# Mac Mini as a server ?



## michaelsanford (Jan 14, 2005)

I was thinking that since the Mac Mini is so cheap (and I get an educational discount to boot) and beats the heck out of my Dell 200 MHz that I might get two : one for my desktop with Panther and one as a server with plain old Darwin and no GUI.

 Is that rediculous ?

 Is the Mac Mini going to go the way of the Cube G4 ?


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

It would not be a good server. I'd suggest building a cheap pc instead.


----------



## Arden (Jan 14, 2005)

Why wouldn't it be a good server?  It would be great if you don't have very high serving needs.  Not so great if you're Jeff Bezos.

BTW, the educational discount is all of $20.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

Here's some reasons.
Its hard drive is slow (4200 rpm).
It's got slow ram (DDR2700).
It's got no room for expansion. Want more drive space? Tough luck. Why do you think server cases are the ones with tons of bays...? 
I wouldn't trust its cooling to run 24/7 without the processor and drive getting uncomfortably hot.
It's got a slow system bus (167 MHz).


----------



## Viro (Jan 14, 2005)

wyvern said:
			
		

> Here's some reasons.
> Its hard drive is slow (4200 rpm).
> It's got slow ram (DDR2700).
> It's got no room for expansion. Want more drive space? Tough luck. Why do you think server cases are the ones with tons of bays...?
> ...



None of those are really important if you're just interested in setting up a server for your home network. You don't need a big iron server for that. If you're setting up home network server, the Mac mini is great since it's small, quiet, and consumes very little power. Shove it in a cabinet, and you're done.

But if you're setting up a server where thousands of concurrent users are expected, that's an entirely different story.


----------



## Arden (Jan 14, 2005)

Most of those specs are fine for light serving purposes.  You can use an old, pre-G3 for a small server and do just fine; you don't need state-of-the-art equipment unless you have thousands or millions of hits per day and lots of heavy scripting.  And if it gets hot, find a way to cool it externally.  Plus, 80 GB is plenty for a few HTML pages, if that's the kind of serving Mike has in mind.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

$400 will get you more power, better cooling, and expandability. And personally, I don't think OS X is ready for serious serving. Yes, Apple runs it, but of course they have to eat their own dogfood.


----------



## Arden (Jan 14, 2005)

Isn't ready for serious serving?  Is that why the consumer version of OS X comes with Apache, PHP, Perl, MySQL, and so much more, already installed and awaiting activation?  Is that why Apple ships a product called OS X Server?  Is that, perhaps, why he was suggesting using pure, undiluted Darwin?

The answer to Mike's question really depends on what his needs are.  If all he needs is something to show off his collection of old shoes, then a Mac mini is more than enough.  If it's something more substantial, then yes, he should get a more powerful computer.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

The kernel is not solid enough. Some fundamental things, like NFS, are broken even in 10.3 Server. 

Just because Apple includes some convenient utilities doesn't mean that this is a server OS. I have no doubt that Windows 2000 Server comes with IIS and some sort of DBMS, but does that mean it's a good server OS?


----------



## Tommo (Jan 14, 2005)

Mac Mini as a server running 24/7...would you use a Powerbook for the same purpose as looking at the specs they are based on the same technology. Also an OSX server licence would cost at least the same as the system if not more.


----------



## gumse (Jan 14, 2005)

As pointed out earlier here you don't need a very powerful machine for small time serving. I ran NetBSD on a MacIIci (!) for 3 years, 8 domains , 200 email users, ca. 4-5000 hits/day, no problems, longest uptime between reboots over 600 days.


----------



## Tommo (Jan 14, 2005)

I agree you do not need a very powerful machine to run as a server, but I would doubt the suitability of a laptop or a Mini Mac to be left switched on for extended periods of time with problems related to overheating as most of the powersaving options would need to be disabled.


----------



## cfleck (Jan 14, 2005)

i'm shocked by the two guys toting these machines as "not server quality".  give me a break.  this guy is no doubt just wanting to use it as a small time server where  the most hits likely in a day is well under a thousand.  

on top of that, i have been using an old gateway p3 laptop running debian for these purposed for about 2 years now.  the specs are terrible, but it works fine for my needs.  oh, and i keep the lid closed and it stuffed in a closet.  i dont care if the thing dies, but it hasn't in that long.  i seriously doubt this is going to be, as you are suggesting, worse than that.

reality check.  not everyone hosts a website that gets slashdotted on a regular basis.


----------



## Pengu (Jan 14, 2005)

Um. Ok. firstly. i played with NFS on the server in my sig. it worked. how exactly is it broken?

secondly. there was no specification as to what services he wanted to use it for. even if there is an issue with NFS, the chances of someone with a small home network, who is considering using a MiniMac for a server, wanting to use NFS is very low. either way. i think it will be fine. I personally would choose a second-hand G4 tower for expandability alone, but i think the mini will work fine.


----------



## Viro (Jan 14, 2005)

Tommo said:
			
		

> Mac Mini as a server running 24/7...would you use a Powerbook for the same purpose as looking at the specs they are based on the same technology. Also an OSX server licence would cost at least the same as the system if not more.



