Mac OS Servers

[anonymous-user]

Rather than hijack the Leopard thread, I thought I'd start this one.

I noticed a couple of people mentioning running Tiger/Leopard Server. What benefits do you find it offers over a Linux/BSD OS? I can understand a Windows shop wanting to stick to Windows servers, but if you know your way around bash already, why OS X Server?

[SystemParanoia]

• watches thread with intent*

[RoadRailer]

I use OSX server for a couple of reasons:-

- because its easier to set up than Loonix. being a numpty thats dead handy!
- the mini I'm running my mail,personal/dev web,DNS and NFS services on uses next to no juice (30w @ full load!)
-I like the iShiney stuff.
-Quicktime streaming server is a doddle to get running - unlike on Loonix
- It plays nice with MS/Linux/BSD out of the box
- Applescript is mighty handy and powerful

[cyberface]

Helloooo - another Mac OS X Server user here (one Tiger server, one Leopard server).

Disadvantages:

• cost - I paid £320 for Leopard Server IIRC, Tiger was a long time ago and I think that was £280-300 or thereabouts;
• you can do virtually everything OS X Server does with Linux;
• like most unix-based server OSes, it uses all the RAM it can for cache and certain services are I/O intensive, so if you're considering using a Mac Mini as a server (as I have, I use two of them) then boot it off an external hard drive. The internal laptop HD in the Mac Mini isn't recommended for server use.

Advantages:

• cost - compared to Windows Server 2003 and commercial Unix server OSes;
• simplicity and massive ease of installation and administration. The Server Admin tool and screen sharing (VNC, effectively) on a headless OS X server is sheer class... no learning curve like with Linux, and far less likely to do something sub-optimal and end up with a working but vulnerable server. OS X Server ties itself down very well, a boggo install will be nigh-on uncrackable over the internet unless you use shit passwords. Linux can be even more secure, but the reliance on your expertise with config files etc. makes it easy to introduce exploitable vulnerabilities by accident;
• integration with everyone is easy. OS X Server will join in with MS Active Directory forests, and now Leopard is UNIX certified (i.e. it's 'proper' unix now, not 'unix-like' and therefore conforms to all standards) it'll easily slot in with existing unix / linux servers;
• common server services like mail, web, DNS, filesharing, media streaming, printing, etc. are all really easily configured from the Server Admin tool;
• easy access to enterprise-level software... Leopard Server actually has enough under the hood with Open Directory and Kerberos to fairly easily implement a full-bore single-signon collaborative server - shared calendars, publish and subscribe, etc. which is Microsoft Exchange territory (Exchange server is expensive IIRC);
• the vast majority of the Linux stuff works and a lot of the common stuff is built in already - if you want dynamic web content served up by PHP and MySQL then it's there, if you want to use Ruby on Rails it's there, etc. All opensource database servers are available for OS X Server IIRC, and both Oracle and Sybase have an OS X version available last time I looked;
• pre-installed with Java app server middleware if you want that;
• everything is really easy. Even setting up VPN, which can be tricky.

I used to run my servers on Windows 2000 (7 years ago or so, funnily enough) - I had already lost my enthusiasm for Microsoft a long time ago, but Win2k was pretty stable and I still really like MS SQL Server (I think Oracle is more dependable but MS SQL had such a great GUI / IDE, until they screwed it up with 2005 Management Console or whatever it's called). I got wormed by the Code Red worm, which was the final straw (my machine was very well secured, but opensource code is less vulnerable to this sort of attack than black-box software.

I moved to Linux on the same hardware (it was a Dell server with dual CPUs, dual SCSI hard drives, plenty of RAM, etc.) which had one hell of a learning curve. Learnt a lot (was using qmail as my mail server, which was very secure but took a lot of configuring!) and uptimes were enormous (many months) but it was a good job I didn't have to administer it much because it was complex. When I moved to Apple kit for my workstation / laptop machines (got the unix bug from Linux) - I moved all the server stuff onto an Apple dual G4 Powermac, but running OS X client (free with the machine) and compiling my own qmail etc. from source to move the services onto the Mac (as you know, it's more or less BSD underneath). A bit better to deal with, but admin was command line stuff again.

The sheer heat and noise in the cellar from my two dual-CPU tower-case boxes with lots of disks and fans (plus the large electricity bill) made me think of using Mac Minis as servers, and trying out OS X Server.

So I bought two Mac Minis, two Mac Mini-shaped external 7200 rpm Firewire hard disks, installed OS X Server on both and had all servers online, secure and working within the afternoon. It was that simple, really. Mail, Web, nameserver for my domains, FTP, SSH, fileserving, directory services, and remote desktop access (VNC / screen sharing) was a piece of cake. The servers themselves were cheap (Mac Minis aren't expensive), the drives are replaceable easily and easily backed up, and noise and power consumption were **drastically** cut. The servers now sit on the desk in my office, rather than being hidden in a cupboard making a racket.

I didn't include this as an advantage / disadvantage of OS X Server, since you can buy a couple of Intel Mac Minis and run Linux or Windows Server on them (though I'm not sure whether Windows Server can boot off the external drive and use that as the root filesystem).

However, having had more than a year of Mac Mini Server operation, I'm massively, massively impressed by the solution for a small company that is restricted mainly by internet bandwidth (the servers never break a sweat with all my network can ask of them). Even DBMSes work well - the Mini is not short of CPU power (dual core CPUs) and (typically of databases) you only need to concern yourself about I/O. The Mini is stackable with multiple chainable Firewire HDs (you can use USB too, but I wouldn't for a database disk).


The real value-add for me was the low noise, low energy consumption, amazingly easy administration (Server Admin is brilliant, and the screen sharing / VNC is one-click stuff - yes I know Windows can do this too, but it's it expensive to buy Terminal Services licences?) and aesthetics.

If you can't stand OS X then I'd recommend the Mac Minis for small server jobs running Linux. Internal heavy DBMS lifting they're not ideal for, but anything internet-facing where bandwidth is the bottleneck suits them well.


Top tip - from experience - stack the servers individually. Put the external disks underneath the Mac Mini. Don't be tempted to bung another disk and another Mac Mini on top. I originally had both Mac Mini servers and their external drives all stacked in one tower... but the small print telling you to leave the Mac Mini on the top of the tower, and ideally use one disk underneath only, is there for a reason. I cooked one box that way

[anonymous-user]

Many thanks for the replies! It does sound like it would be worthwhile experimenting with then. Yet more to play with an not understand.