Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ixus_123 · 07:56 AM

is it just me, or does this tiny computer seem perfect for this? Relatively low power draw, tiny form factor, no extra bundle cost of keyboards & mice.

I so want one, or two, or three. Say 2 in the house, & then when I want to something that needs a bit more oomph, hook them together. It would be great for transcoding or heavy video, photo editing I think if you're not a pro with a pro budget

ixus_123 · 08:02 AM

See?

Just think, on a home network, you might have one in the basement as a personal webserver / fileserver, one in the front room hooked up to the TV / Stereo as a living room PC - for entertainment. Another in the bedroom / study fro any work you bring hoem or need to do. That's a lot of power when linked together but (& I'm guessing here) with not much more currect draw than one of the latest pentiums

Sparkletron · Jan 12, 2005, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by ixus_123:
See?

I wonder if the Mini has a tongue and groove design to really allow you to stack them like this without any slippage, etc. I doubt it.

-S

turtle777 · Jan 12, 2005, 10:13 AM

Hm, the real question is how to connect two or more Mac minis.

The 10/100 ethernet is too slow. The Firewire port comes to mind, but you would need the proper software to really do that. I'm not sure to what extent OS X would support such a clustering.

-t

chabig · Jan 12, 2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by turtle777:
The Firewire port comes to mind, but you would need the proper software to really do that.

To what software do you refer. Panther already supports FireWire networking.

Chris

esXXI · Jan 12, 2005, 11:05 AM

I'm good on networking's technical side, but OS X Tiger includes "Xgrid" to distribute processing across networked Macs.

Couldn't you buy half a dozen Mac minis, OS X Server (once it's out) for a 'controlling' Mac, and use them like that?

spam · Jan 12, 2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by esXXI:
I'm good on networking's technical side, but OS X Tiger includes "Xgrid" to distribute processing across networked Macs.

Couldn't you buy half a dozen Mac minis, OS X Server (once it's out) for a 'controlling' Mac, and use them like that?

I understand it would be kind of fun to do, but for the price of one Xserve compute node you could only get 5 Mac minis, and I'm pretty confident a dual 2.3ghz G5 machine with lots of memory bandwidth and high-speed networking would outperform 5 minis with 1.4ghz G4s and 167mhz busses.

macaddict0001 · Jan 12, 2005, 03:10 PM

Panther allows firewire networks so you could do it over that, but firewire is still slow for clustering. maybe if you had a g4 gig e as a central node attached to a gig router.

chrisutley · Jan 12, 2005, 10:28 PM

I believe XGrid requires that applications support it. In other words, you can't XGrid 10 Mac mini's and run Photoshop across them. Adobe would have to write code to support the XGrid setup.

ixus_123 · Jan 13, 2005, 07:32 AM

Ah, right.

I'm not sure how clustering works - I just saw teh idea & thought over a home network it might be do-able. I also didn't realise clusters over ethernet were slow as I was thinking about lcustering 2 PCs together for transcoding my DVD collection but that particular set of tools supports it.

Lancer409 · Jan 13, 2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
I wonder if the Mini has a tongue and groove design to really allow you to stack them like this without any slippage, etc. I doubt it.

-S

it doesnt

ajprice · Jan 13, 2005, 11:21 AM

The Mac mini has 1 firewire port, so unless you had a firewire hub, you could only link 2 of them via firewire anyway. How would having multiple mini's connected through a firewire hub affect the connection speed?

macdaemon · Jan 13, 2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by ixus_123:
is it just me, or does this tiny computer seem perfect for this? Relatively low power draw, tiny form factor, no extra bundle cost of keyboards & mice.

I so want one, or two, or three. Say 2 in the house, & then when I want to something that needs a bit more oomph, hook them together. It would be great for transcoding or heavy video, photo editing I think if you're not a pro with a pro budget

I was thinking about Mac mini cluster yesterday too, so you are not that crazy.

I use a lot Cinema 4D and I thought it�s would be a good idea to use Mac mini�s as rendering servers, Cinema could render over the network, 100Mbit should be enough, but it�s not cluster, it�s just a rendering over network, I suppose real cluster not possible on this puppies because the need optical network cards.

Cinema use Velocity Engine a lot when rendering is working so, it�s much better to have few processors that one or two, so 5 Mac mini�s will beat 2 G5 Duals 2.5Ghz

yoyoman · Jan 14, 2005, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by turtle777:
Hm, the real question is how to connect two or more Mac minis.

