We are about to get a new file server to replace an alpha running
Linux. We are familiar with Dell/Linux (one possibility) but less so
with Apple XServe running OS X (the other possibility). We seek
advice, specifically:

1) What's it like migrating a file server from Linux to Apple?
2) What's it like managing an Apple server and about 100 PCs (mostly
WinXP)?
3) How easy is it to add 3rd-party hardware/software to an Apple
server-based network? Does it "play well with others"?
4) Why should we prefer Apple over Dell or vice versa?

Any advice appreciated, including suggestions on where else to
look/ask. Thanks in advance for your help.

--Scott V.

"Scott Vandenberg" <vandenberg@siena.edu> wrote in message
news:i8qhb0lt9ebqs94deh8heglicbcpkq4uf7@4ax.com...
> We are about to get a new file server to replace an alpha running
> Linux. We are familiar with Dell/Linux (one possibility) but less so
> with Apple XServe running OS X (the other possibility). We seek
> advice, specifically:
>

Wow, that's a lot of cross-posts.

> 1) What's it like migrating a file server from Linux to Apple?

Trivial.

> 2) What's it like managing an Apple server and about 100 PCs (mostly
> WinXP)?

The same or easier than managing a Linux box.

> 3) How easy is it to add 3rd-party hardware/software to an Apple
> server-based network? Does it "play well with others"?

Play well how? Are you talking about adding hardware/software to the
Xserver, or to the "network"?

> 4) Why should we prefer Apple over Dell or vice versa?
>

Like I said, file serving is trivial. Choose it based on hardware
reliability and support, and price. The latter two are pretty easy to
figure out.

Greg

Scott Vandenberg <vandenberg@siena.edu> wrote:

> We are about to get a new file server to replace an alpha running
> Linux. We are familiar with Dell/Linux (one possibility) but less so
> with Apple XServe running OS X (the other possibility). We seek
> advice, specifically:
>
> 1) What's it like migrating a file server from Linux to Apple?
> 2) What's it like managing an Apple server and about 100 PCs (mostly
> WinXP)?
> 3) How easy is it to add 3rd-party hardware/software to an Apple
> server-based network? Does it "play well with others"?
> 4) Why should we prefer Apple over Dell or vice versa?
>
> Any advice appreciated, including suggestions on where else to
> look/ask. Thanks in advance for your help.

there are ton's of glowing reviews...

http://www.computerworld.com/softwar.../0,10801,93433,
00.html

http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2003...evxserver.html

http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002...e-10-14-02.asp

it's basically linux made easy, put on stellar hardware...

plus no microsoft tax... and apple slavishly supports industry standards
so it's a win, win if you can get past the old world thinking of MS in
the enterprise...

lastly, the pricing sure beats sun, ibm, hp, etc...

http://www.apple.com/xserve/specs.html

oxford

-

w i8qhb0lt9ebqs94deh8heglicbcpkq4uf7@4ax.com, Scott Vandenberg czyli
vandenberg@siena.edu nasmarowal 5/29/04 14:55:

> We are about to get a new file server to replace an alpha running
> Linux. We are familiar with Dell/Linux (one possibility) but less so
> with Apple XServe running OS X (the other possibility). We seek
> advice, specifically:
>
> 1) What's it like migrating a file server from Linux to Apple?
> 2) What's it like managing an Apple server and about 100 PCs (mostly
> WinXP)?
> 3) How easy is it to add 3rd-party hardware/software to an Apple
> server-based network? Does it "play well with others"?
> 4) Why should we prefer Apple over Dell or vice versa?
>
> Any advice appreciated, including suggestions on where else to
> look/ask. Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> --Scott V.

it seems that You work with linux long time and your lan seems to be big

if it all work why to jump in unknown water?

well why xserve? dell + linux will be thwice cheapper and You have some
practice with this enviroment

regards

In article <i8qhb0lt9ebqs94deh8heglicbcpkq4uf7@4ax.com>, Scott Vandenberg
wrote:
> We are about to get a new file server to replace an alpha running Linux.
> We are familiar with Dell/Linux (one possibility) but less so

Why are you replacing the existing server? Knowing what is inadequate with
your current solution will help determine the best replacement.

--
--Tim Smith

Grzegorz Wieczorek <dtp@schulz.com.pl> wrote:

> well why xserve? dell + linux will be thwice cheapper and You have some
> practice with this enviroment

actually the xserve is CHEAPER than the DeLL by mucho dollars... plus
you don't have to deal with unwieldy linux...

plus you get more performance with the xserve than what DeLL is able to
offer...

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

again, the only reason not to go with the xserve is the "old MS
mindset"... nothing more...

oxford

-

Oxford wrote:

> again, the only reason not to go with the xserve is the "old MS
> mindset"... nothing more...

seems you're stuck in your own little mindset.
ironically -- much more freedom in linux. try to think out of the box.

