Hello,

I saw quite a few Mac OS X Server Hosting providers. And I am currently using Linux ded. Server.

My understanding is that OS X is based on Unix Kernal, and Linux is Unix-Like. So what else make them so different??? or they are the same? except the name.. OSX and Linux...

Thanks.:)

There are many different variations of the *nix core. Linux and MacOS is not the only one. There are solaris, (from Sun) Aix (IBM) and countless other variety that hardware vendors have customised for their own hardware. The difference I guess is the adaptations used to make the core works on the hardware. Similarly there are usually some unique tools, optimisations that are done to make it work better on that particular platform. The exact difference... is quite hard to say unless you have tried it. The problem is that since the OS and hardware are all different, you can't really run much tests against each other as any difference in performance may be due to the hardware and so on.

Originally posted by torwill
Hello,

I saw quite a few Mac OS X Server Hosting providers. And I am currently using Linux ded. Server.

My understanding is that OS X is based on Unix Kernal, and Linux is Unix-Like. So what else make them so different??? or they are the same? except the name.. OSX and Linux...

Thanks.:)


OS X is based on BSD 4.4 and uses libs from the FreeBSD tree and some stuff from NetBSD. OS X runs on PowerPC (Macintosh) processors, not x86 and is pretty much as far from Linux as you can get and still be a *nix OS. The underlyings of OS X is Darwin, an Opensource OS Apple is doing. For more information on OS X check out www.apple.com/osx

The XServe boxes sure look sharp!

Evan

They look sharp, but cost a pretty penny.

Originally posted by Evan001
The XServe boxes sure look sharp!

Evan

Would you rather have a car that looks like a 911 Turbo but drives like a Civic?

...or a car that looks like a Civic but drives like a 911 Turbo?

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


Would you rather have a car that looks like a 911 Turbo but drives like a Civic?

...or a car that looks like a Civic but drives like a 911 Turbo?

Or in the XServes case, one that looks like a 911 Turbo AND drives even better.

Obviously you haven't seen them in action.

Originally posted by RobotDSquad
Or in the XServes case, one that looks like a 911 Turbo AND drives even better.

Obviously you haven't seen them in action.

Excuse me?

Are you trying to tell me that the $7k XServe with dual 1GHz processors and 2GB of RAM will out perform a $7k x86-based system (preferably a dual Xeon (with SMT) on a SuperMicro, with a SCSI susb-system, and moer than 2GB of RAM)?

If so, you must be on crack.

I have seen them in action. The performance/cost ratio is way off. Not to mention we all know that the PPC line is at an end. Not to mention it is a lot easier to replace stuff from x86 stuff than it is Mac stuff simply based on availability.

I will take an x86 based rack (or some Big Iron once you start tossing around money like that) over a mac rack any day of the week. You obviously haven't seen quad Xeons in action (and at $7k, you're getting close to quad multi gigahertz CPUs, something Apple has yet to show us).

Ya in servers it's about cost/performance ratios and also about scalability. I am not too sure about Mac multi-processor capability (or the lack thereof) and also what happens when you need to do a cluster.

I also experienced quite a bit of "sticker shock" when I looked at the Xservers.

They should be selling SCSI systems for what they are charging for IDE.

Other than Apple's pricing being way out of line, Apple's OS history leaves me cold as well.

With these systems you are stuck with Apple and their pseudo-open OS. If something is broken it's up to one and only one company to fix it. Considering Apple's track record this worries me greatly.

x86 may not be the best platform in the universe but you do have many OS choices and virtually unlimited hardware options.

Well, I'd like to see a $3000 Dell vs a $3000 Apple. Oh wait, someone already has, lets see what they have to say:

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

Find me something saying the otherwise?

As for selling SCSI, since the IDE's all have their own 100mb/s buses, it would be pointless to use SCSI disks. Their IDE's are very very close to being as fast as a SCSI setup without the extremely high price/gb of the SCSI hardware.

The main feature that I really like in Mac OS X server is the management software. You can basically manage all Mac OS X server from one Mac workstation. :)
Wait until cpanel release their Mac OS X version .. I think that would be cool.

Originally posted by drhonk
The main feature that I really like in Mac OS X server is the management software. You can basically manage all Mac OS X server from one Mac workstation. :)
Wait until cpanel release their Mac OS X version .. I think that would be cool.


