Xserver's size issue

webexplorer · #1 June 2nd, 2008, 08:21 PM

I think that all computer companies should make smaller server computers. Our technologies are available for them to make smaller servers.

Now, Apple's Xserver's size is 18 inches (W) and 2 inches (H). It weighed 32 pounds. I believe that it produces a lot of electricity.

Why can't Apple Company make a smaller server? I think that the company should make about 6 inches (W) and 1 inch (H) because many new hard disks are getting smaller. The electronic boards should be also smaller - no matter what. The weight should be much lighter than 32 pounds.

The VST Company used to sell its small network servers, and this company went out of business - I don't remember what happened to the company. I understand that it is not the same because each server has no processor in it. But, the technology was almost right there. The electricity would make a big difference if the server is small one.

Anything is possible. In the old days, 1x DVD driver cannot go faster than the 1x. Now, 16x and 32x are faster in most IBM PC computers.

Don't you agree that it is time for the companies to make smaller server computers? How can we convince the companies to do it for us?

DeltaMac · #2 June 2nd, 2008, 09:11 PM

Did you forget about blade servers? Those are pretty much the size that you mention (well, a little bigger, but not a lot!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_server

They've been around long enough to be a specific class of server.

Seems like you are under some misconceptions about what a server is...
You do need to define what you want a server to do - such as:
http://www.webopedia.com/didyouknow/...05/servers.asp

As far as Apple is concerned, I have several customers that use Mac minis as dedicated servers. That's about as small as you can get with all the components, although if you remove the optical/CD drive, the mini _could_ be substantially smaller, eh?

I think one good reason for the size of many servers, is the hardware redundancy that is built-in to most systems. Hot-swap modules, and extra hard drives, dual power supplies, etc, don't really compress too well!

ElDiabloConCaca · #3 June 3rd, 2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

I think that all computer companies should make smaller server computers. Our technologies are available for them to make smaller servers.

Technologies are available to make just about anything smaller -- but smaller is not always better.

Quote:

Now, Apple's Xserver's size is 18 inches (W) and 2 inches (H). It weighed 32 pounds. I believe that it produces a lot of electricity.

Apple's XServe is a standard size so that it fits into rack-mount racks. If they made it any narrower, it wouldn't fit into standard server racks.

Apple's XServe consumes a lot of electricity. It does not produce any electricity at all.

Quote:

Why can't Apple Company make a smaller server? I think that the company should make about 6 inches (W) and 1 inch (H) because many new hard disks are getting smaller. The electronic boards should be also smaller - no matter what. The weight should be much lighter than 32 pounds.

Yeah, and that 6-inch server wouldn't fit into a rack-mount system without some sort of custom brackets.

Quote:

The VST Company used to sell its small network servers, and this company went out of business - I don't remember what happened to the company. I understand that it is not the same because each server has no processor in it. But, the technology was almost right there. The electricity would make a big difference if the server is small one.

The actual size of the server case has nothing to do with how much electricity the server uses. Things like the spindle speed of the hard drives, the type of CPU, and how many watts the power supply is rated for are what determines how much electricity a server uses. I could put a low-power AMD CPU with power-saving hard drives into a 4-foot by 4-foot box and it wouldn't use any more power than if I had put those same components into a 4-inch by 4-inch box.

Quote:

Don't you agree that it is time for the companies to make smaller server computers? How can we convince the companies to do it for us?

Like DeltaMac said, you don't have to use an XServe as a server -- you can use any computer you want. The XServe is aimed at the professional server market, and as such, was built to be a standard size to fit into standard rack-mount systems. If you have no need for a rack-mount system, by all means, use an iMac, Mac mini, old PowerMac G4, or roll your own Linux server in a micro-ATX form factor.

webexplorer · #4 June 3rd, 2008, 12:44 PM

Okay, I see what you mean.

