Gartner Dataquest’s preliminary worldwide server shipment estimates for the third quarter of 2004 reveal that the market achieved its seventh consecutive quarter of double-digit year-over-year growth. Apple continued to re-establish itself in the server market, according to the analyst. After having above-average growth in the second quarter of 2004, Apple grew shipments 119 percent year over year.
Apple makes gains in server market
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Yea thats why VTech has 1100 of them alone.
Tim,
Can you name a web hosting company that’s using Apple servers? I thought so.
… If my wife would let me! 😉
Can you name a web hosting company that’s using Apple servers? I thought so.
That’s not the market. It’s like saying, “How many Ford Pickups are winning WRC stages?” Anyone using an Apple server for web hosting alone is wasting money.
Small businesses using Apple servers for low-maintenace infrastructure are the market.
I don’t kow if you are poking fun or you are serious about there are none. but here are a few
http://serverlogistics.com/
http://macdock.com/
And there are a few more. Hell, I plan on getting one next year for my clients to run their websites off from.
Someone’s obviously using them, as Gartner lists them in the top 10. My guess is that they are not being used for web hosting, but for projects such as the U.S. Army’s new supercomputer being built by Colsa Corp.
http://www.macminute.com/2004/06/22/supercomputer
In my opinion, this trend is worth keeping an eye on. Apple may have an easier time penetrating the small/medium sized business server closets than than it does the corresponding desktops. Consider that:
1. In a small/medium size business scenario where an Apple server could service Windows desktops, an Apple server could enjoy a cost advantage over Windows servers. This cost advantage would be due to Apple’s willingness to ship servers fully equipped with free server software such as database servers (e.g. Postgresql). Windows Small Business Server software costs money, as does stuff like SQL Server, and Microsoft would be unwilling to give such stuff away to server vendors for redistribution to their customers.
2. OS X’s ease of administration advantage over Windows would make it less costly for small and medium sized businesses to operate in their server closets. This would be especially true in the *many* small businesses that don’t have dedicated server administration employees.
3. As a further example of #2, Apple’s grid computing features make OS X an especially appealing server choice for those small scientific and engineering companies that have to do large computations but don’t have a cluster expert on their staff.
In short, look at the success that Linux has had. Linux has succeeded far more in penetrating server closets than it has in penetrating desktops. Now, think of OS X as a friendlier Linux. If Apple would simply target the scenario of Windows desktops connecting to OS X servers I believe that Apple could sell quite a few more units.
Doug
Oh, yeah, macdock and serverlogistics are huge.
You guys are funny.
@Phuqker
And the US Army’s supercomputer will be running Linux, so that’s more of an endorsement of Apple’s hardware than of its software.
@Mattpie
The same low-maintenance solutions are available on cheaper intel x-86 servers, running linux with a web-based dead-easy administration panel.
Now, if you were telling me that the Mac makes for a great DVD authoring station or a good professional recording environment, I would agree.
I have had direct contact with XServes in the field. Most of the time, from my experiance, they are used for data storage. Apple’s hardware is extremely reliable, which is what makes XServes such a good premise for data storage. Their cheap cost makes them good for universities. Duke’s Medical Center uses them to store multiple terabytes of patient MRI scans, and smaller universities such as UNC Charlotte use them for their ROTC Air Force database prime.
I find Apache to be a little sketchy on OS X Server, so I don’t see them used as Web Servers, really.
“And the US Army’s supercomputer will be running Linux”
AND Mac OS X. Mac OS X is NSA certified since last april. 🙂
@ Eu
Heh, any 1U Rack mount x86 server with the same configuration as an XServe is the same $$$. Plus the XServes are 64-bit and Apple ships all open source software and even apple non-open source tools with one unlimited license to Mac OS X server. Forget about XGrid and XSan alone, this is a beast machine with beast software.
The XServe is also NOT a good graphics machine. It’s super loud and has a pretty barebones AGP card.
The Xserve is NOT loud (the originals were, but the G5 models are not loud — they’re stone silent compared to the Sun servers I’ve heard… maybe 60 dB). The G5’s don’t have any AGP port any more — if you want graphics, you need a PCI graphics card. So true, it’s not a graphics powerhouse.
Since when does a server need a good graphics card? Our IBM 335s have crap for video.
