...and the graphics limitations...?

Max RAM on the latest Mac Mini: 16 GB

Max RAM on the last XServe: 48 GB

Max RAM on the last Mac Pro: 64 GB

Server software, especially SQL, require tons of memory. The Mac Mini is still wholly inadequate in this regard.

Originally Posted by bobolicious

...and the graphics limitations...?

What about them?

Originally Posted by saldin

Max RAM on the latest Mac Mini: 16 GB
Max RAM on the last XServe: 48 GB
Max RAM on the last Mac Pro: 64 GB
Server software, especially SQL, require tons of memory. The Mac Mini is still wholly inadequate in this regard.

And a lot of people think they need more hardware than they actually do. MySQL doesn't necessarily require tons of memory - it depends on how you design your databases and depends on how many people access the machine at the same time. I do all MySQL development work on a FreeBSD virtual machine with 1GB of RAM. We deploy to a server with hundreds, if not thousands, of concurrent requests on a 4GB machine. This may well be within the capabilities of a Mac mini.

Mac minis are perfect for small to mid-size workgroups. And they're so cheap you can deploy two for redundancy if you are really concerned about minimal downtime.

Originally Posted by hayesk


What about them?
And a lot of people think they need more hardware than they actually do. MySQL doesn't necessarily require tons of memory - it depends on how you design your databases and depends on how many people access the machine at the same time. I do all MySQL development work on a FreeBSD virtual machine with 1GB of RAM. We deploy to a server with hundreds, if not thousands, of concurrent requests on a 4GB machine. This may well be within the capabilities of a Mac mini.
Mac minis are perfect for small to mid-size workgroups. And they're so cheap you can deploy two for redundancy if you are really concerned about minimal downtime.

Try doing concurrent VNC users, and this machine starts to choke, that is why it's a JOKE.

Originally Posted by blahblahbber

Try doing concurrent VNC users, and this machine starts to choke, that is why it's a JOKE.

no, that's why there's enterprise hardware. You're trying to do enterprise level work on a glorified set top box, and then get upset when it doesn't work? It's the same reason why the Mini is fine as a home server with 3-4 clients, but chokes when you have 10 or 15.

As a 10 year dba, I can tell you that mySQL absolutely does not require a lot of memory.

2 things - install an SSD drive, and tune your queries.

I haven't had a database with performance problems in years - while other DBA's are still having them, because they don't understand how databases work.

Why would one want to run VNC and with several concurrent users? There are other options, especially when we're talking high workloads like, say, virtual desktop infrastructure.

And to heavy database use, I still maintain an Informix 7 on SCO OpenServer 5.04 which got it's last hardware update in 1998, an order management system with some 100 users and several 1000 transactions a day formerly on a Gateway 650MHz Pentium III with 512MB RAM and now in VMware 4 with the same specs.
For my server needs I want onsite service with an 8 hour reaction time. Not bring in and wait two weeks like apple offers.
For my development workstation needs the Mac Mini is great, quiet, energy saving and fast enough for most things I throw at it. Like concurrent Windows XP, 7, Server 2k8r2 and CentOS in VMware Fusion.

Originally Posted by robot prom


no, that's why there's enterprise hardware. You're trying to do enterprise level work on a glorified set top box, and then get upset when it doesn't work? It's the same reason why the Mini is fine as a home server with 3-4 clients, but chokes when you have 10 or 15.

p.s. I never intended the mac mini to fulfill these specific needs.... so, I just wanted to make a point.

Originally Posted by Volker Hett

Why would one want to run VNC and with several concurrent users? There are other options, especially when we're talking high workloads like, say, virtual desktop infrastructure.
And to heavy database use, I still maintain an Informix 7 on SCO OpenServer 5.04 which got it's last hardware update in 1998, an order management system with some 100 users and several 1000 transactions a day formerly on a Gateway 650MHz Pentium III with 512MB RAM and now in VMware 4 with the same specs.
For my server needs I want onsite service with an 8 hour reaction time. Not bring in and wait two weeks like apple offers.
For my development workstation needs the Mac Mini is great, quiet, energy saving and fast enough for most things I throw at it. Like concurrent Windows XP, 7, Server 2k8r2 and CentOS in VMware Fusion.

yes, fast enough with an SSD installed.

SO it's official then,
this article by MacNN confirms it,
the Mac Pro IS dead.

Apple has finally and officially abandoned it's professional users.

BIG Mistake...

These are the core of Mac fans that supported and believed in Apple on it's worst days,
now they will not have any practical reason to keep up with Apple's artificially limited, overpriced and underpowered hardware.

Originally Posted by blahblahbber


Try doing concurrent VNC users, and this machine starts to choke, that is why it's a JOKE.

Why would you want to?

I think the term "server" has gotten really confusing to me.

The most common understanding probably used to be some sort of big mainframe, and this became some sort of rackable enclosure you'd find in a machine room, and now it seems to be essentially anything that "serves" more than one user, or something?

I don't mean to quibble over the word, I don't really care that much about its definition, but my thinking is that there is absolutely nothing special about the Mac Mini aside from its low power consumption and small size (if either is important to you). Any other Mac in the product line can be interchanged with the Mini and do just as well, if not better in terms of performance and "serving". I'm sure there are 1U enclosures for racking a Mini, but given the target audience here I'm assuming that most people interested in this model of Mini just setup the machine wherever.

"Server", "Workstation", whatever you want to call this class of machine, I think there isn't much future for these sorts of machines that need to serve stuff on any platform given the popularity of running this stuff in the cloud. Apple could virtually make the complaints about the lack of a server go away overnight if they'd allow Amazon/Rackspace/Linode/etc. to host OS X Server VMs like they do Windows Server VMs, couldn't they? Even for these people that need to run something like Final Cut Server, what would the costs be of a faster internet connection and the monthly costs of paying for this VM be compared to running a server in house and having to pay for its hardware upkeep, support contracts, IT staffing, etc.? Not only this, but small businesses that can't afford a SAN or a bunch of SSDs and need fast I/O would get faster I/O and performance configurable to their needs.

