using an old macbook as server

[satinsilverem2]

Hi,

So I have a late 2008 Macbook with 6gb Ram and a 500GB hard drive just sitting around. My Plan was to install Yosemite Server on it and use it mainly for a Time Machine destination and a cacheing server. does anyone see any objections to doing this.

 

[Cubytus]

I don't see why it wouldn't work, except because of Yosemite's poor compatibility.

 

[DEFabio]

You'll be able to use your MB as a server as is. However, I don't think you will be able to upgrade to Yosemite. I will have to double check on Yosemite's compatibility.

 

[keysofanxiety]

You'll be able to use your MB as a server as is. However, I don't think you will be able to upgrade to Yosemite. I will have to double check on Yosemite's compatibility.

If the Mac supports Mavericks it'll support Yosemite.

 

[satinsilverem2]

Ive been running Yosemite on it since the first dev release so that issue is fine. my only concern with it is expandable storage. being an older computer the only external bus is USB 2.0. I think for Time Machine backups this would be fine but slow. but with the other services would i notice a serious slowdown.

 

[Altemose]

Ive been running Yosemite on it since the first dev release so that issue is fine. my only concern with it is expandable storage. being an older computer the only external bus is USB 2.0. I think for Time Machine backups this would be fine but slow. but with the other services would i notice a serious slowdown.

USB 2.0 is fine there for basic Time Machine backups. Though, to make this machine a good server on the network I recommend that you place it where you can plug it in via Ethernet.

 

[mvmanolov]

USB 2.0 is fine there for basic Time Machine backups. Though, to make this machine a good server on the network I recommend that you place it where you can plug it in via Ethernet.

to add to that the USB2 bus bandwidth is more than enough to completely saturate a single Ethernet connection...

 

[MagicBoy]

to add to that the USB2 bus bandwidth is more than enough to completely saturate a single Ethernet connection...

No it's not.
USB2 - typically 30MB/sec
AFP over Gigabit Ethernet- typically 85-90MB/sec

 

[mvmanolov]

No it's not.
USB2 - typically 30MB/sec
AFP over Gigabit Ethernet- typically 85-90MB/sec

Yep. thanks for that i don't know why but i always thought that its about 150MB/s

to OP, Sorry about the misinformation...

 

[Cubytus]

Yep. thanks for that i don't know why but i always thought that its about 150MB/s

You were probably used to cheap computers that falsely claim support Gigabit Ethernet. In reality, those don't have a dedicated internal controller for cost reasons, instead relying on a USB2.0 to Gigabit Ethernet bridge that's of course limited by USB 2.0 bandwidth.

 

[mvmanolov]

You were probably used to cheap computers that falsely claim support Gigabit Ethernet. In reality, those don't have a dedicated internal controller for cost reasons, instead relying on a USB2.0 to Gigabit Ethernet bridge that's of course limited by USB 2.0 bandwidth.

no actually that isn't it. i think i just had the wrong impression...
embarrassing, i know but...