Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dbergstrom · Oct 30, 2003, 12:25 AM

I am researching the purchase of a server for our workgroup. It will be used primarily as a file server for a small workgroup (approximately 15 people), a FileMaker server for large databases, and a web server, specifically for serving large files (supplemental data for scientific papers).

Cost is not a major factor.

I am considering a dual 1.33GHz Xserve with 2GB RAM and 2x180GB Apple drive modules (will likely deploy in RAID 1 - mirrored).

Alternatively, we can get a dual 2.0 GHz G5. For about the same price as the Xserve, we can get 3.5GB RAM, 500GB of hard drive (which can be configured via Software RAID) and an unlimited copy of Mac OS X Server (included on the Xserve).

With the G5 we are getting throughput and processor speed, but giving up redundancy, the ability to hot swap drives, and some of the remote monitoring capabilities of the server.

Anybody with personal experience/opinions?

Graymalkin · Oct 30, 2003, 04:51 AM

The G5 will probably last you quite a bit longer than the XServe will. I don't necessarily mean the quality of the components, just the capabilities of the machine. As your database requirements grow you can add more RAM until you're blue in the face. You can stuff 16GB of RAM in one ofthe G5s. The same can't be said for the XServe. You're also getting a faster system for the money.

As far as I know the only bit of server software you wouldn't be able to use on the G5 would be Server Monitor which requires XServe's hardware monitor. I think it would be able to duplicate some of its features by writing or finding a couple metering apps to use with SNMP.

The G5 is going to give your group a lot more room to grow than the XServe is. For the money I think the G5 is a better system. You can also save some money by buying third party memory and hard drives for the G5. Apple wants to charge you a grand for 2GB of RAM. Two 1GB Kingston sticks will set you back a whopping $340-60. A pair of 120GB SATA drives will also set you back only about $200. A G5 with a Combo drive and third party RAM and hard disks will set you back about $4K with an Unlimited server license. A moderately comparable XServe will be at least that much and not nearly as fast or expandable.

cambro · Oct 30, 2003, 08:08 AM

G5 all the way...

And I'm not just saying that because they are new and cool

BobK · Oct 30, 2003, 10:44 AM

The X-server is LOUD! They are fast and great, no way I could work in the same room with it.
We had ours up here for configuration and it drove everyone out.
IF it needs to be in the around anyone, I would say G5!
OSX server is really nice to work with, eays to set up users and groups, strong security.

ChrisB · Oct 30, 2003, 01:52 PM

I have an XServe setup to run a video editing lab with 2 workstations. It is a fabulous server - the best Mac based product I had used in a long time.

Yes, it is very loud - jet engine loud. It sits in a server room with 7 other servers, and you can hear it above all the other servers. That aside, it is a quality server. However, you are limited on the RAM, and on the expansion slots as well. For what are you doing, you do want a beefier box than a 1RU blade type server.

The G5 would be a great choice. I would recommend getting separate nics for some of your network traffic if you can - run the DB on one nic to maximize throughput, and file-sharing and web on another. You can easily get a SCSI card and add a HARDWARE based RAID system as well - only use software based RAID solutions if you are constrained by your budget.

Commodus · Oct 30, 2003, 05:07 PM

If you're only planning to get one unit, then get the G5. It'll be much better at serving content. Not to mention that if/when you need to start looking at 64-bit software or upgrade your memory, you don't need to buy a whole new system right away.

Partisan01 · Oct 30, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by dbergstrom:
a FileMaker server for large databases

Are you sure you want to use FileMaker for large databases? I would check out Postgresql as an alternative. Postgres supports pretty much everything Oracle and SQL server support (rollbacks, transactions!!) but it's a lot cheaper and will run on a Mac platform. I would recommend Postgres, but I also come from a Oracle/SQL server background, so I can't imagine how one could live without rollbacks and transactions.

Nate

dbergstrom · Oct 30, 2003, 11:33 PM

Thanks for all of your input, folks!

I have made my purchasing recommendation to my boss - G5 2x2GHz with 4GB RAM, a fibre channel card and an Xserve RAID with 720GB that we'll deploy in RAID 5 (or maybe RAID 50).

Second choice is an Xserve 2x1.33GHz with 2GB RAM and 4x180GB Apple Drive Modules. This is the "cheap" option.

Regarding noise, if we go with the Xserve it will be in a dedicated server room with about a million other servers.

Regarding our choice of database: all of our databases are currently FileMaker. It is familiar and easy to use, since we are scientists, not computer scientists. I do not doubt that PostgreSQL is more powerful or feature-rich, but we cannot deal with the steep learning curve right now.