I wouldn't use my Powerbook as a server. I bought it to be mobile, and as such it get's moved from one network location to another frequently. The IP address isn't static enough to run a reliable server.

If you're asking if I would run a server on *equivalent* hardware, the answer is yes. The Powerbook has enough juice to run pretty much any website, even in a corporate environment. P3 servers are still common place, and I know a few of the departments in my university run their websites with all the course lecture notes/assignments/tutorials/etc on P3 machines. If a P3 (800 Mhz - 1GHz) machine copes, why can't the Mac mini?

You don't need OS X server to run a server. Plain vanilla OS X will do just fine. All OS X server adds is the nice GUI tools to configure your server. Samba, Apache, and Tomcat run fine on the standard installation of OS X. If there tools you need that don't come with the standard OS X installation, just download the sources and compile. It is Unix after all. Projects like fink and darwinports make this a breeze.

As for the 'solidness' of the kernel, what on earth are you talking about? NFS access has got nothing to do with the kernel. How is the Linux kernel anymore solid than the OS X kernel? Or the NT kernel for that matter?


----------



## gumse (Jan 14, 2005)

99mac.se in Sweden just ordered a truckload of Minis to mount in racks (9 minis fits in a 4U rack) and put in their web hosting farm as dedicated servers for rent.


----------



## Jeffo (Jan 14, 2005)

I think it would be a GREAT server for home uses.  Remember he said that he is using a 200mhz PC for his server right now, this mini would be such a freakin huge increase from that!  I am currently using a BW G3/450 as my LAN/WAN server which is low volume and it does a super job.  the bottleneck is the net connection, by far NOT the computer.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

The kernel's VM performance is poor, and its networking stack is flaky. There's a race condition or something like that which Azureus, a popular bittorrent client, happened to tweak when opening a lot of connections, hence the kernel panics that plagued azureus users for the last several releases. This, of course, should be impossible. But, the kernel is still immature, and hasn't had the benefit of years of tuning the way the mainstream server kernels have.

Of course NFS is separate from the kernel... my point was, OS X is not ready for primetime. And, Pengu, just because you "played with" the NFS server does not mean it works the way it should.

OS X _will_ serve files. I never said it wouldn't. It just probably won't be as reliable or as fast as a true server OS. It very likely will be easier to administer, though, as long as you're not doing anything too far off of the beaten path, so if ease of use is a high priority, then OS X will fill the bill. All this is irrelevant to the original discussion of whether the Mac Mini is an appropriate server.

You can run a web server out of a matchbox, but that doesn't mean you should. I think you (plural) may be letting your Mac zealotry get in the way of reality here. I use my mac every day as my primary work machine, but that doesn't blind me to the benefits of other hardware and software platforms in certain situations.


----------



## cfleck (Jan 14, 2005)

wyvern - no one here is saying that ibm should deploy a mass of minis as their new server farm.  what happened was one guy asked if a mini would be a decent replacement for his 200MHz pc server.  you said no.  hence the rush do defence by all us "mac zealots".  fact is, you seemingly misunderstood the situation and everyone here came in to post with a "it will do well for your needs" response.  

if i seem to have taken offense to you referring to these posters as mac zealots it is because i have.  this situation does not demand a machine designed to be a server, an os designed to be a server os, or anything else server-specific to be successful.  if you don't want people on this board to recommend macs, i think you may be in the wrong place.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

cfleck, you seem to be ignoring the fact that for less money, you can get more machine, and run a better OS (given the tasks that will be required of it) by not going with the Mini. Thanks for proving my point about your overlooking other platforms.


----------



## Viro (Jan 14, 2005)

wyvern said:
			
		

> The kernel's VM performance is poor, and its networking stack is flaky. There's a race condition or something like that which Azureus, a popular bittorrent client, happened to tweak when opening a lot of connections, hence the kernel panics that plagued azureus users for the last several releases. This, of course, should be impossible. But, the kernel is still immature, and hasn't had the benefit of years of tuning the way the mainstream server kernels have.



VM performance isn't really an issue when you're talking about a home server. Besides, apart from the theoretical issues surrounding the old micro kernel vs monolithic kernel debates, there aren't any real benchmarks that demonstrate the OS X suffers from slow VM performance.

Kernel panics happen on every OS. Just do a Google on it. Something along the lines of "_your-os-here_ kernel panic[/i]". Saying that because a kernel panic occurred with the Azureus bit torrent client and therefore OS X can't be used as a server OS is an oversimplification.

Kernel panics aren't impossible (whatever gave you that idea?). If there's a bug in the kernel, and you make a system call that relies on that part of the kernel, your kernel will panic. That's why they exist for every known OS.



			
				wyvern said:
			
		

> Of course NFS is separate from the kernel... my point was, OS X is not ready for primetime. And, Pengu, just because you "played with" the NFS server does not mean it works the way it should.



How do you know what Pengu did? He could have stress tested it. You're just jumping to conclusions there.



			
				wyvern said:
			
		

> OS X _will_ serve files. I never said it wouldn't. It just probably won't be as reliable or as fast as a true server OS. It very likely will be easier to administer, though, as long as you're not doing anything too far off of the beaten path, so if ease of use is a high priority, then OS X will fill the bill. All this is irrelevant to the original discussion of whether the Mac Mini is an appropriate server.



