[uochris]

Excluding a glimpse at a brushed-metal faceplate resembling the Titanium PowerBook, Jobs declined to provide additional details about the "major release" of a dedicated, rack-mounted server until its unveiling May 14. Nevertheless, he did specify a few features of the new server OS that will accompany it. Besides LDAP, NetBoot and NetInstall support, the server will be able to run headless. It will also feature a server-optimized Java Virtual Machine; disk, print and mail quotas; and support for Python, Fast CGI, YCC and Ruby.

from-http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=701&a=26409,00.asp

[Maneki Neko]

Originally posted by uochris:
<STRONG>Excluding a glimpse at a brushed-metal faceplate resembling the Titanium PowerBook, Jobs declined to provide additional details about the "major release" of a dedicated, rack-mounted server until its unveiling May 14. Nevertheless, he did specify a few features of the new server OS that will accompany it. Besides LDAP, NetBoot and NetInstall support, the server will be able to run headless. It will also feature a server-optimized Java Virtual Machine; disk, print and mail quotas; and support for Python, Fast CGI, YCC and Ruby.

from-http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=701&a=26409,00.asp</STRONG>

This day keeps getting better and better. THe rackmount server is a great idea, although it won't make much of a difference unless it has things like redundant power supplies, RAID, etc.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by Maneki Neko:
<STRONG>

This day keeps getting better and better. THe rackmount server is a great idea, although it won't make much of a difference unless it has things like redundant power supplies, RAID, etc.</STRONG>

I know what you're saying but I can tell you this... Apple HAS been collecting data about rackmount servers since as far back as MWNY for sure.

I was at the OS X Server booth and asked why Apple didn't have such a solution and while the guy couldn't really 'Apple bash' with me (since he worked for them) he said please go to (forgot the person/title) and tell him your needs... As I hung around checking out OS X Server many others came with the same request and the same response was given... I'm sure many schools univ. and such were also consulted (in a more formal maner).

My ultimate config:
================
Rackmount raid (stripe+mirror) storage system (Fiber Channel?) for all user data (boot volumes would be nice too) below that would sit one or more OS X rackmouts with redundant power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My ultimate operation:
================
Additional rackmounts could be added to the rack to provide redundant backup load balancing OR BOTH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine having all boot AND data drives on a robust (fiber channel? or FW2??) storage system that would support a number (3? 4??) different rackable servers, where said servers could be set to load balance each other and keep in operation even if one or two of the boxes had problems... Life goes on...

Oh man tell me that wouldn't be killer....

Then if anything else didn't happen it would pretty much be networkings fault!

Yea I know my setup still has other issues (drive speed, network bandwidth etc) but let me dream will ya?

Dave

[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]

[iJed]

It will be interesting to see what processor Apple uses in this. Maybe will will finally see the 64bit G5 class chips that have been rumored for so long or maybe even the new AMD Opteron (I think) 64bit X86 chip. Who says it needs to run on PowerPC?

[jwblase]

Could this be the reason Apple has kept Darwin parity on x86 chips? It could use an AMD in the rackmount???

JB

[iJed]

Originally posted by jwblase:
<STRONG>Could this be the reason Apple has kept Darwin parity on x86 chips? It could use an AMD in the rackmount???
</STRONG>

It could well be. I assume that it is a reasonably trivial task moving from X86 32bit to AMD X86 64bit. Probably just recompiling on the most part. I suppose Intel IA64 is another possibility too. My guess is Apple will just use PowerPC chips again, and probably just 32 bit G4s.

[Targon]

Well i hope Apple offer this unit without all the Server software stuff and not aimed purely at the server crowd in regards to hardware facilities. Rack mounted gear aint just a server thing, audio and video guys usually prefer rackmounted puters.

Sorry if i can't anticipte G5's or 64 bit chips or even Opteron AMD's in the server units. To me this is just fairy tale like wishes. I wish ill be proved wrong come the 14th.... i really do. I envisage pretty much the exact same Board/CPU as the current G4 server, just that its offered in a rack.

Targon

[Christopher Winter]

It would make sense that the most likely chips will be 32 bit G4's, after all can you imagine the uproar from the graphics video and £D guys if they didn't get the fastest kit first. However, I'd be tempted to diasgree with targon about the motherboard, whilst its only an option to run headless do you nedd an AGP 4x slot when AGP 2x is cheaper, likewise fewer USb, firewire ports, and ceratinly no modem, and if its going to be mounted in a rack surely they'll give it redundant power supplies with the associated awareness to know when one fails.

Chris

[Maneki Neko]

Originally posted by Christopher Winter:
<STRONG>It would make sense that the most likely chips will be 32 bit G4's, after all can you imagine the uproar from the graphics video and £D guys if they didn't get the fastest kit first. However, I'd be tempted to diasgree with targon about the motherboard, whilst its only an option to run headless do you nedd an AGP 4x slot when AGP 2x is cheaper, likewise fewer USb, firewire ports, and ceratinly no modem, and if its going to be mounted in a rack surely they'll give it redundant power supplies with the associated awareness to know when one fails.

Chris </STRONG>

I would suspect onboard video, no AGP slot, no modem, 2-4 USB, 2-4 firewire. Dual onboard gigabit adapters would be nice as well. 1 or 2 PCI slots on a riser card (maybe more, depending on it's size). This is if they're going for a pure server machine.

I think it would be silly to have a rackmount machine with GeForce 4, super bling bling sound, etc. But then again, whatever product they release, someone will be unhappy. Someone always is.

(I'll just be waiting for the "WHO'S GOING TO BUY THE NEXT SERVER REVISION" threads, or the "NEXT SERVER VERSION SPECULATION" threads come May 15th)