The 10/100 ethernet is too slow. The Firewire port comes to mind, but you would need the proper software to really do that. I'm not sure to what extent OS X would support such a clustering.

-t

Steve said in his keynote they are just getting started with xsan xgrid and he talked about clusters and the future briefly.

FLYBOi · 12:23 PM

[NO SPAM]

typoon · Jan 14, 2005, 10:31 AM

You are not the only one who thought about this. I did as well. It would be cool to have a little mini cluster setup in the house for certain things. I mean for a home network you don't need things to be too fast so 100Mbs should be okay I would guess.

larkost · Jan 14, 2005, 02:36 PM

Even without the high-speed interconnect problem, the chance that the Mac Mini would beat the XServe Cluster Node on price/performance is slim to none. Clusters have a high per-computer cost (sometimes per processor... but usually per computer), and so a single dual 2.3 Ghz G5 is likely to outperform 6 single processor 1.25Ghz G4's. And it is likely to do so with a good margin.

Then you start adding in the better remote configuration built into MacOS X Sever (that comes with the XServes), the ability to rack mount (Mac Mini is actually too tall to fit in a 1U space), the probably lower power requirements (and cooling for large clusters), the space savings, and the (dual) Gigabit ethernet and FireWire800, plus the ability to add Fibre Channel and hardware RAID (almost never a benefit for clustering), and the PCI-X slots (Infiniband and the like), the XServe is even more the way to go.

Executive summary: the Mac Mini is not going to be a contender in the clustering space. It will probably not even significantly benefit low-end clusters.

typoon · Jan 14, 2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by larkost:
Even without the high-speed interconnect problem, the chance that the Mac Mini would beat the XServe Cluster Node on price/performance is slim to none. Clusters have a high per-computer cost (sometimes per processor... but usually per computer), and so a single dual 2.3 Ghz G5 is likely to outperform 6 single processor 1.25Ghz G4's. And it is likely to do so with a good margin.

Then you start adding in the better remote configuration built into MacOS X Sever (that comes with the XServes), the ability to rack mount (Mac Mini is actually too tall to fit in a 1U space), the probably lower power requirements (and cooling for large clusters), the space savings, and the (dual) Gigabit ethernet and FireWire800, plus the ability to add Fibre Channel and hardware RAID (almost never a benefit for clustering), and the PCI-X slots (Infiniband and the like), the XServe is even more the way to go.

Executive summary: the Mac Mini is not going to be a contender in the clustering space. It will probably not even significantly benefit low-end clusters.

What about for a home cluster? I'm sure that people who want could do that since the requirements of a home cluster would not be as high as someone who needs a G5 Xserve

macdaemon · Jan 14, 2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by larkost:
Even without the high-speed interconnect problem, the chance that the Mac Mini would beat the XServe Cluster Node on price/performance is slim to none. Clusters have a high per-computer cost (sometimes per processor... but usually per computer), and so a single dual 2.3 Ghz G5 is likely to outperform 6 single processor 1.25Ghz G4's. And it is likely to do so with a good margin.

Then you start adding in the better remote configuration built into MacOS X Sever (that comes with the XServes), the ability to rack mount (Mac Mini is actually too tall to fit in a 1U space), the probably lower power requirements (and cooling for large clusters), the space savings, and the (dual) Gigabit ethernet and FireWire800, plus the ability to add Fibre Channel and hardware RAID (almost never a benefit for clustering), and the PCI-X slots (Infiniband and the like), the XServe is even more the way to go.

Executive summary: the Mac Mini is not going to be a contender in the clustering space. It will probably not even significantly benefit low-end clusters.

Sometimes people don't need high end servers with RAID, I see Mac mini as a perfect small and cheap system for rendering, so we decide to get 20 Mac Mini's and use them for rendering, and specially huge rack that won't fit in our office.

So, small design companies would get them because they are faster and cheaper that G5 XServes specially that not every software accelerated for G5, but most software accelerated for G4 at the moment.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jan 14, 2005, 03:49 PM

Does file sharing though a Firewire hub even work or do they have to be directly connected?

macaddict0001 · Jan 14, 2005, 03:56 PM

The problem is no high speed interconnect.

Eriamjh · Jan 15, 2005, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by ixus_123:
See?