Irrelevant? How is the ease of use in configuring a server irrelevant? How many servers actually wander "far off the beaten path"? What do you consider the "beaten path"? Is setting up a home network included? Pretty vague definition there.



			
				wyvern said:
			
		

> You can run a web server out of a matchbox, but that doesn't mean you should. I think you (plural) may be letting your Mac zealotry get in the way of reality here. I use my mac every day as my primary work machine, but that doesn't blind me to the benefits of other hardware and software platforms in certain situations.



So everyone is a zealot for disagreeing with you?


----------



## Viro (Jan 14, 2005)

wyvern said:
			
		

> cfleck, you seem to be ignoring the fact that for less money, you can get more machine, and run a better OS (given the tasks that will be required of it) by not going with the Mini. Thanks for proving my point about your overlooking other platforms.



Sorry, I'm gonna sound like I'm picking on you, but I'm not. Honest. Apologies in advance if you take this the wrong way.

For less money you may be able to get a typical white box x86 machine. But it will normally be in an ATX form factor, have loud fans and will draw a lot more current than the Mac mini. 

If you're after a small server (decent server, not that postage sized prototype), low power consumption, whisper quiet operation, the Mac mini is a good choice.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> VM performance isn't really an issue when you're talking about a home server. Besides, apart from the theoretical issues surrounding the old micro kernel vs monolithic kernel debates, there aren't any real benchmarks that demonstrate the OS X suffers from slow VM performance.



VM performance is ALWAYS an issue, and even more so when you're running on 256 MB. I'm afraid I've lost the link in a reformat, but there are comparisons out on the web if you search hard enough.



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> Kernel panics happen on every OS. Just do a Google on it. Something along the lines of "_your-os-here_ kernel panic[/i]". Saying that because a kernel panic occurred with the Azureus bit torrent client and therefore OS X can't be used as a server OS is an oversimplification.
> 
> Kernel panics aren't impossible (whatever gave you that idea?). If there's a bug in the kernel, and you make a system call that relies on that part of the kernel, your kernel will panic. That's why they exist for every known OS.



Of course they're not impossible. But they should be a hell of a lot rarer than they are in OS X... which is why I like FreeBSD. It certainly is possible to panic fbsd, but it's generally only when you have weird hardware combinations or some strange kernel config file. The fact that the network stack, a pretty fundamental part of the kernel, is buggy does not bode well for its server performance. My implication was that no application should be able to cause a kernel panic simply by opening network connections.




			
				Viro said:
			
		

> How do you know what Pengu did? He could have stress tested it. You're just jumping to conclusions there.




... And I quote:


			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> i played with NFS on the server in my sig. it worked.


That should speak for itself.





			
				Viro said:
			
		

> Irrelevant? How is the ease of use in configuring a server irrelevant? How many servers actually wander "far off the beaten path"? What do you consider the "beaten path"? Is setting up a home network included? Pretty vague definition there.



I was pointing out that the topic under discussion was the hardware in question. I consider freebsd a fairly easy to administer OS, but for basic things (getting Apache up), OS X is easier. Many more sophisticated setups are easier to accomplish on mainstream OS's, partly due to the fact that the documentation exists. 



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> So everyone is a zealot for disagreeing with you?



No. That's not what I said. I said that zealots were blind to the advantages of other platforms. Which they are.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm gonna sound like I'm picking on you, but I'm not. Honest. Apologies in advance if you take this the wrong way.
> 
> For less money you may be able to get a typical white box x86 machine. But it will normally be in an ATX form factor, have loud fans and will draw a lot more current than the Mac mini.
> 
> If you're after a small server (decent server, not that postage sized prototype), low power consumption, whisper quiet operation, the Mac mini is a good choice.



Loud fans? Not if you know what you're doing. 
Sure, it will draw more power. But since when has low power usage been a priority in this choice? Power is cheap.
Size was also not listed as a priority. Why don't you go read the original post again? He simply asked if it was an appropriate server. He didn't say "It must be small, quiet, and not use much power."

Take a deep breath and step out of the RDF.


----------



## chevy (Jan 14, 2005)

The Mac mini is a very nice small and quiet mini home server. Good choice.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

*sigh* You people aren't worth educating.


----------



## cfleck (Jan 14, 2005)

wyvern said:
			
		

> *sigh* You people aren't worth educating.



more likely you aren't worth listening to.  

the general question was "would a mini make a for a decent home server?".  answer: yes.  

your answer: everyone needs the very best server machine to run a server no exceptions.  in fact, os x is terrible.  oh, and everyone that isn't me is stupid.

the popular consensus:  go away.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 14, 2005)

big imagination you've got there.


----------



## lurk (Jan 14, 2005)

My home server has been a 200 MHZ PentiumPro for going on 8 years now.  The mac mini would whomp that thing.  I might just get one...


----------



## mdnky (Jan 14, 2005)

It'll work fine for a sever, but then again so would an old beige G3 that you can pickup cheap on ebay now.  I just bought 2 G3 233's for $60 shipped.  If you have some RAM and a larger HD (came with 4 or 6gb ones) lying around, they would make a great cheap server.

