Anyone use OS X Server?

[Stiganator]

..

 

[magnux]

I'm using OSX Server 10.5.6 currently as a home gateway server. It's been working solidly, and the gripes I have are minor. I have it currently running on a Core2Duo Mac Mini and the current servers running on it are: DNS, DHCP, iCal, Web, FTP, VPN and AFP.

I have another NAS running OpenFiler (which, sadly, does not support AFP) so I have the NAS mounted via NFS to the OSX Server which is then sharing over AFP -- with the OpenFiler box being the LDAP server.

My one main gripe is that the Server Admin tool does not have provision for DDNS support with the supplied DHCP server. It's invaluable to have the ability for reverse DNS on connected DHCP clients. So, I've had to install an alternate DHCP server with advanced configurations so I could accomplish this task. It works fine, except it cannot be controlled by the Server Admin GUI tool.

*shrug* Small price to pay. I have hopes for Snow Leopard Server.... we'll see.

 

[Injury]

We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

 

[sourceninja]

I've toyed with the idea, but I always stick with what I know...linux.

 

[slugg]

Originally posted by: Injury
We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

I'm not bashing your office's choice of server, but I must ask... WHY are you guys using OS X Server for file storage? OS X implies a mac, a mac implies expensive, and most businesses want something cheap and reliable. I'm sure the server is reliable, but an open source solution would either be equivalent and dramatically cheaper, or the same price and dramatically more powerful. Am I right, or am I missing something about OS X Server?

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: slugg

Originally posted by: Injury
We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

I'm not bashing your office's choice of server, but I must ask... WHY are you guys using OS X Server for file storage? OS X implies a mac, a mac implies expensive, and most businesses want something cheap and reliable. I'm sure the server is reliable, but an open source solution would either be equivalent and dramatically cheaper, or the same price and dramatically more powerful. Am I right, or am I missing something about OS X Server?

Yes, but Open Source implies Linux, and Linux implies not finished.

Windows implies Microsoft, and Microsoft implies buggy and insecure.

There is a problem with implications, they tend to lean toward the more extreme stereotypes.

OS X Server is Unix, so you get all of abilities of Unix, in a nice, easy to use, finished product that has a massive company behind it for support. Linux is free sure, but once you've exhausted your in house resources, who do you go to for support?

 

[timswim78]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: slugg

Originally posted by: Injury
We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

I'm not bashing your office's choice of server, but I must ask... WHY are you guys using OS X Server for file storage? OS X implies a mac, a mac implies expensive, and most businesses want something cheap and reliable. I'm sure the server is reliable, but an open source solution would either be equivalent and dramatically cheaper, or the same price and dramatically more powerful. Am I right, or am I missing something about OS X Server?

Yes, but Open Source implies Linux, and Linux implies not finished.

Windows implies Microsoft, and Microsoft implies buggy and insecure.

There is a problem with implications, they tend to lean toward the more extreme stereotypes.

OS X Server is Unix, so you get all of abilities of Unix, in a nice, easy to use, finished product that has a massive company behind it for support. Linux is free sure, but once you've exhausted your in house resources, who do you go to for support?

I do not to turn this into a Linux/Mac/Microsoft debate; however, your points deserve to be addressed. Linux can be free, but it is not always free. You go to lots of places for Linux support. For example, Red Hat is a very large company that supports Linux. Supporting Linux is what they do to make money.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: slugg

Originally posted by: Injury
We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

I'm not bashing your office's choice of server, but I must ask... WHY are you guys using OS X Server for file storage? OS X implies a mac, a mac implies expensive, and most businesses want something cheap and reliable. I'm sure the server is reliable, but an open source solution would either be equivalent and dramatically cheaper, or the same price and dramatically more powerful. Am I right, or am I missing something about OS X Server?

Yes, but Open Source implies Linux, and Linux implies not finished.

Windows implies Microsoft, and Microsoft implies buggy and insecure.

There is a problem with implications, they tend to lean toward the more extreme stereotypes.

OS X Server is Unix, so you get all of abilities of Unix, in a nice, easy to use, finished product that has a massive company behind it for support. Linux is free sure, but once you've exhausted your in house resources, who do you go to for support?

I do not to turn this into a Linux/Mac/Microsoft debate; however, your points deserve to be addressed. Linux can be free, but it is not always free. You go to lots of places for Linux support. For example, Red Hat is a very large company that supports Linux. Supporting Linux is what they do to make money.

I always forget that there are companies that sell Linux, and thereby sell support for it.

My initial sentences were just there to point out the error in making statements such as "A implies B and B implies C". The rest of it was me saying that with OS X Server, you get the Mac so you have the nice hardware/software package there.

