Mac Mini Server 2010 owners: OSX install confirmation request?

[DannySmurf]

Why its an uninformed decision ? The hardware is the same, whats the difference from a server mini and a normal mini , both running the non-server Snow Leopard? I guess there isn't, right?
I do understand that the superdrive is probably more expansive than a 500gb hard drive. Thats the 50 bucks difference.

People are spouting about how there are differences in Time Machine or the graphics or the speed foreground processes run at, or whatever, and are taking those as a reason to put the client OS on the server machine. THAT is uninformed, because all the reasons why it's "better" to have the client OS on the machine are nonsense.

I know this because I did it myself (out of curiosity and because I had an afternoon to kill, not because I thought I needed to). Other than the extra apps and configuration stuff that comes with the server OS, there is no difference in performance, graphics performance, hardware usability, Time Machine, apps that can be installed, ability to RAID the disks, communication with the rest of the network, or anything else that's user-visible.

Even still, installing the client version is only a hassle until the full 10.6.4 Snow Leopard is available in store. It's less uninformed than it is impatient.

That too. Although using the client mini's restore disks works just fine without any extra configuration.

I don't see the decision to grab the server uninformed either... it's more bang for your buck

No one said the decision to get the server model was uninformed. At all. It's definitely the better value.

 

[analogkid]

Oh, ok...

 

[vslo]

People are spouting about how there are differences in Time Machine or the graphics or the speed foreground processes run at, or whatever, and are taking those as a reason to put the client OS on the server machine. THAT is uninformed, because all the reasons why it's "better" to have the client OS on the machine are nonsense.

I know this because I did it myself (out of curiosity and because I had an afternoon to kill, not because I thought I needed to). Other than the extra apps and configuration stuff that comes with the server OS, there is no difference in performance, graphics performance, hardware usability, Time Machine, apps that can be installed, ability to RAID the disks, communication with the rest of the network, or anything else that's user-visible.
QUOTE]

I think thats strange. I used to have a late 2009 mac mini and the kernel task wasnt that high all the time.Actually I dont remember it going as high as it always it in my mac mini server 2010 ( It always about 15-30%, or more).
And I think that might be the reason for the choppy graphics sometimes.
Could it be a bad OS installation ? Or its probably a damaged 320M ? Or even my monitor ( 1080p ) ?

 

[Giuly]

Btw, doesn't the Install-DVD has a checkbox for the "Server packages" in the Customisation Menu? I guess it installs as regular Non-Server OS if you uncheck that.

And the only reason you want to do that is for the 1GB or what ever that you save on your hard drive for the server packages. Everything else is generally BS and autosuggestion, like the people who try to overclock their iPhone with sysctl, get an "This value is read-only"-error when trying to write cpufrequency and tell you that everything runs smoother now.

 

[DannySmurf]

I think thats strange. I used to have a late 2009 mac mini and the kernel task wasnt that high all the time.Actually I dont remember it going as high as it always it in my mac mini server 2010 ( It always about 15-30%, or more).
And I think that might be the reason for the choppy graphics sometimes.
Could it be a bad OS installation ? Or its probably a damaged 320M ? Or even my monitor ( 1080p ) ?

I would guess a background daemon run amok. Damaged monitor wouldn't slow things down; it would just look strange. A damaged video card would probably produce artifacting instead of or in addition to a slowdown.

I'd try a reinstall and see if the problem persists with a basic installation of OSX. If not, then it's something you have installed.

 

[vslo]

I would guess a background daemon run amok. Damaged monitor wouldn't slow things down; it would just look strange. A damaged video card would probably produce artifacting instead of or in addition to a slowdown.

I'd try a reinstall and see if the problem persists with a basic installation of OSX. If not, then it's something you have installed.

I noticed it just after my first boot. So its not any problem related with something I installed.

 

[levytv]

a solution

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=11389242&#11389242

this worked for me in two minutes

 

[kdcarver]

SD Boot on Mini Server

Has anyone attempted to load the OS for the Mini or Mini Server on a (large) SD card inserted in the machine? Will it boot from this?

 

[mangrove]

I got my 2010 server running on the same discs used to restore the 2010 mac mini. I am using the 10.6.3 discs that came with the regular Mini.

Working perfectly and already updated to 10.6.4 I mainly wanted the server ver. cause of the dual HDD Raid 0 setup. I tried the regular mini on the stock apple store model 5400rpm 320gb, but seemed too slow to me and having to spend a 100 or so on a decent hard drive or 200+ on a SSD upgrade seemed to defeat the purpose.
I already had a Macbook Air superdrive that I modified to be universal so the optical drive also wasn't a big issue.

So just to confirm server works fine with the 10.6.3 install discs.

Money wise if you are going to spend money to upgrade the Regular mini and don't need the optical drive go for the server ver.!

Confused here. Why do you have to "mod" an MBA SD to get it to work on a Mini Server?

 

[diminiko]

Confused here. Why do you have to "mod" an MBA SD to get it to work on a Mini Server?

I suspect he has previously mod'ed the superdrive for use with other machines (ie the stock drive will only work with MBA, mac mini and ACD) but will now use it on his mini.

 

[mangrove]

I suspect he has previously mod'ed the superdrive for use with other machines (ie the stock drive will only work with MBA, mac mini and ACD) but will now use it on his mini.

OK, makes sense. I know my MBA-SD worked on my 2009 mini. Haven't yet tried it on my 2010, but should be no big deal on that one either.

 

[mangrove]

Because they are making an uninformed decision.

It amazes me that what I think is happening just to get another internal HD, is actually true. Why go crazy to buy 2 old platters when you can put good money into what you really want in the end anyway?

Why not get a client mini add a drive in the SD bay , use an external SD via USB (which you would need anyway with the server model) and perhaps upgrade the "stock" HD with an SSD.

Heck, you could put in a hybrid 7200 HD in SD slot=$130+50 for OBHC.

Then get an SSD 60 or 120GB for boot, applications, home etc. or if you want to go "economy" put in 2 hybrids (like the Momentus XT).

Get the client model when Apple has refurb'd the 320GB ones for $599.

Is this too too much of a common sense argument?

 

[DannySmurf]

Is this too too much of a common sense argument?

Maybe people want the upgraded hardware too? Outfitting the client machine with the same CPU and RAM as the server, and buying a second hard drive costs more than the stock server does.