You don't need the latest spec equipment even for the most demanding of sites.  Some of the best known and largest companies out there are still running on stuff that would blow your mind.  UPS is one example...my younger brother works in one of their facilities in IT...you'd be amazed at the specs of some of the equipment they're using.

I'm using my old beige G3 desktop in that manner at our office, absolutely no problems what so ever.  It's only running 10.1.5 at that.  Meanwhile, the Sun Ultra 10 I have is sitting by my closet waiting for me to find it a new home.  It actually was too much of a pain in the u know what to keep up and running (Solaris 9).  Used it for a week, had nothing but problems.  Replaced it with the old beige DT, not a problem since (only 2 reboots in the past year and a half...one due to someone accidentally unplugging the surge strip and another due to a power outage).  We all know how stable Puma is when compared to Jaguar or Panther.


----------



## Viro (Jan 14, 2005)

wyvern said:
			
		

> Loud fans? Not if you know what you're doing.


Compared with no fans? That's something. What's your solution? Ear plugs?



			
				wyvern said:
			
		

> Sure, it will draw more power. But since when has low power usage been a priority in this choice? Power is cheap.
> Size was also not listed as a priority. Why don't you go read the original post again? He simply asked if it was an appropriate server. He didn't say "It must be small, quiet, and not use much power."



It's a home server. Not everyone is going to have space to place a server. Size can be an issue, unless you're a geek who doesn't care how many cases you have lying around (like me).

Power is going to be an issue too. You are paying for the bills, after all. Why waste more than you need to? This may not be an issue for you, it may be an issue for others.



			
				wyvern said:
			
		

> Take a deep breath and step out of the RDF.



Dude, you need to chill. No one is standing in an RDF. No one is being a zealot. If anything, you've been misreading and misrepresenting stuff.

Pengu said he played with an NFS server. How do you know what he meant by that? He could have stress tested it. He could have tried to break it. But no, you must automatically dismiss what he's said and conclude that NFS is horribly broken and is unusable.

You've claimed that it is impossible for a user space app to crash the kernel. 


			
				wyvern said:
			
		

> The kernel's VM performance is poor, and its networking stack is flaky. *There's a race condition or something like that which Azureus, a popular bittorrent client, happened to tweak when opening a lot of connections, hence the kernel panics that plagued azureus users for the last several releases. This, of course, should be impossible.* But, the kernel is still immature, and hasn't had the benefit of years of tuning the way the mainstream server kernels have.


This has been demonstrated to be false. Kernel panics are quite possible. And they are as common on other OSes as they are on the Mac. Macs are not immune to kernel panics, nor are they more susceptible to them as you are trying to imply.

I won't even go into your claims about OS X VM performance. This has been something that I've been interested in, especially in relation to Linux since I this is my background. Know what? I've not found any benchmarks (real world or theoretical) that show OS X's VM performance to be abysmal compared to the competition. The onus is on you to prove your sources. And VM performance isn't important on a _home_ server. Unless of course your VM implementation is completely and utterly broken to the extent of being absolutely useless.

The Mac Mini is a nice server. A server is more than the hardware, it's also the software. If the software is ridiculously powerful but is a pain to set up, you're up the creek without a paddle especially if you're a user who isn't very technically inclined (i.e. the average computer user) and has better things to do than go around hacking config files. OS X is fine for a home server. As such, the Mac Mini is nice for a _home_ server.


----------



## scruffy (Jan 14, 2005)

Depending on what you're doing, there is a very good chance that network will be your bottleneck for webserving, not disk, CPU, system bus, or anything else.  If you're not running complex database action behind the scenes (and presumably he wouldn't be - you can't even dual-home the things after all...).

Even on much lesser hardware, you can easily saturate a T1 with very low-end hardware, and the server won't break a sweat.

Mac minis might be an interesting choice for failover/load balancing cluster servers as well - they're so cheap, it's not a big deal to add a few more to your cluster.

One more thought - why the heck are we arguing about the OS here?  

For one - who says he want to run Mac OS on them?  NetBSD, any one of a half dozen Linux distros - he could run anything he wants.  The only interesting OS they won't run, is Windows or maybe Solaris.

Either he's asking whether the Mac mini is a good choice as a server _compared to other Macs_ in which case any OS that will run on one recent Mac, will run on another; or he's asking whether it's a good choice as a server _compared to comparable non-Mac hardware_ in which case he's presumably not going to run Mac OS or Windows, since either of those choices would have already dictated what hardware he'd be using.


----------



## symphonix (Jan 14, 2005)

On the question of would you bother getting a second one to use as a server:
While I agree this would make an ideal light-weight server for your home network and maybe a low traffic website, I'd simply put the money into getting one Mac mini, an external drive bay and a 160-250gb hard drive. Whatever cash is left over you can spend on goodies, like BlueTooth keyboard and mouse, Superdrive, and so on.

On the other hand, if you do decide to setup a second Mac mini as a server, then I wouldn't bother "just putting Darwin" on it, I'd just leave the copy of Mac OS X that it ships with installed, enable remote logon and serving features in the system prefs, install a VNC server so you can take it over remotely, and leave it at that.


