|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > June 2004 > Dell/Linux vs. Apple Xserve for file server?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Dell/Linux vs. Apple Xserve for file server?
|
|
| Scott Vandenberg 2004-06-02, 7:52 am |
| We are about to get a new file server to replace an ancient 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, either to the server directly or on the network?
Does it "play well with others" and have as much long-term flexibility
as a Dell/Linux system?
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. I posted a similar
question on the Apple-oriented newsgroups, but I'd like a different
perspective.
--Scott V.
| |
| Dragan Cvetkovic 2004-06-02, 10:59 am |
|
[ advocacy groups removed ]
Scott Vandenberg <vandenberg@siena.edu> writes:
> We are about to get a new file server to replace an ancient 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:
[snip]
> Any advice appreciated, including suggestions on where else to
> look/ask. Thanks in advance for your help. I posted a similar
> question on the Apple-oriented newsgroups, but I'd like a different
> perspective.
Or you can use Solaris on your Dell machines ... It is also a possibility
and quite a reasonable one.
Bye, Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-06-02, 4:51 pm |
| On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:59:52 GMT, Scott Vandenberg <vandenberg@siena.edu> wrote:
> We are about to get a new file server to replace an ancient 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?
Trivial.
> 2) What's it like managing an Apple server and about 100 PCs (mostly
> WinXP)?
Assuming you're sharing it out with samba, no problem. PC admin will
be the usual pain, but not any more so because of the mixed environment.
> 3) How easy is it to add 3rd-party hardware/software to an Apple
> server-based network, either to the server directly or on the network?
Exactly as easy as it is on the Linux box.
> Does it "play well with others" and have as much long-term flexibility
> as a Dell/Linux system?
Yup. Both are solid platforms, from solid manufacturers.
> 4) Why should we prefer Apple over Dell or vice versa?
As much as I like Apple for desktop, they're a bit spendy for server
use. The cost goes into graphics, and if it's just sitting in the
back room serving up samba file and printer shares, it's not using
those graphics abilities. Yes, that's way oversimplified, but on
a bang-for-the-buck basis, I'd go with the Dell for this.
> Any advice appreciated, including suggestions on where else to
> look/ask. Thanks in advance for your help. I posted a similar
> question on the Apple-oriented newsgroups, but I'd like a different
> perspective.
Did I answer you there also? Either way, Samba is the way to go, and
it's exactly the same amount of work to build it on one or the other.
Both OSs are robust, both hardware choices are solid. As cool as the
Apple rack-mounted servers are, I still haven't been able to justify
one, especially for this sort of work.
Dave Hinz
| |
| Nicholas Bachmann 2004-06-04, 11:51 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:59:52 GMT, Scott Vandenberg <vandenberg@siena.edu> wrote:
>
>
> As much as I like Apple for desktop, they're a bit spendy for server
> use. The cost goes into graphics, and if it's just sitting in the
Exactly... an Apple server would be great for rendering movies -- the G5
is an excellent processor for doing floating point math and matrices.
Serving files, however, is a dull job that any processor can do. Go
have your friendly local computer store build you a server optimized for
filesystem performance to run Linux on. A system with plenty of RAM,
some nice SATA drives, and hardware RAID will do more for performance
than replacing Pentium IVs with Xeons or G5s.
Be sure to choose the right filesystem too. Depending on the
composition of your files, you may want to use XFS or ReiserFS. Look at
http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html and
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/715. You may even want to do your own
testing with IOzone or a similar tool.
Finally, use hdparm! You can easily get a 4x HDD performance increase!
A google search on linux optimization can turn up some more tips.
> back room serving up samba file and printer shares, it's not using
> those graphics abilities. Yes, that's way oversimplified, but on
> a bang-for-the-buck basis, I'd go with the Dell for this.
I'd even shy away from Dell and go to the aforementioned reliable local
computer supplier. They usually have higher quality, better standards,
and superior service. [Not that I'm biased in any way by working for one
:-)]
--
+ Regards, +
+ Nick +
+ +
+ My email address is real +
| |
| Kevin Collins 2004-06-05, 2:50 am |
| In article <r3tq9c.7j6.ln@bachmann.ath.cx>, Nicholas Bachmann wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> Exactly... an Apple server would be great for rendering movies -- the G5
> is an excellent processor for doing floating point math and matrices.
> Serving files, however, is a dull job that any processor can do. Go
> have your friendly local computer store build you a server optimized for
> filesystem performance to run Linux on. A system with plenty of RAM,
> some nice SATA drives, and hardware RAID will do more for performance
> than replacing Pentium IVs with Xeons or G5s.
Based on what I have read so far, SATA drives perform slower than IDE drives on
Linux. Better would be to by a mobo with onboard IDE RAID controller (or an
outboard RAID controller).
