View Full Version : New XServe and XServe RAID at Apple Store

02-10-2003, 09:23 AM
Apple Store was off-line for "maintenance" and now has the new XServers for sale.

Add to that, this bit of 'rumor':
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oh, and one last thing....a mature, hardware-accelerated version of X11, the common UNIX windowing engine and developer toolset, is expected to be included as part of Mac OS X 10.3, set for release in September. Its usefulness to developers and users alike will be highlighted as one of 10.3's features -- not a headline feature, but close to it. This is great news for Mac OS X users like ourselves who have UNIX backgrounds (in our case, primarily Solaris and FreeBSD), and for users of the various UNIX-like operating systems, particularly Linux, who have been waiting for Apple to not only develop its own X11 codebase, but also to widely promote it to developers and users. www.macosrumors.com (http://www.macosrumors.com) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Essential! Especially with Pixar moving its rendering farm from Sun to Linux on Intel recently (while waiting for a more mature OS X RAID?) Maybe?

[This message has been edited by Gregory (edited 10 February 2003).]

02-10-2003, 10:16 AM
first thing I checked this morning, and every morning until now, was the apple site to see if they released the new xserve.
the specs look very impressive.
I am not surprised with the xraid. there were enough leaks about it for me to paint a picture. too bad it is prohibitively epxensive for me at this time.
I think I will get the xserve 1u loaded with drives for my local storage needs.

The firewire B, or 800, is nice too. One could easily add, say, a granite firewire raid to the rack and use both channels for a fast external raid, rivaling the fibre channel and even scsi raids.

Is it in fact true that the drives cannot be easily upgraded? I read somewhere they are a little different. Perhaps not.
One could save a little money buying four 60GBs and replacing them with what appear to be ibm 180 gb 7200 rpm ata 100s, for a lot cheaper than the 250 per piece difference.

I probably will buy one today!

02-10-2003, 10:47 AM

Seeing Apple is offering FibreChannel quells me concern that they might marginalize storage. You could of course go with SCSI and UL4D as well. Would existing FireWire RAID actually use or take advantage of FW800?

02-10-2003, 11:51 AM

As far as I know, neither granite or anyone else has the 800 ready yet.
I like the idea of the xserve open to that in the future.

Also, since my budget doesn't allow the xraid right now, it doesn't mean I couldn't add it in the future.

I think they did a good job of giving admins and business owners the best future proofing they could.



For the price, i wonder if i am better off simply using an existing g4 dual 450 and putting 10.2 in it with a couple of sonnet raid cards (to make up for the slow internal ata bus).
This is something I keep mulling over and can't decide on...

[This message has been edited by jacob (edited 10 February 2003).]

02-10-2003, 02:13 PM
Some folks weighing in on Geek.com (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Feb/bma20030210018586.htm) but I guess March (plus time to port and negotiate contract etc) made it less than feasable for Pixar when they were working on new hardware for their next project. Sort of shame, almost the same day these come out Pixar goes Linux on Intel.

02-10-2003, 04:04 PM
its true, late march is the first ship date you can get if you order now.

at least if you want an xserve fast you can get the first release one for a lot cheaper.

02-10-2003, 04:24 PM
ComputerWorld (http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/macos/story/0,10801,78404,00.html) reiterates just the basic features.

02-20-2003, 02:00 PM
Apple has a KB article 86256 (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86256) XServe RAID FibreChannel.

02-20-2003, 09:54 PM
Good stuff.

Too bad the contollers are not fully redundant; it's my understanding this is possible. Have talked to other venders about it. At $2500 (3rd party) and up per controller, one really does not extra one just sitting idle for "what if"...

If they were fully redundant, then hosts Macs connected to either FC card could use arrays from either/both bays of 7 drives. And if either controller failed, all machines could still access both drive bays. If other are doing it, I wonder why not on Xraid? Would increase the value of it even more I would think (would for us).

Also noticed that 10.2.4, or Server 10.2.4 is required for host machines, except that 10.2.4 Server has not been released (yet).