----------



## contoursvt (Jan 15, 2005)

I'm more a PC guy than a MAC guy but this is my take on things. The Mini may make a good server if speed is not an issue. Afterall its probably going to be serving files and that hard disc is going to be slow so clock speed is not an issue. A 200Mhz computer could be a faster fileserver than a 2Ghz one if set up correctly. I also think the MAC mini might be quite reliable but I doubt the drive would survive constant use. I dont think laptop drives are that durable at least not for server duty. 

I'm a geek at heart so when it came time to build a server, I decided to go oldschool. I setup a full tower case Inwin Q500 case with an Enermax 430W power supply. The board is an ancient Intel PR-FX440 dual Pentium pro motherboard with two 200Mhz PPRO 1meg cache CPUs. The board came with UW SCSI onboard already. I paid next to nothing for the board and CPUs. The case was used from a friend who didnt want a huge case anymore. I also purchased 1 Gig of EDO DIMM memory for $50 for the above setup. Finally added an ATA-100 controller and a pair of 200gig drives for data storage. A used 9gig 10K SCSI drive boots the system. Its incredibly stable and is a fast fileserver. Its also handling email, ftp, HTTP, DNS and Active Directory

The above system although used (except for the IDE drives) probably cost no more than a base model mini and has 400gigs of storage and I'm sure it will out serve it too. Its very quiet as the CPUs have large passive heatsinks on them. The system has huge upgrade capabilities. I still have room for 3 more hard drives in the 3.5" bays and can fill the 5.25" bays with hard drives as well if needed. This is way beyond the needs of any non geek person but Its nice to know that if I need to add more space, I dont have to mess with the server. I dont need to pull any drives..etc. 

Two big downfalls are 1. Size and 2. Power consumption.  About the size thing. Its huge and heavy! Moving this thing is not a good idea if you have not done your stretches in the morning    Also with it plugged into my UPS, I can see that its drawing 150W. That is a lot but I guess there can be a price for absolute bulletproofness (I kow there is no such word). 

The server has been for about 1 1/2 years running win2k server with no hiccups. It gets restarted from time to time if I've done some security update which needs a restart and thats about it. 

As for the mini. I dont know how it will fare in terms of being on all the time. I dont know if laptop drives are tested in the same way. Will it be as reliable as a full sized 3.5" drive? I doubt it but it will certainly take up less space and make less heat and use less power.


----------



## Arden (Jan 15, 2005)

Why would it being a laptop hard drive make a difference?  A hard drive is a hard drive is a hard drive.

Imagine having a Mac mini server: you could stick it *anywhere*.  You could hang it from the ceiling, string up a power and Ethernet cord, and be done with it.

Someone should add a poll to this.


----------



## contoursvt (Jan 15, 2005)

If a hard drive was a hard drive, then 1u rackmound servers could easily be populated with tons of 2.5" laptop drives and then configure them as raid 5..etc. Just think how cool that would be. The fact that 2.5" laptop drives are not used in servers or at least of any kind that I know of, probably says that maybe they are not as reliable in the long run. . Even assuming that reliability is the same, a 4200rpm drive which is what comes in the mini is not going to be fast. Even though transfer rates are faster than that of a 100mbit ethernet connection, accessing multiple small files will be kinda slow on a drive with high access times.

I mean anything can be used as a 'server'. A laptop can be used as a server. That doesnt make it a great server or ideal for the job. The mini is not a very ideal server for its price. Time will tell how reliable it will be for that task.


----------



## Sogni (Jan 15, 2005)

Um... excuse me, but... 
Laptop hard drives are EXPENSIVE, and SMALL capacity!
Especially compared to ATA/SATA drives!


----------



## contoursvt (Jan 15, 2005)

Laptop drives come in sizes up to 80gigs. Maybe even larger who knows...which is not that bad for a webserver for example. I'm also sure that there are uses for having a a raid 5 setup in a 1u chassis. If it was available, then people would buy it even if it cost 2x more than other 1u. Price never stopped anyone. If price was the only factor stopping people from spending $$, then apple would be out of business but obviously there are things worth spending $$ on.


----------



## Arden (Jan 15, 2005)

Watch the thread hit a penny and derail...

Laptop hard drives use the exact same mechanisms to read and write data as every other hard drive out there.  The difference is the size of the platter, and the connection type.  You're not going to wear out a laptop drive from constant use anymore than you will a normal hard drive.


----------



## Viro (Jan 15, 2005)

Laptop hard drives are also slower than standard SATA/ATA drives. A 7.2K RPM 3.5" drive is fairly common while a 7.2K RPM 2.5" drive is quite rare. Most laptop drives spin at 4.2K RPM. That makes them very slow, and the larger drives tend to max out at 5.4K RPM. You wouldn't put these in a RAID server.


----------



## andychrist (Jan 15, 2005)

Performance issues aside, I think Viro and contoursvt both make a very good point about power consumption.  Where I live electricity is quite expensive (from both an economic and environmental stand point); compared to the alternatives, when operated 24/7, the mini's relatively low power consumption would save at least a few dollars a month in electric costs, adding up to hundreds of bucks (and tons of coal) over the course of its lifetime.

