OS X Server: How is better than Linux/Solaris/WinServer?

[garybUK]

Run an Oracle RAC cluster, any Fusion middleware, or even a standalone database for that matter. BSD has its niche, but it's just not as supported as Linux is. That doesn't mean either one is better for every situation; one has to choose the right tool for the job. That said, if I'm going to run Linux on my Oracle boxes, I'm not sure why I'd choose BSD for others, as that's just another different OS to support.

If you're just installing the default on servers, you're wasting resources. Also, if you use the server distributions (on those available) the defaults are trimmed way down.

BSD comes with nothing but SSHD running by default?!
So the 3 things you have listed are from 1 vendor... Oracle, in fact, you can run those listed under a 'linux environment' under FreeBSD ... not the greatest way for production boxes tbh, but most people will run it on SunOS or Oracle Linux.

Oracle is just 1 example... BSD has massive support for PgSQL, MySQL, MaxDB etc. etc.

Also i'm not sure what you do as a job, but I don't run multiple resources on 1 box, it's not best practice... virtualisation is your friend. But I always keep resources on separate instances/machines.

Your nice little OSX Install is running a FreeBSD Userland!

 

[MacNoobGuy]

so what sites actually run OS X Server?

 

[John Kotches]

lol, wow i never thought macrumors would even dream of running Linux over OS X.

how much is OS X Server again? $50? that must be the cheapest Server going around?

----------

do any major sites run it?

----------



just curious, but why are you a Mac user if you regard lightweightedness in such high regard? OS X's GUI is far more CPU/RAM intensive than Windows/Linux... or do you only use OS X as a desktop machine? how are you able to communicate to servers running *Nix? wouldn't it be easier to communicate when everything was the same platform?

I know this isn't directed to me, but ...
Open a terminal session. Then ssh user@host works just fine.

 

[John Kotches]

Also i'm not sure what you do as a job, but I don't run multiple resources on 1 box, it's not best practice... virtualisation is your friend. But I always keep resources on separate instances/machines.

Your nice little OSX Install is running a FreeBSD Userland!

Without redundancy built in, virtualization itself isn't any better than running multiple services on a single instance of an OS.

I know you know based on what you're writing, but most people don't deal with redundancies built into their systems. So I'm pointing that out for them.

Also Solaris runs just fine on Intel commodity hardware. I first booted up Solaris 10 on Intel hardware back in the 2.5.1 days. We used it to control an ATT phone switch we used as an auto dialer.

 

[MacNoobGuy]

has apple ever talked about revamping it and making it comparable to the OS' out there?

 

[throAU]

OS X server is a bunch of open source tools with an apple GUI on it.

in terms of stability, performance, memory use, etc it sucks hard compared to a well administered FreeBSD or Linux server.

but... you can set a lion server up to do a bunch of useful stuff in an hour or less.


So, its not "better" it just has different priorities.


Enterprise servers is not what apple make. It is not their focus. if you want an enterprise server, you buy a rack mount server with redundant power, redundant fans, RAID, fibre-channel, 10 gig ethernet, lights out management, etc.

Even apple don't use apple hardware in their datacenter.

OS X server is aimed at small workgroups (probably without any real IT staff), not the enterprise. And for small workgroups, it is probably fine. I have no real issue with it on my home LAN, at least.

But I'd never use it in my day job as an enterprise network admin


Using OS X server in the enterprise would be like hammering nails with a screwdriver. Yes, you might get things done, but it won't be easy or the best tool for the job.

Ditto for running a VMware vSphere cluster in your living room for your own novelty email domain and time machine backups. Like using a flamethrower to toast marshmallows. Not the correct tool for the job...

 

[coolspot18]

so it's cheaper than Windows?

Possibly, but there are no rackmount macs available, so use in a data center is minimal.

 

[rutledjw]

No. Solaris is the best.

overpriced hardware, support, and you get the same function from Linux, or another *nix if you're doing basic stuff like proxy, NFS serving, Apache, postgres, LDAP, e-mail, etc. If you need commercial support: Oracle, WebLogic/WebSphere, etc then go Linux. Why pay a premium for no real gain?

----------

Also Solaris runs just fine on Intel commodity hardware. I first booted up Solaris 10 on Intel hardware back in the 2.5.1 days. We used it to control an ATT phone switch we used as an auto dialer.

But you won't get support for Solaris on non-Sun/Oracle gear, so what's the point of using Solaris?

 

[John Kotches]

But you won't get support for Solaris on non-Sun/Oracle gear, so what's the point of using Solaris?

Dtrace, zfs, zones and SMF for starters.

You can in fact get Solaris x86 under support contract as a separate line item. You have to get help from your Tech Rep to do so but it is possible. Obviously not the hardware though.

My use of Solaris at home is as a test bed for personal learning. Our Solaris footprint at the office is all Sparc based.

 

[throAU]

Possibly, but there are no rackmount macs available, so use in a data center is minimal.

The even bigger problem is that there is no support for virtualization on real server grade hardware, using ESXi or HyperV or Xen.

Oh wow, we can VM lion (only) on Fusion or Parallels. This doesn't give us any enterprise features like HA, VMotion, Fault Tolerance, etc.

