dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
426
share rss forum feed


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA

XServe 2009 is it worth it?

What say you? Power Hog or worth still using as a Server for a small business? Seems it'll run 10.10. Plan to use for Open Directory and File Sharing


Thinkdiff
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:11
If your decision is between another 1U server with similar LOM, redundant power supplies, and reliability and you want to run OS X, then it might be a good deal.

If your decision is between the Xserve and a $500 small business tower "server", then obviously it's going to use a ton more power and is likely overkill.

For example, the ThinkServ TS130 is a great machine, has remote KVM/LOM, and runs ESXi wonderfully, but it's not even in the same class as an Xserve.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
Xserve is free and im more so comparing against say a current Mac mini server obviously that would cost.

I suppose the question is more so is a 5 year old Xserve still worth the power it'll draw and are it's specs still decent

rugby
I think I know it all.
VIP
join:2000-09-26
Plainfield, IN
reply to Edrick
Do you have a rack and a separate room to put it in? If you don't, I'd sell it and get a mini.


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
Yup have a rack and separate room. It's not an issue of space or rack just power consumption based on processing power. No point in running a system thatll cost me $20 a month to run or something (no idea what the xserve will cost to run) but have it give me no real processing power and be more of a heater.


Thinkdiff
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:11
You could run "Open Directory and File Sharing" on basically anything. Processing power shouldn't really be your concern.

Unless you specifically need the benefits that the Xserve provides, then it'd be a waste. It uses 144 W while idle in its base configuration, and puts out 490BTU/hr, so your cooling costs will likely increase, too.
»support.apple.com/kb/HT200237

By comparison, the Mac Mini server 2012 uses 13 W and puts out 45 BTU/hr.
»support.apple.com/kb/HT3468

If you want it as a "toy" (it is a pretty awesome box), then go for it. But it's incredibly impractical unless you'd actually use all the additional benefits. The fact that you're comparing it to a Mac Mini server probably indicates you don't need the Xserve.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
I should mention also this is for my business, I do understand the benifits of an XServe and we will probably use them down the road. Basically we're a production company and do video editing. I've got two Mac Pros, some iMacs, Laptops and general systems that will be connected to whichever server we use.

Cooling isn't an issue power is of a little concern, I suppose my question is more so is the XServe being a 2009 system still a reasonable system to use today. I know the enterprise features it has are still good. But the problem more so is can these systems still be an aptly equipped system by today's standards.
--
Edrick Smith
Independent Film & Broadcast Producer
»edricksmith.com


Thinkdiff
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:11
As I said earlier, file sharing and Open Directory are really basic tasks. A well-spec'd 2006 Xserve could do both exceedingly well. A 2009 Xserve should have no problem with it and may actually do it better than a Mac Mini server depending on your setup and load requirements.

Just recognize it won't be supported forever - 10.12 would be a likely cut-off point (around 7 years of updates), if not 10.11.

The one benefit a Mac Mini has is Thunderbolt, but an Xserve with a Fibre Channel card is likely to outperform a Mac Mini w/ Thunderbolt anyway. Your question can't really be answered without the full picture and setup.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
Yeah I figure it won't have too much more life in it, I just plan on using it for the next year or two until funds are available to purchase something else. But being that the 10.10 update will support it it should have a bit of life in it. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't running a foot warmer when it would of just been a useless power hog. So as long as a good speced 2009 system still has some life in it looks like ill take it for a spin.
--
Edrick Smith
Independent Film & Broadcast Producer
»edricksmith.com

rugby
I think I know it all.
VIP
join:2000-09-26
Plainfield, IN
reply to Edrick
We have done a couple of Xserve replacements using Synology gear and the customers have been extremely happy with the throughput and performance. Significantly cheaper than Xsan and easier to setup too. One we even did 10Gb to the desktop and the server for maximum throughput. I think they hit 600MBs over their existing Cat6 wiring.


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
reply to Edrick
Alright little wrench in the works, it's a 2008. Dual Processor. I've noticed that they dropped support at 10.8 and on. Am I correct in that this is only because of the graphics and if so what is a good replacement card? Also am I correct in assuming that I cannot get 10.8 or higher to work at all without the new card?

rugby
I think I know it all.
VIP
join:2000-09-26
Plainfield, IN
it's probably the EFI firmware so you *might* be screwed. 10.8 is still a decent server OS, but 10.9 is MUCH better if for caching alone.


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
I've already confirmed it not to be an EFI Firmware issue from what I can tell it's the video card. As there's no drivers for it.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
It's hilarious that a video card is the stumbling block for a server machine OS upgrade...

Only at Apple, hehe...
--



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Found an interesting post...

»forums.macrumors.com/showthread.···=1745531
--



Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
reply to Edrick
I was able to get 10.9.4 on it today by just adding the ID. However even over remote desktop the thing lags horribly. I can't tell if this is a Remote Desktop issue as I've seen this issue before with Remote Desktop systems or if it's the graphics card even though I'm remotely connected.


billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5
I have two Mini Servers. One is running 10.6.8 and the other (originally shipped with 10.6) is running 10.9.4. The remote desktop (VNC) over the local LAN works great on the 10.6 unit, but lags horribly on the 10.9 unit.


Edrick
I aspire to tell the story of a lifetime
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA
reply to Edrick
It works better with the new video card I put in even though it's remote desktop which I didn't think would effect it. It's still laggy though a bit.

rugby
I think I know it all.
VIP
join:2000-09-26
Plainfield, IN
reply to billaustin
Buy this to fix your issues, it's a known bug with these minis and being headless. »amzn.to/1kR9Fqw


billaustin
they call me Mr. Bill
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-13
North Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5
Thanks, I'll try one of those.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Edrick
said by Edrick:

It works better with the new video card I put in even though it's remote desktop which I didn't think would effect it. It's still laggy though a bit.

What video card did you put in it, out of curiosity? I think a Radeon 2400HD PRO from a 2008 Mac Pro would fit in the single slot in your Xserve... Better cards I think are dual slot.
--