Where Michael lives, in Canada, electricity is generated mostly by hydro-power and is perhaps still relatively inexpensive.  But kudos to Apple for continually manufacturing energy-star ranking products.


----------



## Pengu (Jan 15, 2005)

Ok.. so this topic has really gone, hasn't it?

 let me answer some stuff..

 NO. i did not thrash the  out of NFS on my server. i said *IT WORKS*

 i also said most TYPICAL MAC USERS won't even use it.

 Also. As for your theory of Macs being prone to kernel panics... Our EDS-supported, enterprise level Novell Servers at work reboot more than either my G4 or G5. And they run on your lovely X86 hardware, with RAID SCSI and all that crap that people think makes a difference in the real world.

 And yet. they crash. they ABEND (Abnormal End. it's novell's way of saying "this server has  itself'). they require reboots. they reboot themselves, infact, for no apparent reason. and yet. they are all running on proper ridgy-didge server hardware/software.


 I'm sure if apple's OS is enough to run Apple.com, and enough for Cisco, it's enough for us schmoes.

 as for the memory issue. who specified the mini wouldn't be upgraded with more memory? 256 is just the STANDARD.


 Yes. I am quite openly a mac zealot. do you know why?

*I HAVE SEEN HOW THE REST CAN BE*

 I work in a Windows/Novell environment. My friends all use Windows. I have used a few Linux distros (mostly basic server setups, some desktop stuff) While Linux is fine and dandy for techie people. It has a LONG way to go before the average mac or windows user will be comfortable with it.

 Through all of this my trusty mac's keep on keepin' on...

 I don't suggest the mini for an enterprise server. buy an xserve, that's what it is for. but for a HOME, it will be ideal in my opinion. Remember- the fact that he asked about it, is proof enough that he isn't a trained tech.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 15, 2005)

Viro, you are either wilfully misunderstanding my posts, or not reading them carefully. Go take another look.

A comparison of Novell to OS X says nothing about anything other than the fact that Novell is unstable. My FreeBSD server, on a cheap box I put together for $300, goes many hundreds of days between reboots. The only reason it hasn't gone for a full year is because of power outages.


----------



## cfleck (Jan 15, 2005)

wyvern said:
			
		

> Viro, you are either wilfully misunderstanding my posts, or not reading them carefully. Go take another look.



Funny how you are quick to point at someone else for not reading carefully.  You missed post 1.  Check that one out and take a look at how useful your response is.


----------



## michaelsanford (Jan 15, 2005)

I didn't realise this would be such a hot topic !

 More specifications then. I want to run mail, ftp, sql and http services for about 5 domains and a few friends' that I wouldn't imagine would ever receive more than 1 000 pageviews (not hits) in one day combined, at least for the forseeable future. Mail, ftp and sql might together experience slightly heavier traffic but the limiting factor would probably be my connection (business DSL) and not my system.

 Why did I mention this at all ? Well, my current Slackware box has only 128 megs of RAM (maxed out) and a paltry 6 GB or storage space. I was thinking of using something a little more powerful, but my secondary question 'is that rediculous' was pertinent because I can still get by all right with my current setup at least for now since my sites are hosted off-site.



			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> Remember- the fact that he asked about it, is proof enough that he isn't a trained tech.


  Yes indeed sir! I thought that would be obvious to everyone...

   I was just thinking that a Mac Mini would be relatively inexpensive for the power.

 What don't I need ? RAID, terabytes of storage space, 50 gigs of RAM, multiple processors, multiple NICs, stuff like that. If I did I wouldn't even be asking about a machine that was designed to be a desktop box (even 
 though my current server is just that).

 Thanks for all your replies, and sorry for starting a war  (the same thing happened in my last translation class: an argument over the use of _tall_ vs _high_ nearly came to blows !). Maybe it's my midas-like touch...


----------



## Pengu (Jan 15, 2005)

Ok. well i still say it will do the job fine. I suggest more memory than standard though..


as for Novell. You said:


> OS X is not ready for primetime



My point is this: are you saying that Netware isn't ready either? Because you might want to tell the world that. You said, we are  blind and can't accept another product can do the job. i think you have that same problem. you won't accept anything less than a Dual 3Ghz Xeon Server with 4Gb of RAM and triple 10-Gigabit ethernet NICs. Of course, it will need 300Gig of Usable space from a SCSI RAID-5 Array, and dual powersupplys, just in case. Oh. and of course it will run only a *BSD because NO OTHER PRODUCT could POSSIBLY work. sweet jesus are you narrow minded.


----------



## symphonix (Jan 16, 2005)

You only have to look at Pengu's server machine to see that he knows what he's talking about.



> PowerMac G4 400Mhz
> 832Mb RAM
> 40Gb + 120Gb HDD
> OS X Server 10.3.7 - Web/Proxy/NAT/Firewall/Backup


 
 The fiction that to have a server for your home network, you need to start looking at high-availability server equipment, is a lie that is widely pushed by PC manufacturers. How many home networks, serving out mail, firewall, music, movies and files, really need 100% uptime anyway?

