3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoProxmox 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.