Apple XServe - rackmount server

[kgraeme]

Apple XServe

1U design
Dual 1GHz G4
Up to .48 terabytes per machine
2GB DDR
Out of box support for Mac, Windows and Linux clients
Unlimited clients. No per-seat client charges.

 

[benjamit]

a server with ata and not scsi?

Apple Drive Modules use 7200rpm ATA/100 hard disk drives.

Thatâ??s how Xserve can achieve a theoretical peak performance of up to 266 megabytes per second, compared to a 160MB/s theoretical performance with SCSI Ultra160 disk drives â?? at a significantly lower cost, and while generating less heat than SCSI drives.

isn't the 266 the fsb?

and aren't ata hdd throughput less than scsi due to spindle rate and not interface speed?

 

[Adul]

sounds interesting.

 

[Czar]

as always with apple it sure looks nice

 

[xype]

that's what I'd call a slick looking rack.

 

[dieselstation]

i'd have sex with that server.

 

[thorin]

"Thatâ??s how Xserve can achieve a theoretical peak performance of up to 266 megabytes per second, compared to a 160MB/s theoretical performance with SCSI Ultra160 disk drives â?? at a significantly lower cost, and while generating less heat than SCSI drives."

That would be possible in a RAID setup, especially considering "Each drive has an independent Ultra ATA/100 bus"

Thorin

 

[GTaudiophile]

Interesting new turn for Apple. Just wondering when we'll see OS X.2 for the PC!

 

[Eug]

Woohoo! It comes with a serial port!

Anyways, the drive modules are $$$$ at $500 each for 120 GB drives or $350 for 60 GB drives. I note that 10000 rpm SCSI 75 GB drives are about $350 (without a drive tray obviously).

a server with ata and not scsi?

You can get a SCSI 160 card for it.

 

[benjamit]

Anyways, the drive modules are $$$$ at $500 each for 120 GB drives or $350 for 60 GB drives. I note that 10000 rpm SCSI 75 GB drives are about $350 (without a drive tray obviously).

ata drives are cheaper for the storage volume but are they better, more durable than scsi drives?

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Eug
Woohoo! It comes with a serial port!

Ha! Somebody else noticed that! Only another Mac user would see that as a big deal.

There hasn't been a DB9 serial connector since, what, the Plus?

 

[LaBang]

so how do you guys think it will do in the marketplace?


Myself, I have no idea.

 

[kgraeme]

I think that OS X actually has a better chance in a rackmount than on consumer's desks.

 

[BlakkIce]

thas one sexy server i would waste my money on it just cause of the way it looks damn that apple

 

[bizmark]

I think the DDR support is the most exciting thing about it. Maybe the desktop G4s will have DDR sometime soon instead of the PC133 they're using now?

 

[GT1999]

Quite nice.. looks great too. No, scratch that..

sexaH sexaH server!

 

[ViRGE]

I'm going to be in love the minute we order one of these things.

 

[Swanny]

Wow.

 

[Huma]

so sexy.

I'd love to get my hands on that case and drop pc hardware inside.

 

[kgraeme]

It's a good thing they put a Radeon 8500 in it.

Actually, I suppose it could be. The NeXT-derived distributed computing would make this a sweet video editing system with a few in a rack.

 

[Eug]

You know this is the first time EVER I have heard anyone calling a rackmount server SEXY. And so many times too in the same thread.

And yes I agree... Pic!

 

[Daovonnaex]

The DDR SDRAM in that is meaningless, seeing as how the system bus is only 133MHz.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
The DDR SDRAM in that is meaningless, seeing as how the system bus is only 133MHz.

Huh?

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
The DDR SDRAM in that is meaningless, seeing as how the system bus is only 133MHz.

Woah! I didn't notice that. That's stupid!

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: bizmark

Originally posted by: Daovonnaex
The DDR SDRAM in that is meaningless, seeing as how the system bus is only 133MHz.

Woah! I didn't notice that. That's stupid!

Errr.... Huh? I hope you guys don't believe that your system bus is truly running at 400 MHz or 266 MHz or whatever.