3 ms·

> DEFINITELY nobody is picking them up as "mysql and apache servers instead of linux" because OSX is a terrible server OS and not worth the cost. "Not worth th

> DEFINITELY nobody is picking them up as "mysql and apache servers instead of linux" because OSX is a terrible server OS and not worth the cost. "Not worth the cost" I can certainly see, but why is it a "terrible server OS"? Not saying you're wrong and I'm not in a position to argue the opposite, just curious.

X-Istence 15y ago
From personal experience, the issue is that Mac OS X likes to hide a lot of stuff behind graphic user interfaces, sure you can set it up manually and configure it, and tune it, but the next person to come along and to fire up the graphic interface may break it. The other issue is that Mac OS X just isn't tuned for serving a lot of requests, Mac OS X Server is fine for calendaring and the other applications that come standard with it, and I would even suggest them just for ease of use, but for mainstream server applications you are better off with Linux/FreeBSD and for much cheaper as well hardware wise.
- rjbond3rd 15y ago
  Interesting. But doesn't Apple's own (evidently adequate) infrastructure run on OS X? Regarding your experiences, could you be more specific as to what manual configuration might get broken by the GUI? Also, regarding tuning, are you talking about app-level tuning (like Apache) or OS-level tuning? I'm curious because I'm a UNIX person without OS X knowledge.
  - X-Istence 15y ago
    I'm talking about stuff like sysctl tuning, the firewall (which got replaced on the next system update ...), application level tuning, changing log locations, stuff like that. Haven't used it in a couple of years now... might no longer be an issue.
mixmastamyk 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29 The kernel design it uses (while having some advantages) is unfortunately slow at many tasks, which is detrimental to server performance. After years of tuning they've got it working well enough for the local user I suppose. Not sure if it will ever be able to perform as quickly as a monolithic kernel such as linux.

X-Istence 15y ago

From personal experience, the issue is that Mac OS X likes to hide a lot of stuff behind graphic user interfaces, sure you can set it up manually and configure it, and tune it, but the next person to come along and to fire up the graphic interface may break it. The other issue is that Mac OS X just isn't tuned for serving a lot of requests, Mac OS X Server is fine for calendaring and the other applications that come standard with it, and I would even suggest them just for ease of use, but for mainstream server applications you are better off with Linux/FreeBSD and for much cheaper as well hardware wise.

rjbond3rd 15y ago
Interesting. But doesn't Apple's own (evidently adequate) infrastructure run on OS X? Regarding your experiences, could you be more specific as to what manual configuration might get broken by the GUI? Also, regarding tuning, are you talking about app-level tuning (like Apache) or OS-level tuning? I'm curious because I'm a UNIX person without OS X knowledge.
- X-Istence 15y ago
  I'm talking about stuff like sysctl tuning, the firewall (which got replaced on the next system update ...), application level tuning, changing log locations, stuff like that. Haven't used it in a couple of years now... might no longer be an issue.

mixmastamyk 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29 The kernel design it uses (while having some advantages) is unfortunately slow at many tasks, which is detrimental to server performance. After years of tuning they've got it working well enough for the local user I suppose. Not sure if it will ever be able to perform as quickly as a monolithic kernel such as linux.