Until it is possible to use OS X on a cluster, it will remain a small business / home / toy server operating system.

And that's fine, for those purposes. It just won't work in the enterprise, but I very much suspect that is not what apple is aiming it at. Their entire company culture is very anti-enterprise (e.g., iCloud, the user being able to opt-out of iphone device profiles, etc) and promotes working in small teams with users having largely independent control of their devices.

 

[MacNoobGuy]

OS X server is a bunch of open source tools with an apple GUI on it.

in terms of stability, performance, memory use, etc it sucks hard compared to a well administered FreeBSD or Linux server.

but... you can set a lion server up to do a bunch of useful stuff in an hour or less.


So, its not "better" it just has different priorities.


Enterprise servers is not what apple make. It is not their focus. if you want an enterprise server, you buy a rack mount server with redundant power, redundant fans, RAID, fibre-channel, 10 gig ethernet, lights out management, etc.

Even apple don't use apple hardware in their datacenter.

OS X server is aimed at small workgroups (probably without any real IT staff), not the enterprise. And for small workgroups, it is probably fine. I have no real issue with it on my home LAN, at least.

But I'd never use it in my day job as an enterprise network admin


Using OS X server in the enterprise would be like hammering nails with a screwdriver. Yes, you might get things done, but it won't be easy or the best tool for the job.

Ditto for running a VMware vSphere cluster in your living room for your own novelty email domain and time machine backups. Like using a flamethrower to toast marshmallows. Not the correct tool for the job...

oh, ok. has this always been the case or was OS X Server once considered comparable to the other Server OS'? i always thought it was comparable about 5+ years ago.

 

[John Kotches]

oh, ok. has this always been the case or was OS X Server once considered comparable to the other Server OS'? i always thought it was comparable about 5+ years ago.

It's just my opinion that it's never been comparable as a heavyweight / enterprise server. Nothing wrong with an easy to use server for SMB / Home Networking.

I'll freely admit that bias might be skewing my point of view having worked with all the major *nix server flavors at one point or another except IRIX over the last 20+ years.

 

[throAU]

+1 to above.


see my previous post about correct tool for the job.

for being an easy to administer server for light duty apple is fine.


for enterprise workloads, no contest. go FreeBSD, Linux or Solaris (depending on your specific requirements - as most of my previous experience is in an ISP, we mostly used Linux and FreeBSD after migrating off Solaris 2.6 back in the day).


Again, that market isn't really what apple is about. Their shiny cuddly OS will always be outperformed by more stripped down command-line only operating systems in the server room - so in my opinion they're wise to simply not bother to compete in that space.

 

[belvdr]

BSD comes with nothing but SSHD running by default?!
So the 3 things you have listed are from 1 vendor... Oracle, in fact, you can run those listed under a 'linux environment' under FreeBSD ... not the greatest way for production boxes tbh, but most people will run it on SunOS or Oracle Linux.

Oracle is just 1 example... BSD has massive support for PgSQL, MySQL, MaxDB etc. etc.

We're a heavy Oracle shop.... unfortunately. Also consider hardware support. For example, take an HP ProLiant DL380 G7 and you'll see there are no BSD drivers in sight. Sure, it may install and run fine. Dell isn't any better. I guess this wouldn't be much of an issue in a small environment, but for a large environment, it's just not efficient to do so.

Also i'm not sure what you do as a job, but I don't run multiple resources on 1 box, it's not best practice... virtualisation is your friend. But I always keep resources on separate instances/machines.

Virtualization is running multiple resources on one box technically. Sure, you can create multiple virtual machines, but you're still doing CPU, memory, and disk scheduling and adding a bit of overhead. The value in virtualization is not having to purchase multiple physical machines and support the hardware. Since many machines, such as web or file servers, rarely use the hardware's full potential, you can gather those services onto one physical platform and utilize it more efficiently.

In larger environments, though, sometimes you have to bend the best practices. It's just not cost effective to run a single resource on a single box. We use a single hardware partition to run multiple instances of Oracle databases and applications.

Your nice little OSX Install is running a FreeBSD Userland!

True, but we don't use any Mac systems at work, thus we don't need to support them.

 

[John Kotches]

I agree with the previous poster about the 1 resource per box model being terribly outdated.

depending on what you're doing its just fine to put multiple services on 1 box. keep in mind that were not talking about each 1 of the service with only having 1 instance. rather were talking about say 6 or 8 servers per service behind a load balancer that handles individual node management.

there are certain things we do can only really have 1 server per X. these we cluster usually in a 4 to 1 ratio.

the key is being familiar with the applications you're presenting and eliminating single points of failure wherever it is possible to do so.

I think were way way beyond the original scope of this thread, but it's a discussion,and that's how they flow.

 

[MacNoobGuy]

ok thanks a lot guys. what i don't understand is why apple deliberately markets the Mac Pro Server and Mac Mini Server as Server products. i just read the XServe line was discontinued, was it much better under that?

 

[throAU]

ok thanks a lot guys. what i don't understand is why apple deliberately markets the Mac Pro Server and Mac Mini Server as Server products. i just read the XServe line was discontinued, was it much better under that?