 If I were to install one of these as a server, it would really only be storing music, movies, writing, artwork, personal websites and so on. Based on my 4 years of experience with Mac OS X, it would probably be unavailable for all of ten minutes every year as it reboots for software updates. That might matter if it was providing high importance database applications to emergency services. If the most useful thing on the server is my webcomic and a forum, though, then why should I care if it goes down for five minutes once every few months?

 Do I think the Mac mini would be an effective server? Sure.

 Do I think it needs more memory, hard drive space, a RAID array, gigabit ethernet, uninterruptible power? No, no and no. You might want more memory to run it as a game server, but for any other purpose there's just no advantage in more RAM.

 Lastly, I'd recommend against getting any extra software, like MACOSX Server or Darwin. There just isn't any margin in it. Maybe Darwin would server webpages 2-3% quicker without having the extras of MacOSX, but is it really worth trying to configure everything through the command line?


----------



## contoursvt (Jan 16, 2005)

Maybe the mini would make a fine server but I think the point here is that for the same $$, its possible to have a more upgradable system to act as a server. Speed is probably not a main concern. I mean even a G3 can serve files fast enough over a network. So really, the concerns are upgradability, power consumption and size.

I think if I was going to build a fileserver for myself which was based on a Mac, I'd go for a used B&W G3 or a low end G4, both of which should be able to be purchased cheap. The G3 can probably be found for free - heck I can barely give mine away    Anyway lets assume the lowly G3 B&W. Its a reliable box in my opinion and has good cooling and doesnt consume huge power. Its big enough to hold a second drive as well which is nice.  Maybe I'm the only one thinking this way but I figure if nobody is going to be sitting in front of it and using it, then it doesnt really matter that its old and slow. I'm not sure what size drives the G3 can handle but I know a 120gig works because I've got a 120gig Seagate IDE in there right now.  Its also a very quite machine. Although a used box like this has no warranty. 

One last thing, Having two drives is kinda nice because you can run some kind of backup software or script to copy your data from one drive to the other on a weekly basis for example so even if something really bad happens to the main drive that holds your data, you can still have a fairly current backup.  I guess on a mini, you can always get an external USB2.0 or firewire drive but then we get into more cables and power adapters kicking around. I hate external stuff


----------



## mkwan (Jan 16, 2005)

isn't Darwin been around for 10 years or more? you know including the days of NeXtstep...and since it is a derivative of BSD UNIX, it seems to me it is ready for the prime time. 

As a mac zealot, I would use mac mini with Panther (or Tiger) installed.


----------



## mkwan (Jan 16, 2005)

right now I am running PostgreSQL 8.00rc5, Apache2.0, VNC server and Postfix.  My machine runs fine so I believe the mac mini will run fine.  Maybe increase the RAM memory


----------



## Pengu (Jan 16, 2005)

> You only have to look at Pengu's server machine to see that he knows what he's talking about



thanks for the vote of confidence... but i can only really comment on my experiences.. im not Mac or OSX or Unix trained. Part of my Diploma training involved Linux...

Anywho. i think the general consensus is that for this particular case, a mini with OSX (not the server version, it's overkill. i only use it to expand my experience/knowledge) and maybe some more ram will be fine.


----------



## Arden (Jan 17, 2005)

Why go to all the trouble of obtaining a G3, upgrading it, updating it, and then configuring the software when you can get a mini, plug it in, configure the software and be done with it for only a little more money?  Sure, you can *do* all that to get the G3 working (and hey, I might actually choose to do that), but what if someone doesn't consider it worth his time and effort?


----------



## wyvern (Jan 17, 2005)

This is why I hate Mac users sometimes.

Ya get a little shell experience under your belt, and then the Gentoo phenomenon (see --teach-me-unix) takes over. I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this, but apparently I must. So, here goes.

This was never about how much CPU power the Mac Mini has. For a server, the disk is almost always much more important than the CPU power, yet people look at 1.42GHz and think "oh yeah that's plenty of power".

1. Laptop drives run hot. They're miniaturized, which reduces the cooling capability that's inherent in that large metal enclosure that normal (3.5") drives enjoy. And, a server is going to see more drive access, by its very nature, than a desktop. See the above paragraph. Heat reduces the life of pretty much every electronic device, and hard drives are no exception. This wouldn't be so much of a factor except for the fact that there's very little active cooling in the Mini, and no room for more.

2. Laptop drives are slow. They're designed to be small and conserve power while maintaining a minimal level of functionality. They do this very well. What they do *not* do well is speed. I know this for a fact. I run a large and popular server, and I know that many of the people who access it have laptops. None of them has ever gotten more than 16MB/sec off of it. Desktop users can regularly get 35MB/sec or more. This is the case when they are hooked into my switch, thus dodging the possible congestion at the main routers. (This is on a gigabit network, so network capacity is not the bottleneck.)

3. Mac OS X is not ready for server use. This doesn't mean that it won't work as a server. This means that other things that are available work better, and that you would be well-advised to use them instead. Yes, some large installations run OS X. That is because it's very easy to administer for certain tasks, and with a ton of systems at one's disposal, if one reboots it's not such a huge issue. When you have only one system, and it is controlling your music or your net connection, a reboot is a big pain.

