3 ms·

That's not a server. It is a rackable desktop. You won't run general purpose server apps on this.

by Eikon 2y ago

sitkack 2y ago
Not with that attitude you won't. Clearly the machine is the wrong color for your workloads.
bayindirh 2y ago
What is a general purpose server app? Does Apple prevent their users running applications which listen to outside connections?
- theshrike79 2y ago
  I think the issue is that you'll have the base macOS system with GUI and all taking up resources. Compare that to a bare metal install of Proxmox or similar.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    Yeah, I know, but given that you leave the user not-logged in and set the items system-wide startup items, the memory pressure on a 64GB system can be seen as negligible with some mental flexibility. I think the primary use for a rackable server like this is automating building and testing of macOS native, or macOS specific applications you develop, or build them. Or as a shared remote desktop host for specific tasks. Also we had (recently deprecated) macOS Server package for quite some time. So it's not unsuitable for servers. It's more suitable for specific jobs as a server. Installing Linux servers are too easy now, so I don't think macOS should evolve a "server-specific" version either.
  - oneplane 2y ago
    Proxmox runs fine on M-series Macs. macOS also runs fine with no GUI. Either way, it wouldn't be a good fit when Ampere exists. For low power modular compute, the way GitHub and Amazon re-package Mac Minis is not the moest efficient way to get Apple hardware in a rack with remote management (and still no ECC), but it does have a performance per watt and compatibility for macOS CI workers that you can't get any other way. Ideally, this stops being an issue when the ARM64 ecosystem can build those apps natively. We're pretty close on that one, and it means you can use Ampere and Graviton for that.
- znpy 2y ago
  have fun when that cheese grater hangs in the datacenter and you have to physically go in there to push a button, connect a display, a keyboard and a mouse to do troubleshooting, because apple in their infinite wisdom has decided that a rackable mac should not have ipmi.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    Why not use JetKVM [0], and a remotely switchable datacenter PDU? [0]: https://jetkvm.com/ https://jetkvm.com/
    - znpy 2y ago
      you certainly could... but when you're spending mac-pro money you might as well get a machine with built-in ipmi. it's not that you can't -- it's just inefficient: you're spending more money for less features.

That's not a server. It is a rackable desktop. You won't run general purpose server apps on this.

by Eikon 2y ago

That's not a server. It is a rackable desktop. You won't run general purpose server apps on this.

sitkack 2y ago

Not with that attitude you won't. Clearly the machine is the wrong color for your workloads.

bayindirh 2y ago

What is a general purpose server app? Does Apple prevent their users running applications which listen to outside connections?

theshrike79 2y ago
I think the issue is that you'll have the base macOS system with GUI and all taking up resources. Compare that to a bare metal install of Proxmox or similar.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Yeah, I know, but given that you leave the user not-logged in and set the items system-wide startup items, the memory pressure on a 64GB system can be seen as negligible with some mental flexibility. I think the primary use for a rackable server like this is automating building and testing of macOS native, or macOS specific applications you develop, or build them. Or as a shared remote desktop host for specific tasks. Also we had (recently deprecated) macOS Server package for quite some time. So it's not unsuitable for servers. It's more suitable for specific jobs as a server. Installing Linux servers are too easy now, so I don't think macOS should evolve a "server-specific" version either.
- oneplane 2y ago
  Proxmox runs fine on M-series Macs. macOS also runs fine with no GUI. Either way, it wouldn't be a good fit when Ampere exists. For low power modular compute, the way GitHub and Amazon re-package Mac Minis is not the moest efficient way to get Apple hardware in a rack with remote management (and still no ECC), but it does have a performance per watt and compatibility for macOS CI workers that you can't get any other way. Ideally, this stops being an issue when the ARM64 ecosystem can build those apps natively. We're pretty close on that one, and it means you can use Ampere and Graviton for that.
znpy 2y ago
have fun when that cheese grater hangs in the datacenter and you have to physically go in there to push a button, connect a display, a keyboard and a mouse to do troubleshooting, because apple in their infinite wisdom has decided that a rackable mac should not have ipmi.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Why not use JetKVM [0], and a remotely switchable datacenter PDU? [0]: https://jetkvm.com/ https://jetkvm.com/
  - znpy 2y ago
    you certainly could... but when you're spending mac-pro money you might as well get a machine with built-in ipmi. it's not that you can't -- it's just inefficient: you're spending more money for less features.