>
> Be sure to choose the right filesystem too. Depending on the
> composition of your files, you may want to use XFS or ReiserFS. Look at
> http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html and
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/715. You may even want to do your own
> testing with IOzone or a similar tool.
>
> Finally, use hdparm! You can easily get a 4x HDD performance increase!
> A google search on linux optimization can turn up some more tips.
That only works for IDE drives...
>
>
> I'd even shy away from Dell and go to the aforementioned reliable local
> computer supplier. They usually have higher quality, better standards,
> and superior service. [Not that I'm biased in any way by working for one
>:-)]
Kevin
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-06-05, 10:50 am |
| On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 04:27:45 GMT, Kevin Collins <spamtotrash@toomuchfiction.com> wrote:
> In article <r3tq9c.7j6.ln@bachmann.ath.cx>, Nicholas Bachmann wrote:
>
> Based on what I have read so far, SATA drives perform slower than IDE drives on
> Linux. Better would be to by a mobo with onboard IDE RAID controller (or an
> outboard RAID controller).
There might be a case for that, but if functionality rather than
blisteringly fast performance is the goal, it may not be needed
to go to the max on all of this. Samba is already 70% or more faster
than, for instance, sharing the same data to the same clients using
nfs and Maestro. Sometimes fast enough _is_ fast enough, and the
extra measurable improvement costs a lot to get for something nobody
is going to notice. It all depends on the type of data & user &
volume & filesizes and all sorts of stuff we don't know.
| |
| Kevin Collins 2004-06-07, 11:53 pm |
| In article <2idve8Fm9ir2U1@uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 04:27:45 GMT, Kevin Collins <spamtotrash@toomuchfiction.com> wrote:
>
> There might be a case for that, but if functionality rather than
> blisteringly fast performance is the goal, it may not be needed
> to go to the max on all of this. Samba is already 70% or more faster
> than, for instance, sharing the same data to the same clients using
> nfs and Maestro. Sometimes fast enough _is_ fast enough, and the
> extra measurable improvement costs a lot to get for something nobody
> is going to notice. It all depends on the type of data & user &
> volume & filesizes and all sorts of stuff we don't know.
I agree - I was only making a point that I would not go the SATA route yet, and
providing some reasonable alternative if that speed were desired. I don't think
SMB is going to push your disks too hard...
Kevin
| |
| Nicholas Bachmann 2004-06-07, 11:53 pm |
| Kevin Collins wrote:
> In article <r3tq9c.7j6.ln@bachmann.ath.cx>, Nicholas Bachmann wrote:
>
>
>
> Based on what I have read so far, SATA drives perform slower than IDE drives on
> Linux. Better would be to by a mobo with onboard IDE RAID controller (or an
> outboard RAID controller).
Really? I've seen some threads on LKML about poor SATA performance, but
the majority of stuff I've seen about SATA on Linux is pretty good. I
recommended that the OP use SATA because the cost difference is very
small and for a server the performance potential is very good.
>
>
> That only works for IDE drives...
hdparm does work on SATA drives.
--
+ Regards, +
+ Nick +
+ +
+ My email address is real +
| |
| David Magda 2004-06-07, 11:53 pm |
| Nicholas Bachmann <usenet@not-real.org> writes:
> Really? I've seen some threads on LKML about poor SATA
> performance, but the majority of stuff I've seen about SATA on
> Linux is pretty good. I recommended that the OP use SATA because
> the cost difference is very small and for a server the performance
> potential is very good.
Are the SATA performance issues from SATA itself, or Linux's current
level of support for SATA chipsets and the like?
--
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
| |
| Dave Hinz 2004-06-07, 11:53 pm |
| On 07 Jun 2004 21:10:46 -0400, David Magda <dmagda+trace040423@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> Are the SATA performance issues from SATA itself, or Linux's current
> level of support for SATA chipsets and the like?
Not sure, but any technology will be plenty fine for a Samba server.
| |
| Kevin Collins 2004-06-09, 8:06 am |
| In article <eqev9c.4gn.ln@bachmann.ath.cx>, Nicholas Bachmann wrote:
> Kevin Collins wrote:
>
> Really? I've seen some threads on LKML about poor SATA performance, but
> the majority of stuff I've seen about SATA on Linux is pretty good. I
> recommended that the OP use SATA because the cost difference is very
> small and for a server the performance potential is very good.
I subscribe to the RedHat Enterprise Linux mailing list and the topic has come
up several times there. Based on the currently supported chipsets (only 2, I
think) and hardware, it does not meet the expectations of those who are using
it.
You can search that list here:
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list
It is possible this may be remedied in Fedora and that I am not aware of it.
Again, I was only throwing it out as a possible problem...
>
> hdparm does work on SATA drives.
>
That is good to know. I guess it makes sense now that I think about it - they
are both ATA disks.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|