Racking Mac Pros
photos.imgix.com
Racking Mac Pros
1–10 of 331 posts
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#2Building on OSX seems like it must add a ton of complexity to your workflow, despite getting access to some of Apple's GPU-optimized image code.
Then again, it's often cheaper to throw silicon at problems than people. If you have in-house expertise in Apple's graphics libraries, that might be cheaper than hiring someone who could write the whole thing to run under a lower-cost Linux solution.
Alternatively, OS X might give you automatic access to patent licenses for some of the more expensive image formats.
Have they ever blogged about why they've gone down this path?
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#3Building on OSX seems like it must add a ton of complexity to your workflow, despite getting access to some of Apple's GPU-optimized image code. Then again, it's often cheaper to throw silicon at problems than people. If you have in-house expertise in Apple's graphics libraries, that might be cheaper than hiring someone who could write the whole thing to run under a lower-cost Linux solution. Alternatively, OS X migh…
I'd be interested in this, too. I love OS X as a desktop, but always find it fascinating when such a polished "prosumer" solution that generates so much profit turns out to be also the best bang-for-the-buck in a large deployment such as this -- despite the costs of designing your own rack solution!
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#4Isnt this ridiculously expensive? Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#5This is interesting -- they actually manage to get greater density out of this setup than many traditional rack mount systems offer.
And to those questioning "Why would you use such expensive systems when commodity hardware is just as fast at half the price?" I would reply that the Mac Pro isn't all that expensive compared to most rack mount servers. If you're talking about a difference of $2000 per server, even across a full rack you're talking less than $100k depreciated over 5 years.
Though Apple is sorely lacking a datacenter-capable rack mount solution. I've always felt they should just partner with system builders like HP or SuperMicro to build a "supported" OS X (e.g. certified hardware / drivers, management backplane, etc.) configuration for the datacenter market. It's kind of against the Apple way, but if this is a market they remotely care about, channel sales is the way to go.
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#6Isnt this ridiculously expensive? Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
>Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
They say "Parts of our technology are built using OS X’s graphics frameworks, which offer high quality output and excellent performance". So they couldn't achieve the "same thing" in the sense of running their software on racked computers, because it won't run on PCs, and if you're thinking about expense you'd have to consider the cost of making the software run equivalently well on PCs.
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#7Isnt this ridiculously expensive? Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
All discussed in the article:
"Parts of our technology are built using OS X’s graphics frameworks, which offer high quality output and excellent performance... Building on OS X technologies means we’re dependent on Apple hardware for this part of the service, but we aren’t necessarily limited to Mac Minis."
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#8Isnt this ridiculously expensive? Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
All discussed in the article: "Parts of our technology are built using OS X’s graphics frameworks, which offer high quality output and excellent performance... Building on OS X technologies means we’re dependent on Apple hardware for this part of the service, but we aren’t necessarily limited to Mac Minis."
Ahh gotcha.. Makes sense.
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#9Ever since the new mac pros came out, I was curious how they were going to solve the rack problem with the crazy round design. Especially in regards to cooling.
Re: Racking Mac Pros
#10Isnt this ridiculously expensive? Couldn't you achieve the same thing using cheaper PCs?
[deleted]