[shinykaro]

Hey guys, I work at a nonprofit with a tight budget and growing need for a Mac server.

The organization is 95% HP computers, but the marketing office is a gaggle of iMacs currently backing up to a Time Capsule with shrinking available space.

Ideally we would get two new Mac Pros (one server and one workstation for the guy who works with Final Cut Pro), but recent budget cuts from our top guys are a big hint that I need to shorten my wish list.

Can I get a single Mac Pro to act as the video guy's work station AND a server for the rest of us? Our iMac hard drives are filling up and file sharing is still wobbly, and we have no single repository for projects, which means archiving is non existent.

Tell me if this is possible or if you have other suggestions. I'm pretty sure my proposal won't come in under $5,000, but it might be easier to sell one multitasker than two pricey workhorses.

[Big Mac]

I'd be hesitant to rely on a single server for both server duties and video production duties. Both of those tasks use processing power. If the server load were light and occasional, perhaps it would make sense. But if the server data needs are high volume, your video editor would probably experience slow downs (especially when it comes to disk access issues I believe). Mac Pros are very powerful, but no matter how powerful a single computer is I don't think it's a great idea to pair those two tasks on a single box and expect everything to run smoothly and concurrently. That's just my intuitive view based on my overall computer experience; perhaps someone else has managed such a setup and has a perspective based on direct experience.

[reader50]

If the file sharing is done from dedicated hard drives, not the one(s) the Final Cut guy uses, then I think it would work reasonably well. But he would have to leave his MacPro on at all times, since even a reboot would disrupt many people. File serving shouldn't need all that much CPU.

But I'm not comfortable sharing a user workload with a server environment any more than Big Mac is. One solution would be to run the MacPro as a server, with a VM install of OSX Server for the Final Cut guy. You might give the virtual machine one less CPU core than the MacPro has, so there is always dedicated resources for the server side. And work done in the VM is isolated from the server functions, even allowing reboots of the VM. But this is getting complicated to support, and pricey if you don't have an OSX Server license.

How about getting a MacPro for the Final Cut guy, and swapping a much bigger HD into the Time Capsule?

[mduell]

With separate disks for each usage I think you'll be fine performance wise. I don't see any sense in carving off a CPU for a virtual machine; OS X scheduler is good enough to manage process priority.

The problem is going to be usage. Desktop users reboot regularly for updates/etc while servers only reboot at scheduled off-hours times. For this to work the video editor is going to have to go along with treating his machine like a server.

[macaddict0001]

No reason why you couldn't do this, you could also get a used tower to act as server. A powermac g4 is still a very capable server. The only real issue with it is no built in SATA support.

[imitchellg5]

It all depends on the amount of data that it'll be processing as a server. If it's low, it could sure do it. Alternatively, like macaddict0001 said, you could invest in a cheap Power Mac G4 (or even Xserve G4) for serving duties.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by reader50 

If the file sharing is done from dedicated hard drives, not the one(s) the Final Cut guy uses, then I think it would work reasonably well. But he would have to leave his MacPro on at all times, since even a reboot would disrupt many people. File serving shouldn't need all that much CPU.

But I'm not comfortable sharing a user workload with a server environment any more than Big Mac is. One solution would be to run the MacPro as a server, with a VM install of OSX Server for the Final Cut guy. You might give the virtual machine one less CPU core than the MacPro has, so there is always dedicated resources for the server side. And work done in the VM is isolated from the server functions, even allowing reboots of the VM. But this is getting complicated to support, and pricey if you don't have an OSX Server license.

How about getting a MacPro for the Final Cut guy, and swapping a much bigger HD into the Time Capsule?

I also don't think that this VM based solution would buy you much after you deal with the RAM consumed by your OS X Server VM guest, a CPU driven video card (FCP is GPU accelerated, isn't it?), and two OSes competing for the same IO.

You don't need OS X Server for file sharing, if this were me I would setup another computer as your network disk (not Mac based if you want to save money and are comfortable with different operating systems), and leave the Mac Pro for the Final Cut guy.

[macaddict0001]

Sounds to me like the server will primarily be used for archiving purposes. SATA drives will get you far more bang for your buck than older ATA drives. other than that as long as you have Gigabit ethernet you should be alright.

When buying a server you should consider how important your data is as well. Do you just need more storage? Raid1? or offsite storage? You can always add more/larger drives later if you need to.

[Simon]

Like others have already pointed out you could get a second disk and run the 'server tasks' on the FCP MP. As long as the FCP guy runs the box like a server (IOW no screwing around) it should be fine.

Second option. Why not get a mini to act as the server? For lighter server use it should be just fine. Attach extra storage as required. It will allow the FCP pro to use his MP like his MP. At the same time you can configure the mini exclusively for server purposes. It's not an industrial-grade server by any means, but for lighter server use within a tight budget it's quite ok.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Like others have already pointed out you could get a second disk and run the 'server tasks' on the FCP MP. As long as the FCP guy runs the box like a server (IOW no screwing around) it should be fine.

Second option. Why not get a mini to act as the server? For lighter server use it should be just fine. Attach extra storage as required. It will allow the FCP pro to use his MP like his MP. At the same time you can configure the mini exclusively for server purposes. It's not an industrial-grade server by any means, but for lighter server use within a tight budget it's quite ok.

Because it is overpriced?

[Simon]

C'mon, is it that bad? There was a Mac mini in the refurb store yesterday for $500.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

C'mon, is it that bad? There was a Mac mini in the refurb store yesterday for $500.

Compared to a small form factor Dell or something? No clue, but compared to the value of the parts, it's very overpriced... Look at this: Newegg.com - Shuttle SG41J1-RFG Intel Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo, Dual-Core, Celeron 400 serial support Intel Socket T(LGA775) Intel G41 Intel GMA X4500 Barebone with Red Faction Guerrilla PC game - Barebone Systems - just needs a CPU, memory, and a hard drive, which will still cost much less than $500 and you'd have beefier hardware.

I understand the whole argument about a single warranty that covers the machine and inconvenience of having to build your own rig, but really, a network disk is about as brain dead simple a computing need as possible, all he needs is just a cheap, simple appliance. The things that would most likely go wrong - RAM and HD are all easy to get at and user-serviceable in a machine like this, as is the power supply. And, you can easily swap out these parts as you like even beyond the original warranty.

For that matter there are far cheaper chassis than the Shuttle too, I was just pointing out something similar to the Mini.