Slashdot Log In
Apple to Allow Virtual Mac OS X Server Instances
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:23 PM
from the server-in-a-server-in-a-server dept.
from the server-in-a-server-in-a-server dept.
Glenn Fleishman writes "Apple has changed its license for Mac OS X Server 10.5 (Leopard Server) to allow virtualized instances. VMware and Parallels are poised to offer support. This probably presages a thoroughly overhauled Xserve product with greater capability for acting as a virtual machine server, too. 'Ben Rudolph, Director of Corporate Communications for Parallels, told me, "Enabling Leopard Server to run in a virtual machine may take some time, but we're working closely with Apple on it and will make it public as quickly as possible." Pat Lee, Product Manager at VMware, concurred, saying "We applaud Apple for the exciting licensing changes implemented in Leopard Server. Apple customers can now run Mac OS X Server, Windows, Linux and other x86 operating systems simultaneously on Apple hardware so we are excited about the possibilities this change presents." Although neither company committed to specific features or timetables, it appears as though we should be seeing virtualization products from both that will enable an Xserve to run multiple copies of Leopard Server in virtual machines.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The problem VMware and others might face... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Before you get too excited... (Score:5, Informative)
That having been said, I have to wonder whether people will attempt to side-step this restriction. Once OS X Server and virtual solutions (like VMWare) are tweaked so as to allow easy virtualization, one would imagine it would be easy to move the virtual image to different (not Apple-branded) hardware. Then again, perhaps part of this collaboration with VMWare and Parallels is specifically to have hooks that will allow OS X Server to verify that the physical hardware is a genuine Apple machine.
Or maybe it's not a major concern, since the target market for OS X Server is large-scale businesses that typically abide by software license agreements. (Or am I being naive?)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before you get too excited... (Score:5, Interesting)
jeffk
Parent
Re:Before you get too excited... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Expected (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been wondering if they would allow this for a while. My idea was Apple would allow it, but only when the host system is Apple hardware (possibly running an Apple OS as the host OS). That way you could run 10 copies of OS X Server on your XServe, that would be OK with them. But you couldn't run copies of OS X Server on your Dell.
That seems like the Apple solution to the problem to me. You can do what you want, but under our slightly restrictive policies that wouldn't be a problem for many people (but others won't like).
Statement in article is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
It's not clear to me what problem is being solved by having virtual OSX.
Re: (Score:2)
Same problems as virtualization has always solved.
The ability to deploy different versions of the same services on the same ports without deploying a new box.
The ability to run different versions of OSX on the same box.
Server consolidation.
Testing/debugging environments.
etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the license for instance copies, or running instances? How about suspended instances? Do they count? What if I copy an instance and it's running in two places at once? Even if I suspend one as soon as the second unsuspends? Running a licensed OS in a virtual machine is an exercise in ambiguity.
Right now there's only one version of OSX that will support this, so that's not interesting.
Just about anything you can do on an O
Re: (Score:2)
I still amuse myself from time to time thinking, "Heck, if we virtualize OS software, why don't we go one step further and virtualize virtualization software! A whole new untapped market!"
Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".
(After all, isn't the OS supposed to be the "virtualization" between applications and hardware in the first place?)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the above is likely to happen.
Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".
Not really. It would look different but we'd still need it.
Consider if the hardware abstraction provided by virtualization had been there all along, and was standardis
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Availability
Imagine having an instance of an OSX operating system running on a rack of XServers. Now imagine that particular XServer getting bogged down by another OSX instance, or worse beginning to show signs of failing. By having instances of OSX running on virtuallized servers (especially on identical hardware), that particular instance of OSX can migrate to a better performing XServer within the rack without the software or the
Re: (Score:2)
The change to their license only applies to OS X server, so it it applies to their server product. I run my domains on a $20/mo VPS service. This is fine for dns, web, e-mail, moderate database, etc. A server like this is more than enough for a small business.
Without support for virtualization, I'd need to buy and colocate an XServe, which would be around an order of magnitude more expensive. This pretty much rules OS X out without
Still only on Apple Hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
What they really ought to allow is desktop OS X to be virtualized on top of apple hardware (ie run OS X VM's on xserve clusters) and allow OS X server to be virtualized on top of non-apple hardware. Not allowing this is really going to hurt their server business over the next few years I suspect. I also think that virtual desktop instances of OS X would be a very appealing way forward for the education market. I think Apple is enjoying its last days of lock-in in schools and having really NO computing product that is purpose built for education will probably make them slip soon.
But still only on Apple hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn! Almost excited... (Score:2)
(I know, I know - but while I'm dreaming and all, I'd like a pony).
"greater capability as a virtual machine server"? (Score:3, Insightful)
This probably presages a thoroughly overhauled Xserve product with greater capability for acting as a virtual machine server, too.
Huh? The current Xserve supports 3 SATA drives, 32GB of memory in 8 slots, and redundant power. Oh yeah, and 4 processor cores. Far as I know, all recent Xeon processors support intel virtualization features.
Regardless- I don't think you'll see Apple kowtowing to the virtualization fetish. Beyond the usual desktop virtualization needs, I don't think Apple's target audience for the Xserve needs this capability.
