Submitted by InfoWorld reviews Apple’s latest Xserve, and concludes: “An objective reviewer’s job is to find fault, and I’ve done my job. But the sum of Xserve’s flaws is overwhelmed by the system’s unique leading-edge, user and administrator-centric engineering. Xserve is far better than the commodity server that the Intel x86 market expects. But what really blasts Apple’s competition is OS X Server. The present Tiger release is more than a match for much more expensive commercial Linux, and far more capable out of the box than Windows 2003 Server.”
This article is so full of praise for the xserve and Apple in general that it reads more like a commercial than a review.
Having said that, I have been intrigued by Apple’s server lines for a while now. The thought of having Apple’s GUI tools for a wide range of server uses is quite tempting, and the licensing seems pretty reasonable since you basically pay for the server itself and never have to worry about it again.
Sadly, I haven’t met a single admin who has actually used one of the things, nor have I had the opportunity to try one out myself. It will be a difficult market to penetrate for Apple, given the inertia of Microsoft and the various Linux flavors, but I wish them the best…competition is good.
This article is so full of praise for the xserve and Apple in general that it reads more like a commercial than a review
I was going to say the same, this article is an advertisement, not a review at all.
It comes with its loads of lies about other OS too. Were these really necessary ? We know perfectly well this is like a Linux OS with every flavour of Apple apps possible where it fits.
Having said that, I have been intrigued by Apple’s server lines for a while now. The thought of having Apple’s GUI tools for a wide range of server uses is quite tempting, and the licensing seems pretty reasonable since you basically pay for the server itself and never have to worry about it again
Of course that’s not true. If, among the targets of this system, you’re the newbie the article suggest, I doubt you will go far without support, which was not mentioned at all in the price. But it’s mentioned in the PDF, where it’s not so clear-cut anymore. You don’t have 1 support type there, but several.
Fair enough, but hopefully “noobies” wouldn’t be making the purchasing decisions.
Part of the reason that Apple is going to find market penetration difficult is the lack of familiarity. Windows admins are pretty much everywhere (and they will, of course, recommend Windows), and a *nix admin probably won’t care about the GUI tools as much so they wouldn’t be very likely to bite. Basically, to have any market share in the server space, Apple is going to have to get admins to switch from something they are comfortable with and that is an uphill battle.
Ok, let me resume.
When someone said that linux is good for entreprise, it is not an ad.
When someone said that apple is good for enterprise, it is an ad …
Anyway, if it really was one, this review should be on the main site because paid by Apple, not on the weblog …
I would say the same thing about a *nix article (or a Windows article) if it had the same tone. I don’t remember seeing even a single negative point in the entire article, and I find it hard to believe that there is nothing wrong with the system because all systems have their flaws.
As I said, I find the xserve systems intriguing, but I have not had the opportunity to work with one; I also have not met anyone who has worked with one. If the system is as perfect as the article makes it out to be then I obviously welcome it in my server room.
For six years I was a McSoft system admin. Then I’ve been and still am a Linux system admin. I have been given two Xservers and the OS X server training.
Let me say that if you purchase McSoft server … you are either one crazy or foolish. Maybe both.
I kid you not. OS X server is a solid product and a pleasure to administer. Must be its flexible BSD heart.
OS X Server like Linux and BSD allow you build your servers and get back to the real job of being a system admin – working with people and data.
I think what the author was trying to convey was that the machine may have its problems or drawbacks, but it has so many good things that you don’t even notice the bad. Thats not advertising, that a happy sysadmin. I wish I was maintaining a bunch of Xserves, instead of the farm of HP Proliants that I have at work. At least when it comes to hardware, the Xserve has to be better than Proliants. I’ve had 1 motherboard, 2 DIMM’s, and 5 HDD fail in the past 10 months on 3 Proliants that weren’t even a year old at the time of failure.
Edited 2006-11-10 16:47
If you google on: oracle and apple and xserver, you’ll see that there is an Apple Xserver presence in data centers today. I had read an article at one time where Oracle was using the Apple’s Xserver internally to run its Oracle Collaboration Suite. I think that there is more marketability out there than what many of you seem to be giving it credit.
http://www.google.com/search?hs=AkE&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=…
What’s with the black logo? Did Apple announce a rebranding or what?
