Comments on: Inside Apple’s new Mac mini Server

By: MacMiniAdmin

MacMiniAdmin — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:31:04 +0000

Now that Apple is on board with the Intel processor I think we're going to start to see more standards & structure coming from Apple. Mac OS X is a really rock-solid platform which will not be going away anytime soon. I would be more concerned over massive changes coming from Microsoft then Apple. I believe the Mac Mini Server makes a ton of sense within data centers. There are some serious concerns over power consumption and space. Both of these issues are easily fixed by using the Mac Mini Server platform. You can configure the Mac Mini Server to use RAID1 mirroring which makes it a highly reliable production-ready web or mail server.

By: REM

REM — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:33:24 +0000

The article written is good but is not a true business case study that could be submitted to companies as historical justification to move. It also only covers the server hardware and not the cost of individual stations and their software needs.

I am looking for hard studies that cover small business offices running from 5-25 employees including ALL hardware, software, support costs etc.

Including business level backup solutions (local & remote), Storage solutions, and small business level firewalls.

Fully capable replacements for Exchange server 2003 or 8 (as shipped with Microsoft Small business Server) and all other software shipped with or expected to be used by the above size businesses.

By: plasticsyntax

plasticsyntax — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:56:41 +0000

I agree that the arbitrary CALs on windows servers are terrible, but I seriously doubt you’d want to serve a 100+ person office with one of these things. It does emphasize the difference between Apple and Microsoft though when looking at hardware vs software – buy this server and you may serve as many people as the hardware allows.

Personally I would roll a Linux server if I was running a network with that many users, but I think this is a fantastic solution for small businesses and a great place for Apple to start inching into the enterprise markets.

[What is interesting is that you can set up several Mac mini servers and configure them for load balancing or to handle specific tasks, and end up with a great system with redundancy and resiliency at very little cost.

If you try to do that with SBS you find that you can't set up multiple systems on the same domain (MS wants you to pay full price for that). If you try to do that with Windows Server, you end up paying outrageous CAL costs.

So the ability to serve an office of 100 people with multiple small servers and work your way up gradually is an Apple strongpoint. Will be interesting to see if they actually promote it. - Dan]

By: mwheinz

mwheinz — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:48:01 +0000

deemery – you’re overlooking another possibility, which is that the customers wanted the XServes because they were on the Power architecture, not because of OS X. Once Apple went to Intel, there was no longer a market for an OS X version of our product – because all the customers who were experimenting with OS X went back to using Linux, which we already supported.

By: deemery

deemery — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:15:13 +0000

MWHeinz: I’m surprised that “ally your work became instantly valueless” because of the move from PowerPC to Intel. For this to be the case, it seems to me, you would have needed to be developing software in machine language for the PowerPC architecture in assembly language. Having worked on some hard real-time systems, I can see where some parts (e.g. tight loops) might need to be done with very machine-specific technology, but I’m surprised that your entire system would have been invalidated by a move to another computer architecture, particularly given the good job Apple did in making porting using its tools effective/efficient.

This is not to say you’re “wrong”, only to express my surprise at what you described as your results…

By: mwheinz

mwheinz — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:51:41 +0000

Re-reading my previous comment, I realize I should have made something clear: Apple actively encouraged and helped with our port for the entire year we worked on it – they never once suggested to us, or to any of the companies and universities we were working with – that our efforts might not be worthwhile.

By: mwheinz

mwheinz — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:49:32 +0000

The problem with Apple in the server market is that Apple has repeatedly entered that market, then punished the customers and developers who supported them.

I worked for a company that, in 2004, spent an entire year porting our very specialized hardware to XServes and OS X server because we had some extremely large international corporations who wanted them.

Then, in the same week Apple praised our project, they abandoned the Power architecture and all the work we had done became instantly valueless.

I don’t think you could convince my company to support Apple again if Jobs walked through the front door throwing diamonds at the feet of all our staff.