So, taking the previous points into account, we have some choices.
- Use a desktop Mac with Mac OS X, accepting the possible stability and adminstration issues. Mac hardware can be expensive to purchase, and OS X is not an optimal server OS, but if you have an old Mac lying around, this could be a viable option. Buying new, inexpensive PC hardware is a better choice than buying an old Mac.

- Use a desktop Mac, but running YDL or NetBSD or another variant (Darwin is a joke; don't bother. You might as well run Contiki.). Again, this should only be considered if you have a source for very cheap/free Mac hardware, but NetBSD is a better option than OS X for servers. 

- Use a desktop PC, with any one of tons of OS choices. I like FreeBSD for various reasons, but getting you guys to acknowledge a PC as a valid choice will be a big step, so let's just stick with *N*X as the OS. PC hardware is very cheap, and it sounds like you have a case already for your Slackware box, so you can just replace the guts for that. New memory, motherboard, cpu, and hard drive will probably cost you about $300, which is probably about what you would spend if you bought a used Mac.

So, to wrap up. The Mac Mini *will* work as a server. I never said it wouldn't. But, $500 will buy you a plenty powerful PC, with no cooling issues, and the potential for upgradeability so that you won't tend to be stuck in the situation you're in _now_, when that 80GB seems really small, just like that 6GB does now.


----------



## mkwan (Jan 17, 2005)

I think YDL is not ready for desktop because there isn't many applications available (like Firefox).  I installed it on my iBook and it ran great for awhile until I realized that I couldn't use some of my favorite applications because it wasn't available.  I said to hell with it I am reinstalling Panther.  You may hate mac users but it seems to me you act like them.


----------



## wyvern (Jan 17, 2005)

Uhhh... mkwan, *THIS ISN'T A DESKTOP*. It's a *SERVER*.

Thanks for playing, please try again.


----------



## mkwan (Jan 17, 2005)

Now you're throwing insults at me....shame on you.  I was merely suggesting against using YDL....I believe Linux on mac is not ready for anything except testing and development.  Now, I await your irate response to me


----------



## wyvern (Jan 17, 2005)

The fact that the lack of firefox is quite irrelevant to server use didn't occur to you? I don't happen to like Linux much, but it is an acceptable choice for server use, if carefully administered. However, the fact that you can't manage to compile a fairly standard piece of software under YDL does not say anything about the operating system, unless you can supply more details (e.g. it comes with a broken gcc, etc).


----------



## mkwan (Jan 17, 2005)

michaelsanford said:
			
		

> I didn't realise this would be such a hot topic !
> 
> More specifications then. I want to run mail, ftp, sql and http services for about 5 domains and a few friends' that I wouldn't imagine would ever receive more than 1 000 pageviews (not hits) in one day combined, at least for the forseeable future. Mail, ftp and sql might together experience slightly heavier traffic but the limiting factor would probably be my connection (business DSL) and not my system.
> 
> ...



well, you saw the pros and cons of using Mac mini and Mac OS X as a server OS(the cons is still in debate)...I guess it is up to you to decide.

If Mac OS X is unsuitable for server needs...at least I know Jordan Hubbard will make it suitable.


----------



## Pengu (Jan 17, 2005)

I'll remember to tell Steve Jobs' it isn't suitable next time Apple.com isn't available because the servers crashed...


----------



## TommyWillB (Jan 17, 2005)

mkwan said:
			
		

> I think YDL is not ready for desktop because there isn't many applications available (like Firefox). I installed it on my iBook and it ran great for awhile until I realized that I couldn't use some of my favorite applications because it wasn't available. I said to hell with it I am reinstalling Panther. You may hate mac users but it seems to me you act like them.


Uh?!?!

 Why doesn't Firefox run on the Mini? I've been using it on my Mac since when it was originally called Firebird and Phoenix before that.

 Apllications don't need to be re-compiled to run on the Mini do they? It's a regular G4 OS X machine... Right?


----------



## Pengu (Jan 17, 2005)

I think he meant that Firefox doesn't run on Yellow Dog Linux..


----------



## michaelsanford (Jan 17, 2005)

wyvern said:
			
		

> This is why I hate Mac users sometimes.
> 
> Ya get a little shell experience under your belt, and then the Gentoo phenomenon (see --teach-me-unix) takes over. I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this, but apparently I must.


 
    Thanks for your insight but dude you don't have to explain anything.

    If this thread enrages you so just stop reading it.

 Would I hate you if you drew me a syntax tree and improperly attached a determiner to the wrong N-Bar level ? No. Why ? Because you don't know any better (and why should you!)

 I think you're rediculous for hating someone for this. This forum isn't called "macosx-for-super-users-and-trained-technicians-ONLY.com" for a good reason...


----------



## mkwan (Jan 17, 2005)

I meant on Firefox on the Yellow Dog Linux on the G4.  The Firefox on Mac OS X is fine


----------



## mkwan (Jan 17, 2005)

Firefox will probably run on Yellow Dog Linux, but if you want the latest version of it, prepare to get your hands dirty and compile the source (no rpms).


----------