As for the Xserves they are really nice machines, quirky sometimes but still very reliable. Actually having GUI tools is REALLY nice, because there are things that are very well served with check boxes and drop-down menus. That said, you can still do whatever you please in the command line, but if you just need to do something basic fast, the Server Admin is just the answer. It’s also a UNIX that works out of the box, much like their consumer offerings, and what I’ve found a huge plus is that you can have an OpenDirectory/LDAP config set up in no time and administer it with ease, rather than go through the hassle of manually configuring it, tying it to Samba or AFP or mail services and then kerberizing them. And as for the hardware, it’s just rock-solid. Sorry if this sounded like an ad, but this has been my experience of managing a G5 Xserve.
I have one of the older Xservers, running OS X 10.4 server. As for hardware, the thing is pretty sweet. As for the OS, I wish I could just run Linux on the damn thing. OS X tries so hard to be like Linux, but sucks really badly at it. Case in point:
If you dont have DNS set up for the server name when you try to start the server, MySQL craps out and you cant get it started. But it doesnt tell you that. It just fails to start. No log messages or anything.
Multiple versions of Java.
Cant change versions of MySQL easily. Files are scattered all over the filesystem. No package management to make removing them easy.
Significant system changes from 10.3 to 10.4 combined with a real lack of online documentation. Plenty of online docs about 10.4 regular. But if you need something specific to server, you are in trouble.
No built in remote desktop software. Stupid for a server. Especially one that relies on the GUI to be able to do things.
er, aside from the bizarre idea that os x is trying to be linux…
you can install linux on that xserve, problem solved
Gee, what a heresy. Of course there is remote desktop! It’s in every 10.4 server as well as desktop, but you’ll have to pay for ARD to *connect* to it, but it’s no big deal.
That said, I haven’t feel a need to connect to the server via a remote desktop except for creating NetBoot images, that’s easier accomplished using a GUI. Other than that – it’s all either your Server Utilities or CLI.
Actually, VNC can connect to Apple’s remote Desktop.
I use VNC to connect to my mac from windows.
Perhaps the problem comes from you: trying so hard to make macosx like linux.
But Mac OS X is NOT linux, you do NOT manage Mac OS X as Linux just as you do NOT manage AIX as Solaris.
Anyway, your mysql issue will be the same on linux. So blame Mysql AB, not Apple.
Multiple versions of Java.
And ?
Cant change versions of MySQL easily
Changing the version of MySQL will broke the support, usually, you don’t want that.
BTW, you can easily change the version of MySQL by installing it yourself just like on any unix system and deactivate the provided one.
Significant system changes from 10.3 to 10.4 combined with a real lack of online documentation.
There is not a lot of documentation on AIX too, does this make AIX a bad OS ? Not at all, we just buy books or make trains with IBM.
No built in remote desktop software. Stupid for a server.
For a windows server perhaps … but well so what is this :
http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/
Especially one that relies on the GUI to be able to do things.
Where did you see that ? Apple is just saying that they provide some remote graphical tool for business with no sysadmins and for an easier administration for some tasks (with workgroup manager for example).
For each other cases, use command line just as for all Unixes (and just as with your beloved linux).
http://images.apple.com/server/pdfs/Command_Line_v10.4_2nd_Ed.pdf
Command line administration/installation is precisely a part of the Apple Certified System Administrator.
The fact that Apple sells remote desktop software is not the same as that software being part of the server install.
For documentation there is one book written by a third party and within the last year Peachpit Press just got the rights to sell the Apple Training series. Not exactly a giant sea of documentation there.
As for MySQL, the official apple version is fairly well behind the latest version. My server which is up to date is running 4.1.13a. 5.0.27 is the latest release from MySQL.org.
Remember yesterday’s article about mac users getting so “defensive”?
So, then, I come here and read and realize that once again, it’s raining FUD.
