We did work with a full blown OSX Server in 2004 - indeed many issues on NFS were Ok, but NIS was a problem - or we could not figure it out.
We used it as server for developers, running X-grid, SVN, WebObjects servers for a couple of EC networks, but never deployed it fully
as a departmental-level server, due to the NIS issues. For a while it also hosted the protein-ccd server.
We wanted to move to Kerberos if I recall correctly, but since my colleague Serge Cohen moved out and our IT are mac-o-phobic I opted to continue with Linux.
The Server was decommissioned a few weeks ago, and will likely get a second life in Soleil/Ipanema,
but I think as an electric heat generator - almost as good on it as my old 8-proc Alpha (2000) ;-)
A.
On 23 Jan 2013, at 15:05, Bosch, Juergen wrote:
> I assume nobody of you is running an actual Osx server ? I mean the upgrade to a full server version of the commonly distributed normal Osx releases ?
>
> I have not done it yet but I do think many of the issues mentioned regarding NFS/NIS could be addressed there. Regarding the missing macpro upgrades I expect to see new machines with thunderbolt connectivity in the next 4 months. And I will buy my third macpro then to run it as a true server.
>
> Jürgen
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:21, "Peter Keller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 01:54 -0700, James Stroud wrote:
>>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Nat Echols wrote:
>>>> The real difficulty is integrating Macs into a
>>>> Linux-centric environment, for example configuring NFS, NIS, etc.
>>>
>>> That's because NFS and NIS are antiquities left over from the days of
>>> mainframes. Distributed file systems and user information databases
>>> are designed for an environment of many workers and few machines, when
>>> the typical graphics workstation cost $50,000. These days, we argue
>>> whether to spend an extra $200 on a $500 computer. We have moved to a
>>> new paradigm: many workers with many more machines, with each machine
>>> having essentially mainframe levels of storage and computing power.
>>
>> Technically there is something in what you say as a pattern for
>> day-to-day work (for some people, although not all), but I think that
>> describing the debate in terms of modern vs. antiquated is missing the
>> point completely. The real difference between local vs. centralised
>> storage is to do with responsibility for the hardware and the data that
>> it contains.
>>
>> Local workstation storage is OK for the following kinds of cases:
>>
>> (i) the data that are stored locally have no value, so it doesn't matter
>> if they are lost (either through hardware failure, misbehaving software
>> or accidental deletion).
>>
>> (ii) the user has the expertise and the time to set up and maintain a
>> strategy for recovering data that are lost from local disks
>>
>> (iii) the institution that the user works for allows the user to include
>> data on local workstation disks in the institution's regular backup
>> operations
>>
>> When none of these apply, there is a real, contemporary case for using
>> something like NFS, where the storage is centrally maintained and backed
>> up. The cost of storage has fallen of course, but what that means is
>> that the real questions now are about the value of the data. In some
>> fields, you could store your entire career's data on a few USB memory
>> sticks, but I doubt that many people would want to do that without
>> having made other copies somewhere else, and the same applies to local
>> workstation storage too :-).
>>
>> There are other considerations in favour of connecting a workstation to
>> networked services: if you use more than one machine it can be an
>> incredible pain to be constantly moving data around from one to the
>> other, and to keep track of what the authoritative versions are. Having
>> independent, local user id's and passwords on every workstation can also
>> cause difficulties. I could go on....
>>
>>> In other words, instead of NFS, you should run git.
>>
>> This is simply not an option for many crystallographers, who do not have
>> a background in software development or data management. Advocating and
>> supporting git (or indeed any content/version management system) for
>> those kind of users is a losing battle: they see it as an unnecessary
>> complication to their daily work, and will avoid using it as far as they
>> can.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Keller Tel.: +44 (0)1223 353033
>> Global Phasing Ltd., Fax.: +44 (0)1223 366889
>> Sheraton House,
>> Castle Park,
>> Cambridge CB3 0AX
>> United Kingdom
|