They are servers - and they'd be fine for a small workgroup.

Eg, a DTP or graphic design firm with say 4-5 designers, they could use a mac pro or even a mini as a file server and / or remote VPN server to get back to work from home.

Could also host their local email on it, and it would be a lot more cost effective than Windows, using AD + Exchange.

Thats the kind of market apple is playing in - the big end of town is way out of their reach.

 

[MacNoobGuy]

They are servers - and they'd be fine for a small workgroup.

Eg, a DTP or graphic design firm with say 4-5 designers, they could use a mac pro or even a mini as a file server and / or remote VPN server to get back to work from home.

Could also host their local email on it, and it would be a lot more cost effective than Windows, using AD + Exchange.

Thats the kind of market apple is playing in - the big end of town is way out of their reach.

ok, thanks

 

[dyn]

Dtrace, zfs, zones and SMF for starters.

Dtrace, ZFS and zones are available on other platforms like Nexenta, OpenIndiana and FreeBSD.

You can in fact get Solaris x86 under support contract as a separate line item.

The problem with Solaris is exactly this. Without a support contract you can only install it. You want updates? You have to buy a support contract. This makes other operating systems much more attractive to sysadmins. Mind you, it is their job to administer servers, they do know what they are doing. There are also a lot of companies that provide 3rd party support for things like these as well.

In the end it is just a matter of preferences combined with requirements.

OS X Lion Server serves a different purpose. If you want some kind of remote installation/provisioning for Macs then OS X Server is the only way to go because of some proprietary PXE boot stuff. It is something I strongly dislike because I as a sysadmin want to control what is being used instead of a company such as Apple or Oracle. In this case it would mean that I need to configure OS X Server especially for Macs while I could have used my existing PXE boot setup. Same goes for other things. Why not do it like Novell has done and break things up into apps. Create something like Zenworks or work together with Microsoft and Novell to add Mac support to Zenworks and AD. That would be awesome and Apple does not have to support a fully fledged server OS anymore.

 

[codeus]

They are servers - and they'd be fine for a small workgroup.

Mac Minis are not servers and I would not recommend them for a business, no matter how small, not if your income depends on it working 24x7x365.

You can call any computer a server just by installing a server OS on it, or using it to 'serve' one or more services or applications to other computers.

But it is not *built* like a server. Server systems usually includes features that ensure they are reliable such as over-specified and/or redundant power supplies, server-quality hard disks in raid, high rpm fans and large cooling channels to manage heat.

The MacMini can do software raid but doesn't have any other server qualities. It is designed to be small, stylish and quiet and it does this at the expense of airflow, performance and reliability.

Don't get me wrong, I love the macmini, but as a server you will get 1 or 2 years out of it I guess before that tiny little fan dies of dust inhalation and I wouldn't want to count on it for critical systems.

The Mac Pro is a better option as it doesn't compromise so much to be tiny. I still find it sad that Steve Jobs and / or the Bean counters killed off the 'unprofitable' X-Serve. Surely the bigger picture is that it massively helped their IOS and Mac products to flourish in the business and education sectors.

 

[throAU]

Mac Minis are not servers and I would not recommend them for a business, no matter how small, not if your income depends on it working 24x7x365.

You see that's the thing. It can be good enough for small workgroups.

RAID 1, time machine destination for a bunch of laptops = fine
RAID 1 file server fro small work group, (of course you should back it up) = fine.


My mini has been running since 2009 without skipping a beat, running server.

Would i run a 24x7 enterprise off it? Of course not, its not what it is for. However for a small work group who store most of their stuff locally and just want a machine there to share things out, it is fine.

That's what it is aimed at.

 

[hvfsl]

I think it's a pity Apple don't let you legally install OS X Server inside VMware ESX (I say legally as you can hack it in there). Even if they charged $500 for it, I could see a lot of companies buying it and integrating it into their Windows networks to support their iOS/OSX devices.

 

[Alrescha]

Don't get me wrong, I love the macmini, but as a server you will get 1 or 2 years out of it I guess before that tiny little fan dies of dust inhalation and I wouldn't want to count on it for critical systems.

I've been buying Mac minis since they came out and I have yet to have a fan failure. The only thing that has failed has been the hard drive (typically after 3-4 years).

A.

 

[garybUK]

[/COLOR]

just curious, but why are you a Mac user if you regard lightweightedness in such high regard? OS X's GUI is far more CPU/RAM intensive than Windows/Linux... or do you only use OS X as a desktop machine? how are you able to communicate to servers running *Nix? wouldn't it be easier to communicate when everything was the same platform?[/QUOTE]

OSX is perfect for a desktop, I just don't see the need to have the fluff running on a machine that's only task is serving web sites, etc...

I SSH into them, OSX is perfect for it. NIS Authentication, NFS Client & SSH Terminal is always open on my machine.

 

[z3r0]

Dtrace, zfs, zones and SMF for starters.

You get all this with FreeBSD along with ports of Mac OS X specific tools/frameworks not found in Solaris like GCD/libdispatch, launchd, clang/llvm etc...

Minus the Oracle tax.