It seems like a far better long-term strategy for Apple to go the cloud route, only they seem to disagree with me since I don't understand what is stopping Apple to write the paravirt drivers, kernel modifications, and establish some sort of license agreement perhaps similar to Microsoft's to set this in motion?

Originally Posted by Arne_Saknussemm

SO it's official then,
this article by MacNN confirms it,
the Mac Pro IS dead.
Apple has finally and officially abandoned it's professional users.
BIG Mistake...
These are the core of Mac fans that supported and believed in Apple on it's worst days,
now they will not have any practical reason to keep up with Apple's artificially limited, overpriced and underpowered hardware.

2years now, and ongoing...

Originally Posted by besson3c


Why would you want to?

Example, I have clients that prefer to travel light, especially in areas you don't want to be seen with an expensive laptop during their business trip, and would rather carry a USB key, one that is strongly attached to their keychain which allows them to use a PC in a business center in a hotel or someone else's machine to connect remotely and have access to their complete setup back in their safe place they call home or and office.

They can now conduct business where ever there is a mac or pc, in the world with a key using a VNC client that hides in your pocket and only requires the internet while having the complete suite of tools and full capabilities of the OS right at their finger tips.

Originally Posted by blahblahbber


Example, I have clients that prefer to travel light, especially in areas you don't want to be seen with an expensive laptop during their business trip, and would rather carry a USB key, one that is strongly attached to their keychain which allows them to use a PC in a business center in a hotel or someone else's machine to connect remotely and have access to their complete setup back in their safe place they call home or and office.
They can now conduct business where ever there is a mac or pc, in the world with a key using a VNC client that hides in your pocket and only requires the internet while having the complete suite of tools and full capabilities of the OS right at their finger tips.

But since when did OS X Server support Terminal Services? This only works when it is okay when you don't need multiple users controlling the server simultaneously, and you can make do with the latency of VNC.

In other words, it's pretty useless.

Originally Posted by besson3c

[QUOTE name="blahblahbber" url="/t/493994/mac-mini-catches-up-to-2010-mac-pro-in-benchmark-tests#post_4198388"]
Example, I have clients that prefer to travel light, especially in areas you don't want to be seen with an expensive laptop during their business trip, and would rather carry a USB key, one that is strongly attached to their keychain which allows them to use a PC in a business center in a hotel or someone else's machine to connect remotely and have access to their complete setup back in their safe place they call home or and office.

They can now conduct business where ever there is a mac or pc, in the world with a key using a VNC client that hides in your pocket and only requires the internet while having the complete suite of tools and full capabilities of the OS right at their finger tips.

But since when did OS X Server support Terminal Services? This only works when it is okay when you don't need multiple users controlling the server simultaneously, and you can make do with the latency of VNC.

In other words, it's pretty useless.
[/quote]I don't expect the average tech to tune things the way I do to minimize latency issues, which is why I consider it my forte.... so yeah, it's not useless... and in fact, all I hear is that it pays off in the first sitting for them. So it is pretty useful. You will need to setup third party VNC services to get CUSTOMIZED terminal services of course.

Originally Posted by blahblahbber


I don't expect the average tech to tune things the way I do to minimize latency issues, which is why I consider it my forte.... so yeah, it's not useless... and in fact, all I hear is that it pays off in the first sitting for them. So it is pretty useful. You will need to setup third party VNC services to get CUSTOMIZED terminal services of course.

Whatever. Remote VNC is a pretty painful experience latency or no latency. I'd rather have my iPhone with me than some sort of VNC solution to a remote Mac, even if a terminal services type solution did exist (which it may very well).

Originally Posted by besson3c


Whatever. Remote VNC is a pretty painful experience latency or no latency. I'd rather have my iPhone with me than some sort of VNC solution to a remote Mac, even if a terminal services type solution did exist (which it may very well).

try working with big files, and make that part of your business.... then contact me... I will give you a discount ;)

Originally Posted by blahblahbber


try working with big files, and make that part of your business.... then contact me... I will give you a discount ;)

How is file size relevant?

Originally Posted by besson3c


How is file size relevant?

For example, one famous client of mine uses 20GB video file sizes.... drops it in an FTP folder for his customer's and/or collaborators from an external RAID1... all done remotely if needed, which is essential since in his line of business, traveling is required.

Originally Posted by blahblahbber


For example, one famous client of mine uses 20GB video file sizes.... drops it in an FTP folder for his customer's and/or collaborators from an external RAID1... all done remotely if needed, which is essential since in his line of business, traveling is required.

So you use your VNC connection to work on this video file remotely? Do you have ridiculous upload bandwidth with your home internet connection to support scrubbing through this video without it yakking like crazy?

Wouldn't saving the file to some sort of cloud based disk be a better solution? Something like WingFS will allow you to mount an Amazon S3 bucket using FUSE:

http://www.archiware.com/techblog/?cat=16

Originally Posted by besson3c


So you use your VNC connection to work on this video file remotely? Do you have ridiculous upload bandwidth with your home internet connection to support scrubbing through this video without it yakking like crazy?

Wouldn't saving the file to some sort of cloud based disk be a better solution? Something like WingFS will allow you to mount an Amazon S3 bucket using FUSE:

http://www.archiware.com/techblog/?cat=16

Would this make sense if you have 750GB of space you call archival storage into the cloud?? I will look into this, but I had implemented this way before I had practical options.