Linked by Drumhellar on Tue 18th Nov 2014 09:53 UTC
Mac OS X

OS X Server's rate of improvement has slowed in recent years, though Apple is hardly ignoring it. It did get a full Yosemite-style visual overhaul, after all, which suggests that Apple cares about it enough to keep developing it in lockstep with the consumer version of OS X. The continuous addition of features and fixes over the course of the Mountain Lion and Mavericks releases of Server suggests that Yosemite Server will continue on in slow and gradual but still active development.

If we were going to worry about the state of the Mac server in 2014, our primary concern would actually be hardware. First they came for the Xserve, and I did not speak out, because Apple was clearly not going anywhere in Windows- and Linux-dominated enterprise-level server rooms. Then they came for the Mac Pro Server, and I did not speak out, for the cheese-grater Mac Pros were far too expensive to be practical for the new home-and-small-business focus of latter-day OS X Server. Then they came for the Mac Mini Server, and there was no one left to speak for it.

OS X Yosemite Server reviewed in-depth by Ars Technica's Andrew Cunningham.

Order by: Score:
multi port?
by netpython on Tue 18th Nov 2014 15:53 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately there isn't an multi port option (dual,quad or more nic) when choosing your Apple system.

Easy configuring a radius server for wpa2-enterprise enhanced wifi security in Apple home networks would be the hammer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: multi port?
by glitch on Tue 18th Nov 2014 20:42 UTC in reply to "multi port?"
glitch Member since:
2012-06-12

> Unfortunately there isn't an multi port option (dual,quad or more nic) when choosing your Apple system.

There is a dual NIC option for the Mac Pro — rather, that's what it is... period; cf. <http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/>.

As mentioned already, hardware options aren't the best for server contexts (to put it lightly), but I've deployed a few Mac servers with link aggregation/bonding on dual network interfaces.

Using a Mac mini as a server you can add on a Thunderbolt<->Gigabit Ethernet adapter. Heck, on the Mac Pro you can add those adapters too.

In a perverted way, you could easily have three network interfaces on the Mac mini — one built-in, two by means of those Thunderbolt dongles. All of that can be purchased in one checkout from store.apple.com.

Now, if we're to go beyond the constraint of what you can configure/purchase from the Apple Store, even more perverted, you can get a Thunderbolt 2<->PCIe card unit for each Thunderbolt 2 interface and throw in a multi-port NIC on that — easily nine network interfaces (four interface card + four interface card + built-in). Similar absurd setups can be used for the Mac Pro, but that's being a little unrealistic.

But coming back to reality a bit, practically speaking, if you're deploying a Mac server with some seriousness in it, you're deploying a Mac Pro anyway, and that already has two built in Ethernet ports.

Edited 2014-11-18 21:02 UTC

Reply Score: 4

It's sad
by darknexus on Tue 18th Nov 2014 17:19 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I have a Mac Mini server. For what it is, it's an awesome little machine. It's about four years old and the logic board's going, but it was a solid performer while I had it. I'm sad to see the server line end. I was thinking about getting another one to replace it before they did that.

Reply Score: 2

Hate to inform you...
by fretinator on Tue 18th Nov 2014 20:50 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

First they came for the Xserve, and I did not speak out, because Apple was clearly not going anywhere in Windows- and Linux-dominated enterprise-level server rooms. Then they came for the Mac Pro Server, and I did not speak out, for the cheese-grater Mac Pros were far too expensive to be practical for the new home-and-small-business focus of latter-day OS X Server. Then they came for the Mac Mini Server, and there was no one left to speak for it.

Thom - you are an official dork!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hate to inform you...
by jello on Tue 18th Nov 2014 21:26 UTC in reply to "Hate to inform you..."
jello Member since:
2006-08-08

"First they came for the Xserve, and I did not speak out, because Apple was clearly not going anywhere in Windows- and Linux-dominated enterprise-level server rooms. Then they came for the Mac Pro Server, and I did not speak out, for the cheese-grater Mac Pros were far too expensive to be practical for the new home-and-small-business focus of latter-day OS X Server. Then they came for the Mac Mini Server, and there was no one left to speak for it.

Thom - you are an official dork!
"

And I hate to inform you that you are utterly and completely wrong:

1) Thom did not post this.
2) Drumhellar posted it, but he didn't write this either.
3) Andrew Cunningham wrote this in his conclusion.

You obviously didn't read the article...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hate to inform you...
by David on Tue 18th Nov 2014 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Hate to inform you..."
David Member since:
1997-10-01

Well, though you are correct to point out that Thom didn't write that, he is correct in that I'm pretty sure that Thom is an official dork.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hate to inform you...
by jspaloss on Thu 20th Nov 2014 04:18 UTC in reply to "Hate to inform you..."
jspaloss Member since:
2007-05-10

Really? I thought that was clever.
Either way, it wasn't Thom.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

Reply Score: 2