Let's say that I bought a used Apple Desktop G5 1.8 or 2 GB. Can I buy five Seagate (or other brands) External 400 GB hard disk drives with 7200 rpm?

These external hard drives become a server to connect to the desktop G5. Is that a possible? Is it too hot for the external hard disks?

Will the Mac OS Xserver software runs these external HD drives? Does this Xserver software only design to run on Xserve?

I noticed that a fancy Xserve contains three internal hard disks which seems ridiculous to me. I understand that this Xserver is faster than the desktop G5. Is it really necessary if I use a desktop G5 server with the external HDs to run on the internet?

ElDiabloConCaca · #5 June 3rd, 2008, 12:58 PM

Mac OS X Server will run on any computer that Mac OS X runs on. It does not have any special requirements over the regular Mac OS X operating system.

Yes, you can connect external hard drives (of any type... USB, FireWire, eSATA, etc.) to the "server" computer and share them on your network via a number of different protocols (SMB/CIFS, AFP, FTP, NFS, etc.).

The amount of drives inside a server is dependent upon the use of the server. While you may not see the need for three hard drives in a computer, I assure you that there are many, many, many uses for multiple hard drives in a server. I'd be delighted to provide examples.

What exactly would you be trying to accomplish with Mac OS X Server on a computer? Do you have other computers on a network that need access to shared drives? Do you have some need to "manage" the user accounts on those machines? Or would this be more of a "let's see what cool stuff I can do with Mac OS X Server?"

webexplorer · #6 June 3rd, 2008, 01:16 PM

That's good to know.

I want to set up my server for internet so that I could use it for my website business. I do not want to rent a dedicated computer from one of the services. I am sure that the prices are cheap than my own way. It does not mean that I'm cheap, but I like to do something on my server.

I am aware that out there is really hard to find that would connect on my server. I thought that I could use a telephone number to connect my server, but I was wrong. I am sure that there is another way. I refuse to use a cable service, but DSL might be a good way to go. I don't know what else is better than that.

A few years ago, a Japan company used to sell a device to hook up on a telephone pole to connect my computer. Is a telephone line really owns by U.S. Government?

(I lost the Japan company's website address on my home computer when a tree knocked down the power line that killed my logic board. I got it repaired by one of the authorized Apple stores for two months. Now, I use the UPS to protect my computer. Oh boy.)

ElDiabloConCaca · #7 June 3rd, 2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

That's good to know.

I want to set up my server for internet so that I could use it for my website business. I do not want to rent a dedicated computer from one of the services. I am sure that the prices are cheap than my own way. It does not mean that I'm cheap, but I like to do something on my server.

That's exactly what I do with my server, so I completely understand. Yes, it is cheaper, plus it offers you more control.

Quote:

I am aware that out there is really hard to find that would connect on my server. I thought that I could use a telephone number to connect my server, but I was wrong. I am sure that there is another way. I refuse to use a cable service, but DSL might be a good way to go. I don't know what else is better than that.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here... are you looking for suggestions on types of internet access (cable, DSL, T1, etc.)? When you say "telephone number" do you really mean "dial-up internet access?"

Quote:

A few years ago, a Japan company used to sell a device to hook up on a telephone pole to connect my computer. Is a telephone line really owns by U.S. Government?

I have never heard of such a device (although it sounds like some kind of power-stealing or phone-stealing or broadcast-stealing device -- you can't just climb any old telephone pole and install unauthorized equipment), and yes, the government "regulates" telephone service here to an extent.

Go3iverson · #8 June 3rd, 2008, 04:34 PM

As it's been said, you can run Mac OS X Server on non-server hardware. The Xserve hardware does provide lots of additional features, such as enterprise grade parts, redundant power supplies, a large amount of user replaceable parts (and full service kits you can purchase), enclosure features and the like.

I've run Server (in live and test environments) on hardware ranging from desktops to servers to portables (unsupported) for various purposes. It's a matter of finding the cost/benefit ratio you want and the performance you need.

Michael