--
When you say: "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just
stare at you blankly and say:
"Hey, I got those with the system -- for free."
- Linus Torvalds

remove '.eh' to email

Oxford wrote:
>
> plus no microsoft tax... and apple slavishly supports industry standards
> so it's a win, win if you can get past the old world thinking of MS in
> the enterprise...
>

'microsoft tax'?
'get past the old world thinking of MS'?

wft? he said he was using Linux, _not_ MS.
why are you so obsessed with gates?


--
When you say: "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just
stare at you blankly and say:
"Hey, I got those with the system -- for free."
- Linus Torvalds

remove '.eh' to email

In article <Yqauc.160$%l.112060@news.uswest.net>, Oxford wrote:
> plus you get more performance with the xserve than what DeLL is able to
> offer...
>
> http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

That would be relevant if they were looking for a server for that one highly
specialized application. However, they are looking for a file server.

--
--Tim Smith

On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:10:08 -0500, johnny bobby bee wrote
(in article <A8duc.2289$RK3.27@clgrps13>):

[responding in a thread in which the original poster wanted to know the
advantages/disadvantages of Dell vs. Apple when it comes to servers]

> much more freedom in linux.

Could you be specific?

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

In comp.sys.mac.system Scott Vandenberg <vandenberg@siena.edu> wrote:
> We are about to get a new file server to replace an alpha running
> Linux. We are familiar with Dell/Linux (one possibility) but less so
> with Apple XServe running OS X (the other possibility). We seek
> advice, specifically:

> 1) What's it like migrating a file server from Linux to Apple?

That depends on the type of data and applications you need to migrate,
but odds are, you can simply copy the files over via any of several
network options.

> 2) What's it like managing an Apple server and about 100 PCs (mostly
> WinXP)?

The Apple server should be a cinch; its the Windows systems that
will be the challenge, but because Windows is lousy.

> 3) How easy is it to add 3rd-party hardware/software to an Apple
> server-based network? Does it "play well with others"?

That depends on which 3rd-party hardware/software you have in mind.
Check with the manufacturer or software publisher for compatibility
information.

> 4) Why should we prefer Apple over Dell or vice versa?

That's a good question, and I honestly don't have an answer. Perhaps
you should contact an Apple sales rep to ask that question.

johnny bobby bee <useraddshine.eh******.ca.eh> wrote:

> seems you're stuck in your own little mindset.
> ironically -- much more freedom in linux. try to think out of the box.

yeah, the freedom to waste untold hours tinkering with an OS that will
never be polished or easy to use... linux is a dead end for people that
value their time... nuff said...

That page does have a comparison for Windows File Serving with Samba.
Of course, the comparison is to an IBM Server with Windows Server 2003,
not a Dell with linux. Second to last plot on the page.

The final plot on the page shows the Xserve beating a couple of IBM
servers with Red Hat at Web Serving with Apache.

Although these can show performance, I still don't like the way Apple
does a lot of its comparison (not to say that anyone else is far
different). They probably went through and ran a battery of tests with
all sorts of machines and benchmarks, but they only show what makes them
look good in the end. Why not include the plots of the Xserve versus
the linux machines in file serving, etc.? For the longest time, all I
ever saw from Apple were comparing the speed of a G4 to an Intel/AMD
processor in Photoshop. Sorry, but I use my machines for a lot more
than Photoshop. Love my Albook to death and would get a G5 desktop if I
could afford it, but I really hate marketing. Can't always trust those
that want to sell you thousands of dollars in equipment.

Jason

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <Yqauc.160$%l.112060@news.uswest.net>, Oxford wrote:
>
>>plus you get more performance with the xserve than what DeLL is able to
>>offer...
>>
>>http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html
>
>
> That would be relevant if they were looking for a server for that one highly
> specialized application. However, they are looking for a file server.
>

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <i8qhb0lt9ebqs94deh8heglicbcpkq4uf7@4ax.com>, Scott Vandenberg
> wrote:
>
>>We are about to get a new file server to replace an alpha running Linux.
>>We are familiar with Dell/Linux (one possibility) but less so
>
>
> Why are you replacing the existing server? Knowing what is inadequate with
> your current solution will help determine the best replacement.
>

Hmm. The Alpha could be aging, and he might be wanting to find cheaper
maintenance costs. If it is only that, then a newer Alpha could be a
cost effective solution, so yes, we need to know some of the motivation
behind the move.

Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net> writes:

> Hmm. The Alpha could be aging, and he might be wanting to find
> cheaper maintenance costs. If it is only that, then a newer Alpha
> could be a cost effective solution, so yes, we need to know some of
> the motivation behind the move.

If the server is Internet facing then an Alpha would mostly likely be
more attack resistant. I would think it would be very rare for most
script kiddie root kits to contain Alpha shell code. (Though the
shell code is available for public compsumption.)

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI