Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Nov 2010 13:10 UTC
Apple It's the end of the line for Apple's line of servers, the Xserve. The Cupertino giant has just announced that the Xserve line (no more future models, either) will no longer be sold after January 31, 2011, and advises people interested in Mac OS X Server to buy either a Mac Mini or a Mac Pro with Snow Leopard Server installed.
Thread beginning with comment 448656
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple is probably going Virtual here
by mbpark on Fri 5th Nov 2010 13:48 UTC
mbpark
Member since:
2005-11-17

Apple probably realizes that the server market is very expensive with a low ROI, and is dominated by several manufacturers, most notably Dell, HP, IBM, Supermicro, and Oracle/Sun.

To be very honest, their server offering just didn't have the serviceability of a Dell or HP server, or the years of built-in diagnostics and checks that you get from an IBM. There wasn't the option for RAID 6 on the hard drives, or the ECC RAM options that HP servers have.

They also realize that a good chunk of the server market is going virtual or blade to take advantage of the economies of scale and redundancy that VMWare and other virtualization solutions offer. To stay competitive, you need to develop either blade or massive (IBM's Nehalem-EX) solutions for virtualization. Apple has the cash to do this, but it doesn't make the money that a new iDevice will.

You can already run Mac OS X Server in a virtual machine (http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_U...).

If they release Mac OS X Lion server with VMWare support, this will actually get them more customers for OS X Server, since you won't have to buy a Mac server to run it, and you can put it onto your existing VMWare farm. Additionally, tools like Apple Remote Desktop Server gain redundancy. If you want a physical box, you can still buy a Mac Mini or Mac Pro. Granted, you're not going to have hardware RAID-6, ECC memory, or the ability to put in a ton of PCI Express cards, but it's fine for SOHO, especially since a good RAID 5 enclosure is cheap.

Reply Score: 4

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

My guess is they're just pulling out of a market in which they didn't belong.
Any serious admin scoffs at their server product harder than Windows Server.

FreeBSD on server, Debian on workstation. Done.

Reply Parent Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Any serious admin scoffs at their server product harder than Windows Server.


Any serious admin doesn't hold onto security views from 2000.

Windows Server 2008 will have a better security record this year than RHEL.

A lot of serious admins had their Linux servers hacked thanks to those recent kernel exploits.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/70907.html?wlc=1288978338

http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/linux-kernel-flaw-coughs-root-rig...

Scoff away.

Reply Parent Score: 4

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

That's hysterical. You don't actually work at a business, do you? While your scenario may be used in some places, I highly doubt (after being an IT consultant for years) that it's the norm.

Reply Parent Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

If Apple is smart, they'll keep around the Mini server for small offices (great machine if you need just file sharing, authentication, chat, etc.) and for anything heavier, they'll allow you to install OS X on ESX or XenServer. It's ridiculous and completely artificial that it doesn't run on ESX. I don't want a separate XServe, however I would love to make use of it along side my Windows and Linux VM's on the same ESX Server.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple probably realizes that the server market is very expensive with a low ROI, and is dominated by several manufacturers, most notably Dell, HP, IBM, Supermicro, and Oracle/Sun.


Or the future is cloud with the target customers (who bought XServe's) would be more than happy to shunt their work loads off to an Apple data-centre for processing rather than having a massive capital investment that is under-utilised even in the best of times. I know when I was at the Azure launch in Wellington one of the case scenarios was a company that uses the Microsoft cloud for batch processing of rendering instead of having their own in house rendering farm.

I managed 3 Mac servers at my last place I was employed and lets say that Mac OS X Server wasn't designed to be a server to handle heavy loads - as soon as you start getting up there with the number of users the server slows to a crawl. When I mean slows to a crawl, not a gradual slow down but a plummeting off a cliff kind of slow down.

The question though is what is Apple going to do when it comes to interoperability in the future - are they going to finally license SMB off Microsoft? provide a AFP server for Windows server that hooks into active directory? something has to be done regarding interoperability especially for those who use their Mac's in a work environment.

Reply Parent Score: 3

SuperDaveOsbourne Member since:
2007-06-24

Of all the responses, this one is the winner.

Reply Parent Score: 1