Maybe I should add some neon in addition to my /<001 graphics card.
http://www.white-wolf.com/
This shouldn’t be hard to fathom but PIXAR is focusing their rendering farms on Xserve.
So since VTech has 1100 Xservers, Army has 1566 Xservers, PIXAR has a huge rendering farm but no concrete number of units shipped for PIXAR is public. Even if it is 500 you have over 3000 Xserves in 3 clients.
My bet will be the Wireless Market will start using Xservers to leverage QuickTime soon to be prevalent in 3G and 3G+ phone services.
I wouldn’t be surprised with the advent of the POWER5 we see Apple offer a second tier of Xserve.
XServes are nice. They compete price wise but I want to clarify a few things:
1. XServes, new and old ARE LOUD. The new ones aren’t as loud as the older ones but I still wouldn’t want one in my office outside of an isolation cabinet. But that’s ok b/c these are meant to go in an air conditioned server room. Noise still matters here… especially in the small to medium size environments where the XServe is used b/c often the server rooms are NOT separate from work spaces so noise certainly matters. When you put 2 together it’s unbearable. When you have an entire rack…
2. Graphics performance is needed for those who want a rack form factor and use the machine as a traditional desktop would be used. This may not make sense to people since most will recommend getting the desktop dual G5 instead. But the entertainment industry loves macs and they are so much more convenient to use in a rack along with other rack gear. Some will say “then rack the desktop G5” but its too big.
3. You can put PCI graphics cards in many of the 1U pc machines including the IBM 3xx. This is not such a big deal unless you need the slots for something else.
4. Price wise, unless you get a no-name 1U chassis and risk all of the components not working together, the Xserve comes out on top – not by much though. The real issue comes with scalability. Xserves scale by buying more Xserves. This is fine if your applications or use can scale in the same way. With blade servers and multiple U servers you can scale by buying more blades or by buying more components to fill in a 2-4-8 way unit. The pc world offers way more flexibility than the 1U Xserve (CPU’s, drive controllers, redundant power supplies, etc).
5. Don’t be fooled by Apple’s claim of GUI management. Windows and Linux blow away Apple in terms of management software. Apple has very little GUI management software and what’s there is extremely basic. ARDII is good for managing multiple OSX machines so there’s a benefit there but that’s an added cost.
Apple has a good start though. If they want to make an impact in the server world they will have to widen the options to 1U – 4U, 2 to 8 way processors, scsi controller options (or extreme proof that an alternative is better. The current IDE drive system is not), REAL Gui management, and better online documentation.
PS Apple’s raid solution was promising until it was learned that it requires an Xserve or similar to act as a front… although the raid unit has redundant power supplies, the Xserve does not rendering the raid solution vulnerable to power problems.
This two articles are by Paul Murphy from LinuxInsider (so it can not be considered Mac biased).
The first has a good evaluation of Xserver
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36964.html
I find Apache to be a little sketchy on OS X Server, so I don’t see them used as Web Servers, really.
My experience has been similar. In fact, using an XServe as a *nix server replacement was a frustrating experiment last time I tried. For example, half the time you tried to start and stop services from the GUI, it wouldn’t work. Starting and stopping services from the command line was painful, because they completely changed the filesystem layout from the standard Unix hier approach. Nothing was straightforward: configuring Sendmail was a 3-day long nightmare, Apache+PHP would randomly lock up, and httpd.conf on the XServe is an awe-inspiring mess. And the GUI service management tools were *anything* but consistent and comprehensive. (Of course, that was a year ago, on a G4 before Panther came out. I understand that some of the management tools have been fixed and Unixified a little more.)
Yes, the XServe has nice features as an office server, with easy networking, print serving, WebDAV, etc… but I will take FreeBSD or Linux any day as a remote web application server.
and you have the flexibility of using os-x or linux.
Let’s really get something straight.
Neither system is worth squat if the personnel configuring the systems is subpar.
When we finally see folks equally well-versed in OS X Server and Linux doing independent evaluations then we’ll have something to debate.
Using Debian daily I’m looking forward to seeing the state of OS X Server 10.4 when it arrives.
“Can you name a web hosting company that’s using Apple servers? I thought so.”
Yeah, and web hosting companies are the only ones that uses servers.