In spite of this pic, Apple says you can't (or shouldn't) stack the mini.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300577

macdaemon · 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
In spite of this pic, Apple says you can't (or shouldn't) stack the mini.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300577

that's bad. i thought you could stack them.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300572
btw: The Mac mini has 32 MB DDR of soldered SDRAM dedicated for video. Video memory cannot be upgraded.
That's bad too.

Apple logo on top of Mac mini does not light up
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300585
And this is really bad, I'm going to die....

So, people buy Mac's because they like Apple logo that lights up?

Silky Voice of The Gorn · Jan 15, 2005, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
In spite of this pic, Apple says you can't (or shouldn't) stack the mini.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300577

That implies you shouldn't stack them only because it could interfere with wireless signals...so screw that! If you use cat-5 stack away, I say!

BTW- anyone else notice that Apple pulled the PC graphic from the miniMac (that's what I call it, it rolls off the tongue easier) off their Design page? I wonder why..perhaps they thought it gave the improper impression that it takes a stack of seven mini's to equal the power of one PC?

ixus_123 · Jan 16, 2005, 07:59 PM

haha - lucky I grabbed & mirrored the image somewhere else then. I only did that becuase I thought images wouldn't link directly from the Apple site.

As far as what I was thinking for ther cluster it was as to whether it could be done as an afterthought, rather than competition to dedicated clusters.

Like on a home network where say 4 members of a family each have there own mac mini - for what everm homework, music, office work etc. I was just curious as to how much of an improvement one might see if all 4 are used to do something - say transcode a video since that's the whole thing that got me started. (I was looking at DVD::RIP - & they have a lcuster howto on site, although that looks a bit over my head)

perhaps in an office it could be doable too - dayworkers using word processors, email etc & the the 5 night staff could use the power of the network to speed things up a little.

teknopimp · Jan 16, 2005, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by ixus_123:
is it just me, or does this tiny computer seem perfect for this?

sounds like a clusterfcuk.

osxisfun · Jan 16, 2005, 08:29 PM

I think the only way a mini cluster for ME would be considered a bad move is if (after they ship) people starting to say:

4 minis compile (via distCC) at the same speed as 1 $1800 g5/ then i would just skip it and get the g5...

i'm anxious for some benchmarks.

teknopimp · Jan 16, 2005, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by osxisfun:
i'm anxious for some benchmarks.

we'll see. someone is bound to try it and hopefully would post benchmarks, good or bad.

qnc · Jan 17, 2005, 06:17 AM

What about connecting the mini to another computer say a notebook (12 inch) just to get it to run another task e.g. burn dvd while do some word processing on notebook what would you recomend targeted drive or teleport? or some node like software speed of link no issues but working together is?

osxisfun · Jan 17, 2005, 11:04 AM

Now a powerbook and a couple of minis. talk about a portable powerhouse for dist processing...

or not. need to see the benchmarks...

qnc · Jan 17, 2005, 11:15 AM

wonder if there is a way for the mini to share the notebook screen (hummm)

osxisfun · Jan 17, 2005, 02:04 PM

i figure, timbuktu, remote desktop, vnc is the way most will...

it will be in a window. nice.

qnc · Jan 17, 2005, 03:39 PM

timbuktu seems the way to go cross platform will allow me to administer this lot

http://www.qnctv.com/comsetup/!!

Will try the free trial version has anyone got any pointers?

What is the difference bettween this and using the mini as a server to the main notebook computer?

typoon · Jan 17, 2005, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by qnc:
timbuktu seems the way to go cross platform will allow me to administer this lot

http://www.qnctv.com/comsetup/!!

Will try the free trial version has anyone got any pointers?

What is the difference bettween this and using the mini as a server to the main notebook computer?

Yes but VNC is free.

osxisfun · Jan 17, 2005, 03:58 PM

yah., but at least when i tried it VNC was slower and harder to setup and did not have all the features of timbuktu. maybe this has changed. in the mean time the money i paid for timbuktu has paid it self back in time savings and features.

remember, open source software is free; only if your time is...

i also have been keeping track of bosco's screen share but have not had the time to try it...

osxisfun · Jan 17, 2005, 04:14 PM

ii have no idea if they are good or bad but this link has the first benchmarks of the mini:

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc2=91336

qnc · Jan 18, 2005, 04:21 AM

What do these specs mean?