Now, I am not a Server guy, so I have no idea what kind of hardware/software package you would get from a company if you did opt for Linux, nor how much it would cost. But the stereotype that if it has an Apple on it that it is immediately more expensive than any other option is outdated. Plus every company's needs are different and for all we know (and I realize that Slugg wasn't jumping to the conclusion that Injury's company doesn't need OS X Server. But if he did point out that they get less file corruption than Windows and it works well enough, why switch to yet another server OS?

 

[magnux]

Well, FWIW, for a small business with no real IT department -- setting up OSX Server is tremendously easier than configuring a Windows 2003 Server or RedHat server. I work with all 3 server types, including an HP/UX box. IMHO, For someone with limited server knowledge or time to devote to setup, OSX Server is as close as you can get to a point-and-click solution. Although, for someone *with* the knowledge and resources, one would quickly find OSX Server lacking in many areas usually required in a business environment.

For me, it suits my purposes as a home gateway. But all the real workhorse duties are offloaded to my Debian server.

 

[Nothinman]

Now, I am not a Server guy, so I have no idea what kind of hardware/software package you would get from a company if you did opt for Linux, nor how much it would cost.

Compared to Windows Server, you get exactly the same hardware from HP, Dell, etc and the prices are very similar as well.

But if he did point out that they get less file corruption than Windows and it works well enough, why switch to yet another server OS?

I'm glad their switch worked out but generally the opposite is true. Samba is almost always more problematic than Windows simply because MS has had so much more time with SMB/CIFS.

Well, FWIW, for a small business with no real IT department -- setting up OSX Server is tremendously easier than configuring a Windows 2003 Server or RedHat server. I work with all 3 server types, including an HP/UX box. IMHO, For someone with limited server knowledge or time to devote to setup, OSX Server is as close as you can get to a point-and-click solution. Although, for someone *with* the knowledge and resources, one would quickly find OSX Server lacking in many areas usually required in a business environment.

I dunno SBS is pretty simple to setup and since the main reasons that small businesses get a server is for file storage and email that puts SBS on top since it comes with Exchange.

 

[magnux]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I dunno SBS is pretty simple to setup and since the main reasons that small businesses get a server is for file storage and email that puts SBS on top since it comes with Exchange.

You're assuming everyone thinks of Exchange as a positive thing..

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: slugg

Originally posted by: Injury
We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

I'm not bashing your office's choice of server, but I must ask... WHY are you guys using OS X Server for file storage? OS X implies a mac, a mac implies expensive, and most businesses want something cheap and reliable. I'm sure the server is reliable, but an open source solution would either be equivalent and dramatically cheaper, or the same price and dramatically more powerful. Am I right, or am I missing something about OS X Server?

... Because we're all on macs? I work in the Graphics department of a printing company.

 

[Nothinman]

You're assuming everyone thinks of Exchange as a positive thing..

I personally can't stand it but end user's sure do.

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: slugg

Originally posted by: Injury
We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

I'm not bashing your office's choice of server, but I must ask... WHY are you guys using OS X Server for file storage? OS X implies a mac, a mac implies expensive, and most businesses want something cheap and reliable. I'm sure the server is reliable, but an open source solution would either be equivalent and dramatically cheaper, or the same price and dramatically more powerful. Am I right, or am I missing something about OS X Server?

... Because we're all on macs? I work in the Graphics department of a printing company.

/drools at al an all Mac office.

 

[PCTC2]

Originally posted by: AnthroAndStargate

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: slugg

Originally posted by: Injury
We use it here at work for network file storage. It works good enough. We really don't see much of the server side of it but there are a lot less corrupted files than when we were using a Windows server... (insert apples to apples joke here).

I'm not bashing your office's choice of server, but I must ask... WHY are you guys using OS X Server for file storage? OS X implies a mac, a mac implies expensive, and most businesses want something cheap and reliable. I'm sure the server is reliable, but an open source solution would either be equivalent and dramatically cheaper, or the same price and dramatically more powerful. Am I right, or am I missing something about OS X Server?

... Because we're all on macs? I work in the Graphics department of a printing company.

/drools at al an all Mac office.

I work at a research department as a "Programmer Analyst", aka Computer IT. We have an all-Mac infrastructure down from all Mac clients up to having 10 Mac servers running anything from XSAN to OpenDirectory to Web serving to an ARD Task Server. I am generally a Linux guy when it comes to servers (I use Windows, Linux, and Mac on a daily basis) because it is a lot more flexible, but since we use an all Mac environment (I have used an all-Windows environment as well based on Active Directory) and I have to say, it is not too bad to use. It has mostly everything you need and it is easily integrated with other Mac servers. However, we have always had a problem with XSAN.