That's actually the reason to buy the servers, your right. And CPanel will be total sweetness on OS X. It's kinda funny, I think if you asked Apple if they thought that webhosts would want to use the XServe, they'd look at you and laugh. It's really more for File/Print servers on large Mac(and mixed) networks (Adobe, or NY Times for example) than it is for webhosting. Also Apple has always had a big Science community and music community and the xserves are doing well in both.

The main thing about that review is the fact that it was an Apple sanctioned benchmark test, RobotDSquad... Of course you're going to get those results when you pay, and sponsor the testing..

I'm not saying that Macs CAN'T perform, I just wouldn't base my purchasing on propaganda posted on Apples site.

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/18421.html

Uh huh, yeah... now click this link - http://www.xinet.com/reseller/partners/industry.alliances.html - and see who is partnered with Xinet...

Kinda funny how Apple is right there, but no sign of Dell huh? Like I said, a load of propaganda..

Oh, not to mention that the CEO of Xinet - Scott Seebass, has his picture taken sitting right next to a Mac - http://www.xinet.com/images/venture.quote.scott.top.gif

Typical Apple propaganda...

Man, I love being right... Got a reply in 2 minutes last time around, now utter silence..

Perhaps that's because you are too busy talking to yourself :D

Originally posted by RobotDSquad
Well, I'd like to see a $3000 Dell vs a $3000 Apple. Oh wait, someone already has, lets see what they have to say:

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

Find me something saying the otherwise?

As for selling SCSI, since the IDE's all have their own 100mb/s buses, it would be pointless to use SCSI disks. Their IDE's are very very close to being as fast as a SCSI setup without the extremely high price/gb of the SCSI hardware.

Oh, WOW! Someone did a crappy test with a Xserve vs. a Dell running DeadRat, er, RedHat Linux or W2K.

A more appropriate test would have been against a FreeBSD box.

I have about as much faith in these "tests" as I did on the one M$ did a few years ago when it was bashing Linux.

Finally, if you think that bus speed is the only thing that seperates IDE from SCSI you are sadly mistaken. Depending on your application and usage loads the price of SCSI is justified.

Talking to myself is what happens off the forums.. I attribute it to having 2 kids.. 3.5 year olds can be terror, and drive you to go mad..

Depending on your application and usage loads the price of SCSI is justified.


Well hell, take out SCSI and insert anything you want in there. Why aren't you running $15million Suns? I mean, application and usage loads could make it justified right?
Give me a break.


And AJarvey: Some of us DO have work to do, not just sit on the internet and argue. I'm so sorry I couldn't reply back within 2 minutes.

If your so right, show me 2 studies saying that a comparable Dell is faster than a XServe. I mean, if it's so much faster, I'm sure someone will want to rub it in Apples face.

__
And, I'd like to see you run a Filemaker Pro DB and/or Lasso on your RedHat box. There is alot of Mac only software that lots of businesses and educational institutions use that don't have a PC version.

(FileMaker Link) http://www.filemaker.com/products/fms_home.html

Scroll down. Filemaker IS available for not just MacOS, but for Windows and RedHat also..

(Lasso Link) http://www.blueworld.com/blueworld/default.html

Same thing goes with Lasso.. Mac, Windows AND Linux versions.. And both of these platforms run just fine on Windows or Linux, not JUST on Apples.

If I could find someone who has done an UNBIASED test, I'd be more than happy to share.. My guess is that no unsanctioned organization is going to do a review because nobody cares.

nobody cares

I guess, except for you.

Ehhh... I just like to debate.. You seem to be very pro Apple, and I'm just not.. Gives me something to do when my wife's at work..

I have a dell poweredge 1650 with the following specs

1.4Ghz processor (dual capable, havent got the 2nd cpu yet)
4gigabytes of ram
dual 72.3 scsi hdds
perc 3 raid controller
hot swappable drive bays (3 of them)


if someone has an Xserve we can try benchmarking them......

I have access to a single 1ghz processor with 512mb of ram and (1) 120gb hd.

So other than Ram, it's about the same.

This thread is ****ing great!

I myself am pro apple. I am getting quite a kick our of this thread though - even in the open source community the Apple vs. Everyone else fight exists.