By: danpoarch

danpoarch — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:48:42 +0000

I’m pretty excited to finally have a small-biz solution for Mac serving that is cheap, quick and out-of-the-box. If my clients were a little more understanding I might tell them to sell their Mac Pro server boxes on Craigs and buy this server, while using the left-over funds to upgrade their MacBook Pro. [It's my personal plan ; )]

No, the Mini is not a Pro. But so many of our servers are under-utilized that it’s criminal to have so much power off-line in these studios. Typically, we’ll have a couple artists struggling on legacy Macs while a pristine stainless-clad god masturbates without visual material in a hot closet.

But seriously, this is a nice little box. Mostly because in the immediate past our clients have been caught with awkward choices when we have the “you need a server” Come To Jesus talk:

- Trust us, a Mac Mini is a capable server, even though it looks like a toy and we’re only spending $1200… Which is how much this meeting is costing you, between your billable hours and ours…

- OK then, your PMG4 mirror door, that we convinced you to shelve four years ago, is actually a capable server now that the OS is more mature. Though, it’s upgrade path stops at Leopard, but everything on this server is great. Until you try to turn on group calendering. It’s got storage bays galore and with a SATA RAID card it’s suddenly a nice server. [FYI - A PMG4 running Leopard Server can stun you with it's speed and capabilities... It can also set itself to stunned if you're not careful with it]

- We pass a note across the desk that says “Gimme $5,000. This is a stick up.” and we buy them a Mac Pro with Mac OSX Server.

Instead, now we have an affordable retail package that the sheep can understand. “OK,” they’ll think, “this is Mommy’s First Server. That makes sense…” And for very little money we can get them to centralized back-up and file services, FTP, ACLs for the accounting/HR demi-god, local email hosting, VPN, group calendering [assuming it works in SLS], etc. This is huge for the Mac small business support community.

One immediate hole in this package though: eSATA. Any dynamic amount of activity could flood a FW800 bus. And I would assume most of us would mirror the internal drives. I could really wish they threw us a bone with an eSATA port. That would give us more headroom for multi-user access. I don’t think the Mini is particularly capable enough for this kind of high-bandwidth activity, but… again… there’s no mid-range Mac. It’s either the Mini or a workstation.

Now, for the daring client, I may recommend a 27″ iMac that becomes a monitor for the Photoshop guy and the CPU operates as a server for the office. Again, no eSATA for massive outboard storage…

And the Photoshop guy can start torrenting porn on the server while no one’s looking…

Dammit apple… So close… But I can deal. I’ll take what I get…

By: hylas

hylas — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:30:42 +0000

The Mac mini Server really caught me by surprise.
This is great for those whom have a family with (now) several computers and a storage problem.
The Windows “Home Server” was a good move by Microsoft, it’s the follow up that lacked.
I was one of those folks in 2000 that was forced to take Win2k Server classes (backwards and in high heels) to be able to take the UNIX Administration classes I really went for – but to be fair – this was Seattle, after all. It was fun to watch those two teachers go at it around us, like a Shakespeare tragedy.
I have to say it was useful.

But having a full fledged server, even if it is on a 5400 Mac mini, is worthwhile to those that can use what comes with a server package.
What’s included can be trouble if the owner sets it up wrong, this is the only problem I see really.

The price is pretty amazing from where I stand, (looking at my aging Xserve PPC) the software alone used to cost that $1000.00 they want for hardware and all.
Seat licensing, how quaint. Never could understand that.

By: John E

John E — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:45:27 +0000

the big cost for any business is not the hardware and license fees. it is the ongoing IT support expense. the $2000 difference between a mac and windows server doesn’t really matter. annual IT support for 100 users takes at least one FTE or more, like 80K or more.

the mac problem is there are not a lot of small mac-oriented IT shops everywhere that do this work under contract. there are tons of windows shops out there. a business does not want to hire just one mac geek for this, because there is no back up or continuity that way.