Let's all take a step back and realize that the current base Xserve is THREE GRAND and pretty damn bare-bones for that price-point; that does include OS X server unlimited, but yeeeeeesh- that's still almost $2k. I'm the first to argue that Apple's hardware isn't as overpriced as everyone claims, but this is one notable exception. It doesn't even include basic hardware RAID capabilities- you have to buy a (inserts pinky into mouth) ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR proprietary raid card to do hardware raid! Jeeeeesus christ, even the cheapest 1U boxen support BASIC raid, typically, or it's a $100-200 option...
I'm sure someone can come up with a feature list.. (Score:2)
I'm sure someone could come up with a feature list that would make an XServe look competitive to a straw man "equivalent" box. Let's see, dual dual-core woodcrest plus *3* drive bays? Most 1U servers only have 2 bays, so that'll narrow things down... and don't forget, when you're comparing Mac and PC you don't worry if the PC is overspecced: you gotta have every feature of the Mac solution
Re: (Score:2)
The Mac Tax is the price you pay to get OS X. It's been worth the price for me, so far, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
How is this different from the Microsoft Windows tax imposed on all OEMs even if they ship Linux?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. You have to pay the Windows Tax even if you're not buying a device made by Microsoft (such as an XBox).
2. You don't have to pay the Mac Tax unless you're buying a device made by Apple (such as a Macintosh).
3. If you're not interested in running OS X, why the hell are you buying Apple's grotty kit?
Yes, Apple servers are Cheap (Score:2)
exciting license (Score:3, Funny)
Is it just me? But I hardly find a license change exciting, not even the the slightest bit. They should really send the PR person who wrote this to a shrink or a psychiatrist.
Re:server? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:server? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of several possible advantages:
Parent
Re:server? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, if Leopard server offers Time Machine, it could make for a very good document server. Versioning (via Time Machine) and good indexing (via spotlight).
I mean, ultimately, if you can do it on OSX you can do it on Linux. But sometimes Apple has a nice/slick implementation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point of caring if a rackmount server runs 1600x1200?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the boxen are being used as a render farm, for example, having the hardware for the graphics card is probably good, but does it really matter what resolution the card can display?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, we have a customer that would like to use the bog-standard equipment they paid for. That's not a lot to ask.
Tho, it's *native* resolution is 1600x1200? Talk about cruisin for a bruisin. You sure the videocard even supports that video mode? Sure it, should, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.
Why is 1600x1200 such a difficult requirement in 2007? As far as whether the video card supports it, the same hardware was working fine at 1600x1
*cough* (Score:3, Informative)
As for your relatively irrelevant point about the
Re:server? (Score:5, Insightful)
I rarely respond to Cowards, much less those who start out as you did, but your post betrays such a serious misunderstanding - that someone who runs a server must RTFM in order to get it to work. Why does a server need a special somebody to tend to it, pamper it, water it every now and then? Why can't one just buy a server, switch it on and let it get on with doing what it is supposed to do? I understand that IT departments have a vested interest in self-preservation, but truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I work as a sysadmin and yes, I have Linux servers here too.
The fact is, though, many things in Linux involve not only a "RTFM" - but "FTFMS" (as in find the f'ing manuals), scattered all over the net. Because Linux is free and developed by "anyone, anywhere" - you run into the classic problem of developers who aren't very good technical writers. In a commercial business, this is handled by having their writers do the writing. With open-source, i
Re: (Score:2)
The tools for administering the system are -- I'm told, by IT people who work on both Macs and non-Macs -- pretty slick. It means one person can monitor, control, and update hundreds of machines at a time.
Other systems have methods for doing this, of course. But the people I know who do this are much happier with the Mac OS X Server Tools than the stuff available for Windows and Linux.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:server? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:server? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but with OS X Server you can set up e.g. network home directories for Mac clients with a couple of clicks, and manage everything through a very straightforward interface. While you can technically do all of the same stuff on Linux with an LDAP server, etc. it's going to take a sufficiently large amount of work that the time your IT guys will spend on it is probably worth more than it would cost to buy a copy of OS X Server (and probably a Mac to run it on).
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:server? (Score:4, Informative)
AppleTalk is quite dead.
AFP over IP isn't proprietary. Sad to see how many people here still think there's something "different" about Macs on a network.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Much better GUI,
On a server?
it is vetted as official UNIX while Linux is not
Who cares?
and enterprise customers may have more faith in Apple as opposed to a much smaller company like RedHat to be able to support a massive service agreement.
That statement makes no sense to me. Why would people have more faith in Apple, who has dropped the ball on (or purposely ignored) enterprise support for it's entire lifetime, over a company like Redhat who has been doing enterprise Linux for it's entire lifetime?
Furthermore Apple is also beginning to come out with integrated, enterprise level software. That makes Apple a more integrated enterprise solution going forward than Linux is.
If Apple is just beginning to come out with integrated, enterprise level software, that puts them about 10-15 years behind the competition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about?
PHP PERL PYTHON and all your linux and most Unix server software has been running perfectly in OSX since the day it was released.
every single mac install comes with apache, php, perl and python installed by default.
Mysql is one click away as well.
Furthermore most software that needed to be recompiled to run on the power a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yea, they 'need' Steve's goodwill and blessings. So that leaves Xen, QEMU, etc. Once youy can buy a non-upgrade license 'off the rack' the genie is out of the bottle. Unless they really are stupid enough to pass through the DRM like you suggest, then it will ease the breaking of it and the freeing of OS X Desktop. Which would be hella fun.
Nobody cares about the EULA because it isn't enforcable in most states.
Wouldn't help... (Score:2)