Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

simbimbo.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#121

Post by roflchoppa »

jsingleton wrote: post #120
jsmith0295 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the MacBook Pro's are ultra portable and super thin now. The laptop would probably have to be at least 20% thicker to make for enough room for an ethernet port. And since 90% of MBP Retina owners probably rarely if ever use ethernet, it's a good tradeoff to make. The Retina model is much lighter and easier to carry (especially with one hand) than it's predecessor.

I think Apple could have come up with a solution without compromising on this. What about a neat folding Ethernet port that flips out and is flush when not in use? I remember some old ThinkPads had something like that but it might have been a modem port (RJ11/RJ14 not RJ45). The rare use is what makes it a problem. It's not worth the investment to buy and always carry an adaptor for that one time you really need it.

One con to doing that is how relatively large that would be inside the computer. Have you seen the inside of these computers? There is almost no space to spare.

although adding the 3.5mm headphone jack to an auxiliary board was super smart. people keep dropping them with headphones inside.

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#122

Post by JosephRedfern »

bgaid wrote: post #115
JosephRedfern wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We require Mac OS X because the products we make run on OS X and we believe in testing on the same hardware our customers use, this helps produce a better product". If the software they're testing is used mainly on Macbook Pro's, then they're wanting to test on Macbook Pro's. Things like GPU and CPU differences may make a difference to how their software performs.

Any Mac hardware will do like Mini's, xServes, and Mac Pros. Mac Pro's work really well and if you just rent them from a data center, the capital expenditure isn't there so you don't get hit with the $3k price tag.

Without knowing what product is being testing, how can you say that "Any Mac hardware will do"? Like I said - if they're wanting to test on the specific hardware that their customers are running the software on, you can't know that for sure. A Mac Mini has a different CPU/GPU to an XServe, likewise a Mac Pro, likewise a Macbook Pro.

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#124

Post by yuvadam »

Debilski wrote: post #66
yuvadam wrote: post #40

Why are you keeping the lids partially open and drawing excessive power for the displays + backlight, instead of just using InsomniaX [1] ? [1] - http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/22211/insomniax

Why use a menubar program…? $ man caffeinate

Yes, that :)

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#126

Post by t0mbstone »

adriancooney wrote: post #4

That's an expense rack. If the average MBP cost $1500, that's a total of $144,000 in the one rack. They must have some serious reasons to create something like this.

If you were trying to do automated software testing on native OS X machines (instead of virtualization), I suppose it could make sense. Or something.

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#127

Post by astrodust »

jsingleton wrote: post #120
jsmith0295 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the MacBook Pro's are ultra portable and super thin now. The laptop would probably have to be at least 20% thicker to make for enough room for an ethernet port. And since 90% of MBP Retina owners probably rarely if ever use ethernet, it's a good tradeoff to make. The Retina model is much lighter and easier to carry (especially with one hand) than it's predecessor.

I think Apple could have come up with a solution without compromising on this. What about a neat folding Ethernet port that flips out and is flush when not in use? I remember some old ThinkPads had something like that but it might have been a modem port (RJ11/RJ14 not RJ45). The rare use is what makes it a problem. It's not worth the investment to buy and always carry an adaptor for that one time you really need it.

These flip-out connectors were always the first thing to break on your notebook and would render your only useful connection (modem, ethernet) completely useless.

The Thunderbolt widget is less than ideal, but it fits. Hopefully USB-C will introduce more options with a lower price-point.

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#128

Post by ryanthejuggler »

fit2rule wrote: post #74
bane wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My desktop is basically filled with an octopus of dongles these days. It's ugly and annoying, and increases the footprint of my laptop 2x. I guess USB-C is supposed to help with this?

Docking stations are awesome.

Docking stations ARE awesome. Seems like USB-C is going to kill docking stations though. Already they feel a bit like a relic from the 00's.

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#129

Post by coldtea »

falcolas wrote: post #88
coldtea wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, you could buy a wifi router...

One AP per 5 active devices, give or take. Plus positioning them and managing their power and ensuring they do proper hand-off as you move around the office, plus... Providing reliable wifi for multiple people with multiple devices is a hard challenge.

>One AP per 5 active devices, give or take.

Probably never heard of professional office routers. You can have several times that.

Even if working in a 100+ person company, all such companies I've been already have all the company wide wi-fi and APs the need, so I don't see why the parent's company couldn't.

As for "ensuring they do proper hand-off as you move around the office", it's much easier with APs than plugging and unplugging ethernet cables -- which was the alternative we were discussing.

Re: 96 MacBook Pro’s in one server rack

#130

Post by coldtea »

jalons wrote: post #95
falcolas wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One AP per 5 active devices, give or take. Plus positioning them and managing their power and ensuring they do proper hand-off as you move around the office, plus... Providing reliable wifi for multiple people with multiple devices is a hard challenge.

It's shocking the amount of people that don't grasp this. "It works in my home, why isn't it the same in the office." Is it misinformation? Have people become so used to things "just working" in home they don't think of the technical differences between a couple devices and a couple hundred devices?

>Have people become so used to things "just working" in home they don't think of the technical differences between a couple devices and a couple hundred devices?

Are people so used to working in inept and el-cheapo companies that they cannot fathom a company wide Wi-Fi with APs (professional, not your home router free with your cable connection) serving "a couple hundred devices"?

Is that considered IT voodoo in some companies?

Heck, your $30/night Motel 8 can manage that...

Post reply on HN