As for the XServe...

It is an amazing server (that admin system is truly something), and what RobotDSquad said about them being meant for file and print sharing is definetly true.

I don't think Apple ever expected people to buy XServes for webhosting, thats not saying they can't compete performance wise, but Apple knows how much their charging for these babies, and surely they know most companies just can't spend that much.

What do I love about the XServe so much?

Just like all Apple products it comes built and ready to go for my mom to use - ya thats right, my mom. Thats how easy it is. So is the price justified? Depends who's using it :D

Hmm, what file system was running on the redhat box?

I can't seem to find it in the article.

I have spend many a day in the datacenter playing with XServe's vs Faster cheepier Dell servers. They are very close in speed. At first I would have choosen the Dell just from my own experience with using Intel based hardware. But I'm all about the Xserve's and OS X now. It's simple straightforward, it's what linux or redhat should have been from the bigginning. If you haven't played with a Mac OS X server and it's maintaince tools you should. Apple has always been known for making great human interfaces! Which translates into time I save by not having to monkey around with settings like I do in linux.

Not a day goes by that I don't have to fix something on a Dell machine. Maybe the expensive Apple machine is worth it, because it hasn't given me an excuse to touch any of them (make changes or hardware repairs yet) and the dells were purchased at the same time.

I'm thinking about getting a Mac OS X machine for my home as I'm falling in love with an OS all over again!

To each his own :D

Originally posted by inkhead
Apple has always been known for making great human interfaces! Which translates into time I save by not having to monkey around with settings like I do in linux.

100% agree. That is exactly what Apple has always been known to do. It's just unfortunate that in the XServe's case, it costs about $1500-1000 more than I WISH it did :bawling: :bawling:

oh well , the pc vs apple will always be a good arguement , but i just happened to find these benchmark tests , from what would be considered a "pro" apple website called digitalvideoediting.com the article is called

Mac vs. PC III: Mac Slaughtered Again
Dell's $2964 3.06 GHz P4 Trounces Fastest Mac on the Market

heres the straight link

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

anyways , apple charges to much for there computers , and they are not that great . With apple , they market appearance and catchy phrases like "think different" , "Megahertz dont matter" , "Micro kernal " and my favorite the "Velocity Engine", and have famous people on there commercials , i dont care if tony hawk uses a mac . Anyways , this dell isnt even 3000 (i know ..its damn close , imagine a 3000 dollar hybrid) bucks , and it whooped the mac , that isnt saying much for apple . Im sorry , ill go with the industry standard in hosting which is a x86 machine , now if this was a music studio , i might have a different thought . Then again, many studios are leaving the apple platform......There are better pc's

Actually, DigitalVideoEditing isn't really pro apple. They seem to be pretty PC for the VideoEditing world.
I should point out that they are comparing Desktops not servers, and the benchmakrs where things like Photoshop filters. So this isn't really an XServe vs. PowerEdge test.
(Note: I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm just pointing out that they are talking desktops)




Anyway, I think one large point that hasn't been made, and i've read a couple articles on like business2.com about the fact that you could save quite a bit of time and money in support with the XServe for a few reasons.
1. Both your hardware and your software are from the same company. There's no finger pointing that can be done. If you have a problem, the same tech can assist no matter if it's hardware or software.
2. Apple has an execellent support track record.
3. There are only 3 possible configurations. (Not including ram and HD's). That means that it does not take hardly any $$ at all to stock 1 of each replacement part. (You can buy a set of everything, including tools AND training for $2500).
4. You can admin 1 or 1000 servers, from the same program, turn on, turn off, and restart services as needed, and view everything from processor temp to Apache connections to power output from the powersupply. And ifyou need someone at a DC to swap one of the 4 hard drives, you can change the colors of the lights on the front of them.
5. Any computer without a MS OS on it is like Chocolate cake without mustard. :D

So anyway, this is a great debate, and it's nice to see people not calling each other names, which seems to happen all to often.

Hahaha, good call RobotDSquad.

I myself have a TiBook, and personally believe its the best god damn lasptop on the market. Period.