I have one of the older Xservers, running OS X 10.4 server. As for hardware, the thing is pretty sweet. As for the OS, I wish I could just run Linux on the damn thing. OS X tries so hard to be like Linux, but sucks really badly at it. Case in point:
If you dont have DNS set up for the server name when you try to start the server, MySQL craps out and you cant get it started. But it doesnt tell you that. It just fails to start. No log messages or anything.
Multiple versions of Java.
Cant change versions of MySQL easily. Files are scattered all over the filesystem. No package management to make removing them easy.
Significant system changes from 10.3 to 10.4 combined with a real lack of online documentation. Plenty of online docs about 10.4 regular. But if you need something specific to server, you are in trouble.
No built in remote desktop software. Stupid for a server. Especially one that relies on the GUI to be able to do things.
And then I see 3-4 posts [s]calling horsefeathers[/s] being all “defensive” about the above post.
Any questions?
—
BTW, the needle got bent off my FUD-dar when I saw As for the OS, I wish I could just run Linux on the damn thing.
Or maybe I do live in a world with a sys-admin too dim to type “linux and xserve” or “linux and mac” into Google.
Edited 2006-11-11 07:27
two possibilities: You have no clue of OS X or you never ever own a Xserve.
1. Multiple versions of Java.
So what? no problem here. You can install different versions of Java on any system. In OS X you can choose your default JRE via a settings panel.
2. Cant change MySQL? On OS X Systemsoftware is installed in /Library or, more Un*x like under /usr/local. This goes also for MySQL. Changing MySQL is the same task under OS X than under any Unix.
3. OS X has a VNC Server and the Apple own Apple Remote Desktop Server build in.
This article is a joke. Apart from the fact that it yells at other OS and presents the holy OS X, I don’t find any information in this article.
But, honestly: Who really uses an Apple server? Might be a bunch of Apple fanatics – more serious people stick with Debian or Solaris. Nuff said.
Well I didn’t remember that Oracle, Cisco, US Army, NASA (and a lot more) were a bunch of Apple fanatics.
http://www.apple.com/itpro/profiles/
But I think we spot a linux one…
By “more serious people” I gather you mean those who have the background that allows them to do everything via a command line…
Reality is that “more serious people” are “seriously” looking now at ways of making things MUCH easier as they go forward, which is what I believe this article is talking about. Only time will tell of course.
(quote)
This article is a joke. Apart from the fact that it yells at other OS and presents the holy OS X, I don’t find any information in this article.
But, honestly: Who really uses an Apple server? Might be a bunch of Apple fanatics – more serious people stick with Debian or Solaris. Nuff said.
(/quote)
I doubt you need to be a “fanatic” in order to use Apple’s servers
One “small” example here (xServers validating credit card transactions)
http://web.mac.com/xumbra/iWeb/umbra/x_aquarium.html
Who really uses an Apple server? Might be a bunch of Apple fanatics – more serious people stick with Debian or Solaris. Nuff said.
A good way to sound like an idiot is to follow some silly comment with “’nuff said”.
One datacenter I work at has a number of them scattered throughout. Not the majority, but these are running alongside *nix and Windows boxes.
A customer next to my rack has retired most of his NetApp Filers with XServe RAID boxes tied to XServes. The price was more than right and they are performing well. This is also a mixed environment, with the Apple stuff doing the storage and NAS functions and a bunch of Linux boxes doing the frontend. This site is in Nielson’s top 100.
Many people aren’t so bigoted as you regarding where Apple can and can’t fit in the enterprise.
That said, Apple could really kill if they knew how to market this thing to small businesses. Much easier to setup a small office all in one server on OS-X Server than using MS SBS.
I have heard the problem with Apple servers is scalabality because the microkernel starts to bog down under heavy threading, I saw a benchmark on this, but I don’t remember where I saw it (or how credible it was).
Anyway, if anybody could enlighten me on weather or not this is true I would appreciate it because I am tossing around buying one of these beasts.
I saw it to; i think it was on OSAlert, but the benchmark on Apples website at the time showed it(way back when Xserves were G4 & and OS X.2). It does get better each new release.
I think it was an ARS Technica article, it was linked to by OS News. It had something to do with the giant lock that is only accessible by the kernel and not user threads. At least I think that is what it was.