Kill Two Windows Servers with One Xserve
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 11:15 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
Apple "I have tested, and continue to run in a production setting, two instances of Windows 2003 Server hosted by Parallels Desktop, running on OS X Server 10.4.8 on a 3 GHz Xserve. To skip to the punch line, it works, and it's as fast as all get-out. Parallels does not stretch the truth when it claims near-native performance; Xserve is capable of knocking off any two-socket Netburst (Pentium 4) Xeon server going back at least two years. Compared to Xserve, those Intel boxes eat more electricity and give off more heat than they give back in capacity for work."
E-mail Print r 0   22 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/cyh
Thread beginning with comment 195445
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: How about support?
by aGNUstic on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 13:43 UTC in reply to "How about support"
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

I work in a real production environment that is blended with Unix, Linux, OSX and of course the McSoft trashware.

"How easy is it to upgrade?"

There are other vendors out there who purchase Apple hardware in bulk and resale them. They will `sharpen their pencils` if they want to make a sale. Our newest Xserver and its RAID were purchased this way.

"What about on the support side?"

Software? Apple does maintain support. I like to research off the net before I even like to talk on the telephone to some person in a prison or around the globe somewhere who is reading off of computer screen.

McSoft telephone support is generally $250 per call on our campus and I've seen those calls last from nine to ten hours. I'd love to see a TCO study on how that is considered cost effective.

The one really nice thing about OSX and Apple hardware is its quality. The server software is rock-solid stable and easy to work with once you understand its workflow. As far as the hardware, I can actually sit at a client and log into and work with the headless Xserver, monitor its systems, manipulate files, monitor other workstations, etc.

To me, having the capability of consolidating three McSoft machines into a single Apple server is a plus. It's easier to monitor and manage and in my professional perspective more cost effective and raises my productivity through the roof.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: How about support?
by BluenoseJake on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 23:43 in reply to "RE: How about support?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I can see it being easier to manage hardwarewise, but at the end of the day, you still have 3 Windows Servers to manage, so in this case, I don't see any real advantage

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: How about support?
by broken_symlink on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 13:53 in reply to "RE[2]: How about support?"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

not necessarily. in the above post practically all the tasks the first virtual system could of been moved to the linux host. same with the freebsd system. then you would of just had 1 windows server running terminal services. but it all really depends on how comfortable you are with managing that stuff. because it can be a pain when things go wrong. i had an idea similar to the article, but the xserve is just too expensive. because all i really need is a windows server running terminal services to run 1 app. in the end i went with a lowend dell server running win2k3 because it was just cheaper for me.

Reply Parent Score: 1