I like to think of Apple in the same category as say a Porsche. With the money you spend on a 911 Turbo, sure you COULD get a Viper, but is it the same quality and the same "Luxury"? Probably not. Apple is the Porsche in the personal cimputing industry. There might be faster, and cheaper machines out there, but what you pay is for pure, outright quality. Having the same company produce the software and hardware for a PC, ensures 110% compatbility. That never hurt no body.

Just my thoughts... :cool:

I just bought my iBook; G3 800/640MB/30GB/12.1" and it's a great laptop; and I'm all pc centric, and I love this little thing. It's nice and small, great performance, and it doesn't look black or like a brick.

I'm all about the Mac the speed thing I see is a big detracter. Right now it's not enough for the servers that it keeps me from buying them but it weighs heavily. I remember when Apple first introduced powerpc and how it was faster than intel but after a year or so motorola slacked off in development. I'm pretty sure apple is going to bust out with the 64bit (new) IBM chip sometime in the upcoming year. If that happens I will be more than happy to switch to Apple for the majority of my servers as speed shouldn't be a question for me then. So apple, here's to hoping! Keep innovating.

Being a TiBook owner I must admit I'm in love with Jaguar and the notebook itself. That being said, there really isnt that big a market for xserve hosting. However, a lot of the design heads and apple nuts I'm friends with are more than willing to shove out the extra dough to have a dedicated xserve because its got OS X, and its an Apple product.

Never underestimate the cult that is Apple. :D

Originally posted by aarong
Never underestimate the cult that is Apple. :D

So extremely true.

great human interfaces? i have been forced to use osx at a client's site, boy was it annoying. i remember using a mac 5 or so years ago and it was great, but this new interface is beyond disfunctional, even kde is better than that. just an imho of course =]

Originally posted by rusko
great human interfaces? i have been forced to use osx at a client's site, boy was it annoying. i remember using a mac 5 or so years ago and it was great, but this new interface is beyond disfunctional, even kde is better than that. just an imho of course =]


That's the first time I've ever heard someone say that. I have heard people say the dock wasn't as flexible as they liked, but most people like OS X. *shrugs*

i like *the look* of osx. i like the fact that i am able to drop to a shell. i do not like the fact that menus are up top as opposed to on the windows - i never know what program the options belong to etc. there are a dozen things wrong with usability in osx.

true rusko, but after a few weeks of using it, it becomes second nature.

/me hugs his TiBook

There is no way you can honestly say that. Maybe it seemed difficult to you because your brain was so programmed from using Windows and it's interface. and sure as hell not KDE. Why would I say this? Because KDE were trying to hire Mac OS design team members earlier this year because they wanted a better interface that was on par with OS X. I don't think they succeeded in hiring anyone. I use windows all the time and it took me about two days to get used to mac os x instead of windows. I love OS X because everything has a keyboard shortcut. I know all the tricks shortcuts for windows and OS X and have been using windows waayyy longer but when it comes to getting something done I can fly on OS X simply because it's easier to navigate and more shortcuts to use.

I think I should know I flip-flop between OS X and Windows XP/2000 and KDE all day long.


KDE is like a bunch of nerds with no designer. The interface widgets violate everything about human interface. The only time KDE makes any sense is when you have a windows knock off theme. The main reason KDE/linux hasn't gone mainstream is because the interface is way too , well just way to , you get the idea. Many of the people I know who are linux/X windows nerds including much of the slashdot crew have switched to OS X as their primary *nix.

Anyway to each his own. I still use windows mostly for playing with IE 6 for windows (web dev testing)

The bottom line is KDE might seem easy, but that's only because you forced yourself to become familar with it. OS X has a much less steep of a learning curve.

OS X is really an amzing operating system. Is it perfect? Not yet, but it's getting there. We run M$, RH and OS X servers and the OS X has the most flexibility. You don't have to be a geek to use the thing with Apple's great interface. But if you want to drop down to the terminal, it's all UNIX underneath.

Think about what would be the perfect machine?

It'd probably be a laptop, 17" monitor, 802.11g (!), Gigabit ethernet, dual video support, bluetooth, runs UNIX, Windows and Mac, and has a sweet GUI.

Well, Apple's got the machine. The new 17" Powerbook.

PS: Any company that would put Yao Ming and Mini-me in the same commercial deserves some credit.

Regarding OS X as web hosting server - I would consider it at the right price.