“1. XServes, new and old ARE LOUD. The new ones aren’t as loud as the older ones but I still wouldn’t want one in my office outside of an isolation cabinet”
They are SERVERS – and the G5s aren’t as load as the Dells and HPs we have.
“PS Apple’s raid solution was promising until it was learned that it requires an Xserve or similar to act as a front… although the raid unit has redundant power supplies, the Xserve does not rendering the raid solution vulnerable to power problems.”
Uhm, the RAID supports other servers than Xserves.
I find Apache to be a little sketchy on OS X Server, so I don’t see them used as Web Servers, really.
I find that curious. I’m guessing because it’s built in a non-standard location? What is your experience with downloading the latest source and building it in /usr/local/apache?
I’m asking because I’ve not had any problems using or building Apache and a statically-linked mod_perl on Panther. It’s true that the on/off ‘button’ only wants to work on the Apple installed location, but it isn’t difficult to point the Startup service script to a custom install.
I’m just wondering if the same people who are willing to build a completely self-configured Linux server, can’t figure out how to do the same on OS X?
But I think Apples are not the ideal choice for even file and printserving unless you put linux on top of it.
Dont get me wrong they are ok, but a linux machine performs better in printserving than an osx machine.
The reason for this is simply the apple printing system. If you run drivers which use the apple subsystem, only a standard postscript printer is emitted on Cups, good luck finding good cups drivers for Apple for most printers (the standard way reverting to Turbo Print if Gimp Print does not cover it does not work this way since the OSX version is miles behind)
So either you have a run out of the mill cups driver then you are set or you only get postscript. The problem with this is, that the chances are higher to find a Cups driver for linux than for OSX, sounds strange but it is like that.
As for the rest… well OSX is quite ok, but who needs a gui for a server (same goes for Windows)?
“The reason for this is simply the Apple printing system. If you run drivers which use the Apple subsystem, only a standard Postscript printer is emitted on Cups, good luck finding good cups drivers for Apple for most printers”
A standard Postscript output is what you would want. A Postscript laser printer (black & white or color) is the appropriate choice for network printing.
And the US Army’s supercomputer will be running Linux, so that’s more of an endorsement of Apple’s hardware than of its software.
If you are referring to the computer in use by COLSA, you are wrong. It will be running Mac OS X.
from people who know squat about the server industry as a whole and they are bashing apple for sucking in their offerings. they use incomplete information, they pigeonhole to make a case for the server being a bad choice in general.
please, people. get a life.
BTW, Bo-Informatics are using Apple systems in a huge way now.
How do I know? I have 20 of them in an atmospheric modelling cluster. Like the G5 desktops, they have a multitude of fans (8 of them, to be precise) which are software controlled and mostly run below 4000RPM under load.
Next to our XServe cluster is a cluster of 10 Dell PowerEdge 1750 servers. If you want to talk about loud, you should check those out… the noise they make is deafening.
Compared to other 1U rackmounts, Xserves are virtually silent.
well this is not totally true but desktops are flat compared to other stuff (ipods, xserves). It is easy to grow from a low number but xserve’s impact seems to extent beyond a mathematical phenomena.
Apple needs new high margin markets so i am very happy about this.
“PS Apple’s raid solution was promising until it was learned that it requires an Xserve or similar to act as a front… although the raid unit has redundant power supplies, the Xserve does not rendering the raid solution vulnerable to power problems.”
I currently have a Sun V880 attached to 7TB worth (2×3.5TB) of storage running off of two Xserve RAIDs. They are great! The managment tool runs on Linux, Solaris and Windows (its built in java)! It has full redundancy and auto-hotspare support. I think now the max is 5.6TB per enclosure! No one can touch the price/performace ratio….. the only thing i do not like is that there isnt any redundancy in the RAID controllers (it has two raid controller, one for the first half of the drives and one for the other half)
http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/
In a small/medium size business scenario where an Apple server could service Windows desktops, an Apple server could enjoy a cost advantage over Windows servers. This cost advantage would be due to Apple’s willingness to ship servers fully equipped with free server software such as database servers (e.g. Postgresql). Windows Small Business Server software costs money, as does stuff like SQL Server, and Microsoft would be unwilling to give such stuff away to server vendors for redistribution to their customers.
Will that cost advantage win out over the features you lose from not having a Windows server infrastructure ? GPOs, SUS, Active Directory, etc ?
