple site:
Mini Server: 2.66Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (dual 500GB in RAID 1) - £929.00
Mini: 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB usable HDD (no RAID but you get a DVD drive) - £932.01
Since you have trouble with the fact there are multiple countries in the world that use the $, I'm afraid the £ prices mean nothing to me. And to say again, the original question said nothing about memory or hard drives.
Right, so you agree that Ubuntu on the mini is more risky than SLS?
I will agree to no such thing, I am not running Ubuntu server, or any other Linux server product on any of my Machines, I have no experience with those particular products, non I am running, or have ever run SLS on any machines, so I cannot compare the risk or running one or the other on any machine.
And the inability to have wireless, video or sound seems less elegant than "it just works". Lets face it. If you can't get something as simple as sound working you start wondering what else is silently broken.
Again, wireless, sound and video are not needed for a "server", you know the thing you are going on about.
But hey, I'm sure you don't need database performance either in a server.
It depends, you don't need to be running a database on every server you own
I believe that I have a better understanding of OSX and Linux than you do and I perceive the risks and TCO are lower in a SLS deployment than in a Linux deployment for a small business.
You may very well do, but you still seem to be confused about the initial question, can you get a unlimited user server for less that $999, yes you can. That is a simple fact, it doesn't matter how much better, or how better SLS performs over ubuntu, or Suse, or RH or whatever, the simple fact still exists, you can do it.
Not having your display working during setup would be "mildly annoying".
Also if you read the comments there are gnome desktop crashes, freezes that require reboots and BT keyboards not working. And there's the long known workaround of using a dongle so you can boot headless. That grub hangs 1 in 4 times is really annoying and certainly NOT ready for real use as a server.
And stating that no one cares about wireless, sound or video on a server is really lame when the OP is claiming that Ubuntu is "just as elegant" and "works just as well" on the Mini.
I thought we were talking about servers. And no, no one cares about any of those things on a server.
Real servers never have monitors plugged into them, nor do they ever run any sort of desktop environment.
The bootloader problem is a killer, on that I agree. A server that can't be remotely restarted may as well go in the trash.