3U
The 3U may be a cheaper altertnative, as I suspect that it could use the stock G5 motherboard.
Just a thought.
Matthew
The 3U may be a cheaper altertnative, as I suspect that it could use the stock G5 motherboard.
Just a thought.
Matthew
Originally posted by mstecker
The 3U may be a cheaper altertnative, as I suspect that it could use the stock G5 motherboard.
Just a thought.
Matthew
Originally posted by ffakr
Apple has a focus on Clustering right now. They are doing something with xGrid.. they got a lot of acclaim for the Big Mac, they did a session on clustering at WWDC last year...
3U servers are not what the market demands for clustering.
3U servers are always designed for larger internal drive arrays. Apple would only release a 3U server if they felt that the market needed a Mac server with a lot of internal drive space, or a large SCSI array.
Apple won't release a 3U for the following reasons...
- Apple has proven that they can deliver high speed and high capacity from a 1U server running an IDE drive subsystem. With 300 GB IDE drives, Apple could easily deliver around 1TB internal with SATA.. and well over 1 TB in a 2U.
- Apple has a product for large storage capacity. xServe RAID. They have laid out their enterprise strategy for now and it's xServe w/ xServe RAID for large capacity storage
- 3U servers cost $$. They typically used for 4 way boxes, or boxes with larger internal disk arrays (quite possibly SCSI for DB servers). Apple doesn't yet have the enterprise credentials to tackle these markets.. People whose jobs rely on uptime won't put it all on the line to dump $10,000, $20,000 or more on a Mac... Not yet. ;-)
Apple is sneaking into the enterprise. They've got two ways in... sneak in with lower priced xServes and sneak into low budget Edu environments. The goal is to change this and make Apple an enterprise player, but that will take time.
I don't see an expensive 3U server fitting into Apple's markets right now.
I'd bet my mac on it (it's a 6100/66 so I don't really mind being wrong)
Originally posted by Frobozz
Technically, I see your point and agree... but I got thinking... if Memory bandwidth is such an issue then how does a cluster work sucessfully? Is it because each set of processors has it's own set of memory bandwidth, and the communication between machines is restricted by the throughput of the cabling?
I think that windows filesharing is an extremely risky market to dabble in though.Originally posted by hmmfe
Well thought out opinion and you are probably right on the money as far as what Apple will do.
I disagree with the strategy though. I would think that Apple would target the SMB market with a low-cost user upgradeable 2U-3U server. There is nothing inherent in a 2U or 3U chassis that makes it expensive. In fact, they are generally cheaper when you figure in disk space and the use of OTS upgrades.
Well, a modern dual processor server is plenty powerful enough for a lot of database needs. The databases that require quad, 8, 16, 32 proc machines also come with big IT budgets for hardware. It is totally one thing to get a Mac server into a server room full of Dells and Suns if you are talking a $3-5000 machine. It's really different when you are talking about passing up the $50,000 Dell or Sun Database server in favor of a big 8 way Macintosh. I just don't see that happening.Originally posted by ktlx
In my opinion, that is the weakness with Apple's so-called "Enterprise Strategy". Most enterprises need things like file, print, Web, database and transaction processing servers. Very few actually do nuclear reaction simulations or render 3D animations. A dual processor 1U server is fine for file, print and Web services but everyone and their brother already meets the needs of that market. A cluster of dual processor 1U servers is not really the appropriate solution for database and transaction processing.
[/B][/QUOTE]Originally posted by ffakr
I think that windows filesharing is an extremely risky market to dabble in though.
First off, you have to bump up against the MS bias against Macs.
Second, though Apple can integrate into AD and it can even act as a PDC but you won't see an AD running ON a Mac OS X Server. the truth is, Windows Server just integrates better into an AD and AD is where it's at for anything but small shops.. if not now, than in the near future.
I think you're getting at small installations where linux is an option but Linux still has more street creds than Mac OS Server (though I prefer FreeBSD over linux for a server). In this case, small businesses that would consider Linux smb servers, Apple has a shot.. if not now then soon. I just don't think it warrants the hardware investment yet.
I'd love to see Apple do well enough that they had 1U servers, and 2-3U file servers, and 3+U quad-proc database servers but I just don't think they are there yet. Apple can't splinter the small market is always has, it should focus on where it's doing well and try to work on enterprise creditability.
But as always, I have to point out that Apple doesn't seem to value my strategic opinion to seek me out and pay me fat $$. ;-)
BTW.. I even think that Apple should buy SGI and make low volume/high margin big bad supercomputers running Mac OS Server. How about an Altix with 980s or Power5s... mmnnn good. If you think Big Mac is good for business, imagine if Apple became the premier hardware and development enviornment vendor for High Performance Computing. Hey, it could happen.
OK, not bad.Originally posted by ffakr
I think Apple should stick to 1U. They should provide dual G5s over 2GHz with room for at least 8 DIMMs (up to 16GB of ram support with 2GB DIMMs). They should provide real RAID 5 hardware support with SATA drives up to 250GBs. They should offer 10K SATA IDE drives OR offer a Ult320 SCSI drive option instead of IDE.