Mac Mini as server - now or later?!

B

bombardier

Guest
Hi all.

I'm going to set up a small network and want to run OS X Server. My predicament is that I'll be buying new hardware for the job (to run alongside a Rev A Dual 2GHz G5 Powermac that I have. I will also be buying a second Mac (in addition to the server) for someone to work on.

The only tasks the server will perform will be as an outgoing mail server, file and printer sharing and very occasional FTP serving. Possibly web serving too but unlikely.

Bearing that in mind, it's not an awfully demanding set of tasks. I was considering a Mac Mini, but obviously OS X Server isn't out for Intel Macs yet. I can pick up a brand new 1.25 G4 Mini for £358 inc. VAT and delivery. I know from Apple's site that Intel Macs can work as clients with a server on a PPC Mac but does anyone have an opinion on whether I should wait until OS X Server is available for Intel Macs and buy an Intel Mini now (making do with folder permissions etc. for the time being) or buy a cheap PPC Mac Mini now and run Server assuming that it will be updated for a while yet?

Cheers.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
6,188
Reaction score
254
Points
83
Location
New Jersey
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
I would wait for the intel version mac osx server, but that is just my opinion.
I think if you are going to use a mini as a server, that it should be the better of the mini's available (core duo with maxed out ram) That is just my opinion but I think that it is probably the best route to go.
 
OP
S

sdilley14

Guest
Depends on what your definition is of a "small network". If you're talking like 3-5 people, it might work. Any more users on the network than that and I wouldnt use a G4 Mini for much more than one of those tasks individually.
 
OP
K

Kokopelli

Guest
sdilley14 said:
Depends on what your definition is of a "small network". If you're talking like 3-5 people, it might work. Any more users on the network than that and I wouldnt use a G4 Mini for much more than one of those tasks individually.

I am going to respectfully disagree here. None of the uses are even vageuly CPU intensive. A mini could handle 20-30 people easily for those tasks except perhaps the website. Share acess may not be blazing but that would be true on the Intel mini as well since it is a hard drive constrint, not a cpu one.

We are not talking remote desktop here. File/Printer shares plus sendmail is nothing. That said you might wait for the Intel Mini due to the Gb ethernet. That is not critical and should not effect performance unless your file share use is really high though.

EDIT: Where CPU use is important is remote desktop, dynamic websites, hosted applications, and database use.
 
OP
S

sdilley14

Guest
Kokopelli said:
I am going to respectfully disagree here. None of the uses are even vageuly CPU intensive. A mini could handle 20-30 people easily for those tasks except perhaps the website. Share acess may not be blazing but that would be true on the Intel mini as well since it is a hard drive constrint, not a cpu one.

We are not talking remote desktop here. File/Printer shares plus sendmail is nothing. That said you might wait for the Intel Mini due to the Gb ethernet. That is not critical and should not effect performance unless your file share use is really high though.

EDIT: Where CPU use is important is remote desktop, dynamic websites, hosted applications, and database use.

You're prolly right. I'm used to our network at work where there are always 30-50 people online at once, some remotely, and everyone is constantly sharing everything so it is much more demanding. I like the idea of having more than one server though for load balancing and fault tolerence personally.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top