[moki]

The xserve product is actually extremely well designed. A good friend of mine works at EMS, selling storage solutions to big-time customers like the WWF and Playboy... he's quite impressed by this product's design.

Not to mention the "big brother" Raid storage solution coming at the end of the year. They are getting some for their office to evaluate as a solution to customers. Neat stuff.

More info can be found here:
http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/F...ML/000046.html

[cejones]

I wonder why they are not supporting ATA-133 drives? If they did, they could have used larger capacity drives like the 160GB or higher as they come to market.

[Leonard]

Originally posted by cejones:
<STRONG>I wonder why they are not supporting ATA-133 drives? If they did, they could have used larger capacity drives like the 160GB or higher as they come to market.</STRONG>

Isn't there a problem with supporting drives larger than 120GB with MacOS, or is that fixed in MacOS X server and MacOS X? No sense in putting in ATA-133 drives if they can't be supported.

[kman42]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>The xserve product is actually extremely well designed. A good friend of mine works at EMS, selling storage solutions to big-time customers like the WWF and Playboy... he's quite impressed by this product's design.

Not to mention the "big brother" Raid storage solution coming at the end of the year. They are getting some for their office to evaluate as a solution to customers. Neat stuff.

More info can be found here:
http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/webboard/F...ML/000046.html</STRONG>

Does your friend ever get invited to the Mansion?


kman

[starfleetX]

Originally posted by Leonard:
<STRONG>Isn't there a problem with supporting drives larger than 120GB with MacOS, or is that fixed in MacOS X server and MacOS X? No sense in putting in ATA-133 drives if they can't be supported.</STRONG>

No, no, no...

The operating system itself can handle drives in the size of multiple terrabytes, IIRC. The problem here is that ATA100 can not address more than somewhere around 137 GB. That is the physical limit of ATA100. ATA133, however, raises this limit to something much MUCH higher (though I can't remember a number off the top of my head).

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]

[Brass]

It's a shame there are STILL no native firewire drives around

Otherwise, SCSI would be a better solution for a high end server than ATA.

[Leonard]

Originally posted by starfleetX:
<STRONG>No, no, no...

The operating system itself can handle drives in the size of multiple terrabytes, IIRC. The problem here is that ATA100 can not address more than somewhere around 137 GB. That is the physical limit of ATA100. ATA133, however, raises this limit to something much MUCH higher (though I can't remember a number off the top of my head).

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</STRONG>

Thanks for the correction. I had heard of something limitting the use of HDs higher than a certain limit. I thought it was the OS, but your right, it's ATA100.

That's a good question then, you would have thought Apple would have put ATA133 in the Xserve. It would have fixed this limitation.

[thunderous_funker]

hey starfleet,

you've always been one of the most tech saavy posters here at MacNN. Maybe you can offer an opinion on why there is no hardware RAID controller on Xserver.

A year ago I said everywhere (and a lot in these forums) that I would be first in line if Apple ever got their head out of their ass and made a real server hardware platform for Enterprise customers. they had an enterprise OS, but no hardware...

Now i look like a fool because the bone-heads at Apple built a machine that supports 4 drives without hardware RAID and without RAID 5. It's the dumbest thing i've ever seen and for the life of me I can't figure out any reason for it, other than just not doing their homework.

Is it to leverage the external RAID array product? ARe they that greedy?

Help me, obi one, you're my only hope.....

[Eug]

<STRONG>It's a shame there are STILL no native firewire drives around

Otherwise, SCSI would be a better solution for a high end server than ATA.</STRONG>

Firewire currently has a MAX THEORETICAL speed of 50 MB/s. Not very fast in other words, in this context.

<STRONG>you've always been one of the most tech saavy posters here at MacNN. Maybe you can offer an opinion on why there is no hardware RAID controller on Xserver.</STRONG>

Note that you can buy a SCSI 160 card for it.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Eug ]

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Eug:
<STRONG>
Note that you can buy a SCSI 160 card for it.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Eug ]</STRONG>

But what's the point of 4 internal bays and a crappy software RAID? Why compare it to Sun, Quantum, Dell boxes at the debut when those all have better RAID optons (only the lowest end Dell uses SW RAID but still offers RAID 5)?

It's fine to attach an external RAID array, but i can do that on any Mac that has a PCI slot. What value is added to the Xserve by excluding a hardware RAID controller or a RAID 5 option?

Unless there is a legit technical reason for not putting the controller in the box, it would seem that it is merely a tactic to get people to spend MORE money on an array to get the function already included in the very boxes that Apple compared Xserver to at the debut.

So they either screwed up, couldn't do it, or it's calcuated marketing/greed.

[benh57]

Or it doesn't need it.

Wait till we see the benchmarks.