Anyway for the price I am not expecting dual 2.3 optical connections performance.

qnc · Jan 18, 2005, 05:01 AM

timbuktu is awesome love it what appart from open programs etc can you do on this?

larkost · Jan 18, 2005, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by macdaemon:
Sometimes people don't need high end servers with RAID, I see Mac mini as a perfect small and cheap system for rendering, so we decide to get 20 Mac Mini's and use them for rendering, and specially huge rack that won't fit in our office. So, small design companies would get them because they are faster and cheaper that G5 XServes specially that not every software accelerated for G5, but most software accelerated for G4 at the moment.

You seem to have missed the main point of my post... The Mini will not be anywhere near the performance of the XServe, not even when you compare them based on price. If you spend $10,000 (20 x $500) you would be much better off getting 3 Xserves and $1,000 of extra memory than the Mini's. And that is purely on a performance basis. The Xserves are going to be a better buy in every other regard as well.

osxisfun · Jan 19, 2005, 10:55 AM

So can we cluster yet?

http://www.barefeats.com/mini01.html

qnc · Jan 19, 2005, 11:23 AM

Specs look reasonable and that thread and CPU test faster than a G5!!! No way

The hard disk is the down side though but in real world is that going to make a huge difference?

And as 1GHz of memory is only $190 it seems like a real winner for that price range.

I though that this was a stripped down mac??!!??

turtle777 · Jan 19, 2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by qnc:
Specs look reasonable and that thread and CPU test faster than a G5!!! No way

Hard to believe. But if true, good for us

-t

qnc · Jan 19, 2005, 04:40 PM

At those prices excellent for us if true.

I guess it is just the way Mac does things stripped down only the price.

They just love excellence!!

macaddict0001 · Jan 19, 2005, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by qnc:
Specs look reasonable and that thread and CPU test faster than a G5!!! No way

The hard disk is the down side though but in real world is that going to make a huge difference?

And as 1GHz of memory is only $190 it seems like a real winner for that price range.

I though that this was a stripped down mac??!!??

Actually the downside isn't the hard disk its the ethernet speeds.

osxisfun · Jan 19, 2005, 06:04 PM

yah but for selfish old me ethernet should be plenty to send over parts of my source code to distCC...

Xaositect · Jan 20, 2005, 06:33 PM

I received two of the four minis I ordered. I have tracking on the other two.

Both have reasonable (for light server) Toshiba drives. I will be loading OS X Server on them this weekend, and will report findings then.

Oddly enough, the two 1.42s (both CTO) came first, the two 1.25s (stock) did not!

osxisfun · Jan 20, 2005, 06:56 PM

awesome.

are you going to try any kind of clustering with them?

Xaositect · Jan 20, 2005, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by osxisfun:
awesome.

are you going to try any kind of clustering with them?

Yes. That's why I posted to this forum/topic.

osxisfun · Jan 20, 2005, 07:02 PM

double good!

are you going to use use xcode or distCC to compile out to each of them by chance?

Xaositect · Jan 21, 2005, 05:33 PM

Ok, loaded OS X Server on one mini last night/this morning.

Speed tests (SPM=searches per minute using my library database):

Xserve Dual 2GHz, 4GB RAM: at 10 SPM, avg 2 seconds a search. Goes over 30sec/search at 3247 SPM.
iMag G5 1.6GHz, 1.5GB RAM: at 10 SPM, avg 5 seconds a search. Goes over 30sec/search at 967 SPM.
Mac Mini 1.42GHz, 512MB RAM: at 10 SPM, avg 6 seconds a search. Goes over 30sec/search at 524 SPM.

Not as bad as I had thought it would be.

My 1.25s came today.

As noted in previous post, the 1.42s came with a reasonable Toshiba 80GB HDD. The 1.25s came with a rather poorly rated Fujitsu 40GB HDD. I will use it for testing clustering, but will not leave it in a server configuration as the drive would self-destruct in about 6 months of solid server use. it should be fine for home server or personal use. I will post times for the 1.25 when testing finishes. I have also increased the 1.42 to 1GB and am re-running tests.

Tomorrow I will be clustering these using Apple's clustering tools, and will report how well they do. The 1.25s should be finished with the above used tests at about 4 am saturday. You'll have to wait until I'm up for report posting. The cluster will probably be setup by saturday evening, and tests will be run overnight, with that report posted sunday.

For those interested in standard benchmark testing, macintouch.com has several posted. I will continue to use my methods as a real world type test.