OS X’s ease of administration advantage over Windows would make it less costly for small and medium sized businesses to operate in their server closets.
What makes you think OS X has an adminsitration advantage ? Windows server – particular SBS – is _extremely_ easy to use.
This would be especially true in the *many* small businesses that don’t have dedicated server administration employees.
This is precisely the market Microsoft have been targeting and pandering to for years. SBS is an excellent all-in-one solution for them – OS X has a lot of work to do to be competitive.
As a further example of #2, Apple’s grid computing features make OS X an especially appealing server choice for those small scientific and engineering companies that have to do large computations but don’t have a cluster expert on their staff.
Now this, OTOH, is an excellent example of where Apple’s product lineup is top-notch. Although I would have to wonder how many such companies don’t have someone on staff who isn’t knowledgable in Linux and/or FreeBSD.
If Apple would simply target the scenario of Windows desktops connecting to OS X servers I believe that Apple could sell quite a few more units.
Personally I think Apple would have far more success targeting “complete solution” situations with tight integration between servers and clients to simplify the setup and maintenance of entire environments. Basically the same thing Microsoft has done.
Mac servers with Windows desktops lose a significant level of functionality that make running those systems much more complex and labour-intensive.
Price wise, unless you get a no-name 1U chassis and risk all of the components not working together, the Xserve comes out on top – not by much though.
Uh, no.
(Australian $$$)
Dell PE1850
2x3Ghz Xeon x86-64
2x73Gb 10k RPM SCSI
1Gb DDR2-400
Hardware RAID w/256MB cache (ROMB)
3 year next day warranty
RHEL ES
~$5480
Apple Xserve
2x2Ghz G5
2x80GB SATA
1GB DDR-400
1 year warranty
~$6800
The Dell has a better warranty, hardware RAID, SCSI disks, an option for redundant power and an option for PCIe. If you don’t want/need an OS, you can knock about $650 off that price as well.
The Mac has more (but slower) disk and greater disk space expansion possibilities, 2 years less warranty and a ~$1300 higher price tag. Oh, and a firewire port.
PS Apple’s raid solution was promising until it was learned that it requires an Xserve or similar to act as a front… although the raid unit has redundant power supplies, the Xserve does not rendering the raid solution vulnerable to power problems.
XRAID can be used independently of an Xserve. It’s actually a pretty good deal.
I wonder if drsmithy’s numbers reflect a specific pricing difference in Australia. I ran a check using similar configurations at the US sites for each company. For simplicity I left off the RAID controller and configured each with 1 hard drive in the 80 GB range. I also selected the zero cost no operating system option for the Dell unit. Memory on each was set to 1 GB DDR-400 (2X512). I got the following:
Dell PowerEdge 1850 –> $4196.00
Apple Xserve G5 –> $3999.00
These prices are actually close enough where other factors would drive the purchase decision.
Don
The comment about the XServe being loud was to those who think it’s silent. It is not. I consider it loud and would not want to work near one let alone a full rack. I point this out b/c the Xserve’s for regular IT work is most likely in smaller offices where (cringe) the admin is actually in the same room. Relatively speaking, they are quiet but it’s like saying a 757 is quieter than a 747… doesn’t really matter. For separate server rooms or iso boxes, it would be fine.
Prices change over time. I knew it was only a matter of time before Dell would beat the price but the two times over the last year that I did massive price comparisons (taking all components into account including the OS which I don’t think the previous poster took into account), the Xserve came out cheaper. So price isn’t so much of an issue. It’s more an issue of applications, maintenance, scalability, etc.
I didn’t mean to say the raid solution required an Xserve only. I said it in the context of an all Apple solution which does require an Xserve. Of course you can use the solution with a different type of server but that wasn’t my point. I was all for it until I saw that it required a non-dual power supply Xserve to front it.
Talk about misinformation? Ok, Apple has a total of 2 enterprise hardware offerings and 2 software offerings:
1. Xserve 1U 2way
2. Xraid
1. OSX Server
2. Xsan
Now compare that to offerings from IBM, Sun, HP, and even Dell. In no way am I saying Apple’s offerings are bad. They are actually very good but they’ll either need to produce more hardware and software options or wait long enough until software and server technology can be condensed to the minimal offerings (i.e. when a 1U can actually take the place of a 4U 8-way and the OS has enough integration software built in).