To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
As noted by a previous posts. Mac OS X does scale very well. Maybe not from the GUI but it is BSD UNIX under the hood and I don't think anyone will tell you that BSD UNIX doesn't scale well.
Harder to do than Windows? Only people I know that have only ever used Windows Server will say something like that. Or people that have used very old versions of other NOSs.
PS: Installing a NOS on a home computer and hooking up less than 200 computers to it doesn't even begin to make you an expert. Step two would be having people and all their ingenious ways of doing things differently from each other and supporting them would start to make you an expert.
Mac OS X is not BSD Unix. It is a BSD layer built on top of a Mach core with some BSD tools in the userland. They've done some things to improve their kernel scalability, but it's fundamentally a workstation OS right now. I think they've been improving it steadily, though they're nowhere close to FreeBSD, Linux, or Windows as a server OS.
Darwin's based on FreeBSD, and the FreeBSD team thought and admitted that it doesn't scale well, giant locks were everywhere in the kernel. They've started the SMPng initiative years ago to fix this. Apple snatched the FreeBSD 4.x codebase, which didn't get much SMPng treatment at all.
Edited 2008-01-29 15:28 UTC




Member since:
2005-11-10
Mac OSX servers actually scale pretty well. here on our Development Network we have a bunch of Macs and Mac servers. On our Production Network it's all Windows, some Linux and Unix.
As I said the cost of hardware is Apples problem. For what you could buy a Mac Pro for you could get a couple Dell or Gateway small business servers with Windows 2003 server on them. (As the Mac pro does not come with Mac OS X server out the box) for the same price. And yes the Apple machine will be more powerful etc. But the Windows machines will get the job done and cost much less. (And they run Linux more easy) LOL!