OS X Server Performance

[Karl L.]

I didn't want to use phpMyAdmin or any web manager because I don't have the MySQL port open to the outside world and I hated using the browser even more for this type of management.

You don't have to have the phpMyAdmin interface open to the outside world. You can fairly easily restrict traffic on that port to local-only using iptables, or you can just not forward it through your router to begin with. If you just don't like how it works, fair enough; everyone has different preferences.

Alright, how about using Ubuntu Server, without the GUI, and just reinstalling apache, php, and mysql to their newest stables?

If you choose to install the latest stable versions of your software from upstream, which I highly recommend against unless you absolutely need some specific features that only the latest version provides, at least build Debian packages from them (using dpkg-buildpackage or apt-build) so they can be properly tracked (and their dependencies resolved) from the package manager. However, keep in mind that you have to worry about keeping track of the latest versions and security advisories if you choose to install local versions. It is particularly critical that you keep on top of security updates with external-facing services, such as your web server. If you use the version from the repository, not only is the binary guaranteed to work on your system, but the package maintainer worries about security. I can tell you from experience that Debian package maintainers put a lot of effort into ensuring that their packages are secure and work smoothly with the rest of the operating system.

[Mr.XXIV]

You don't have to have the phpMyAdmin interface open to the outside world. You can fairly easily restrict traffic on that port to local-only using iptables, or you can just not forward it through your router to begin with. If you just don't like how it works, fair enough; everyone has different preferences.

If you choose to install the latest stable versions of your software from upstream, which I highly recommend against unless you absolutely need some specific features that only the latest version provides, at least build Debian packages from them (using dpkg-buildpackage or apt-build) so they can be properly tracked (and their dependencies resolved) from the package manager. However, keep in mind that you have to worry about keeping track of the latest versions and security advisories if you choose to install local versions. It is particularly critical that you keep on top of security updates with external-facing services, such as your web server. If you use the version from the repository, not only is the binary guaranteed to work on your system, but the package maintainer worries about security. I can tell you from experience that Debian package maintainers put a lot of effort into ensuring that their packages are secure and work smoothly with the rest of the operating system.

Don't worry, I always trust the repositories. :) That was something I first learned about when I once had Media Temple & GoDaddy's VPS.

I'm currently installing Ubuntu Server on Virtual Box right now, but, what's a preferred amount of RAM and CPU core usage on this 4GB Mac Mini?

[Max Norris]

If you choose to install the latest stable versions of your software from upstream, which I highly recommend against unless you absolutely need some specific features that only the latest version provides

This times a bajillion, barring special circumstances. Bleeeding edge belongs on the desktop.. servers are all about keeping it stable, one of the big selling points of the stable branch or LTS release depending on which distro you picked. Newer isn't always better.

I'm currently installing Ubuntu Server on Virtual Box right now, but, what's a preferred amount of RAM and CPU core usage on this 4GB Mac Mini?

If it were Windows, I'd do 1GB, not that it'll get anywhere near that for real usage unless you're doing some heavy lifting on it.. but I'll defer to an OSX person.

[tim_s]

I just want to point out IF the port 80 was blocked - You would not be able to view websites LOL

[tim_s]

Clearly a website with little traffic would function well on a VM > Mac Mini > Home Network. This is far from ideal - the end result will be frustration as both your usage scenario and setup is going to become problematic pretty quickly.

What budget do you have?

To me it seems you would do a lot better using a virtualized environment - i.e, like blue hosts for example.

Side note,

Just remember while you host / build the websites, you are accountable - I.e. you may end up in court with 4-5 clients recovering their loses.

[Mr.XXIV]

Clearly a website with little traffic would function well on a VM > Mac Mini > Home Network. This is far from ideal - the end result will be frustration as both your usage scenario and setup is going to become problematic pretty quickly.

What budget do you have?

To me it seems you would do a lot better using a virtualized environment - i.e, like blue hosts for example.

Side note,

Just remember while you host / build the websites, you are accountable - I.e. you may end up in court with 4-5 clients recovering their loses.

How much have you read in the comments above you?

I have 101Mbps internet with all ports open. I had the fastest server Host Gator could offer, and it's pretty obvious when I'm the only one in control.

[n_K]

I just want to point out IF the port 80 was blocked - You would not be able to view websites LOL

Source port VS target port, if port 80 was blocking on an ISP then any attempts to connect to your IP on port 80 would be silently discarded and never reach your computer whilst all attempts to access port 80 sites (which would be using ports > 4096 or > ~40,000) would all connect fine.

[tim_s]

How much have you read in the comments above you?

Honestly! I am cherry picking - I did not need to read much beyond your setup.

I have 101Mbps internet with all ports open.

I have 250 Mbps at home -- speed won't be an issue when you have very little activity.

I had the fastest server Host Gator could offer

What was the upload speed?

I have not used Host gator but I have used Soft layer who is same hardware and backbone. I have yet to find any home network solution with as little latency as the pipe they are using.

and it's pretty obvious when I'm the only one in control.

I am not 100% sure what you are referring to but IF you are judging terminal speeds I.e. local connectivity vs Texas, which is where a majority of Host Gator systems reside. You are correct it will be faster, however, your internet will top out being only 10 MB at some point.

[tim_s]

P.s. Mr.XXIV in no way am I attempting to pick on you or judge you - I am looking to help you.

IF you are happy with the performance of your setup and it works - all the power to you. People have to live in the environment that is within their own means. My point is, for the same money as you have invested or with a little more investment, I am sure a better solution exists. IF you do not wish to change your solution that is great - I am glad it is complete.

In my opinion - the more simple the setup the more effective it will be for you in the long run.

I have been in your shoes before, When I created my first company it was ran off a Compaq 486 using Debian on a home ADSL line. At the time that was my means - the limitation was money - I knew I had a product but I needed to demo it live.

I am just saying - even with the equipment you have - the setup could be better.

[Mr.XXIV]

Honestly! I am cherry picking - I did not need to read much beyond your setup.

I have 250 Mbps at home -- speed won't be an issue when you have very little activity.

What was the upload speed?

I have not used Host gator but I have used Soft layer who is same hardware and backbone. I have yet to find any home network solution with as little latency as the pipe they are using.

I am not 100% sure what you are referring to but IF you are judging terminal speeds I.e. local connectivity vs Texas, which is where a majority of Host Gator systems reside. You are correct it will be faster, however, your internet will top out being only 10 MB at some point.

Where are you located for such speeds in America?

I don't remember, I'm not the one who sends in the traffic. But my partner could prove he has enough to overload that server if he wanted to. I honestly wanted Media Temple more than Host Gator because of the latency.

I'm more in favor of ever hoping for Gigabit internet, 101 isn't enough for me.

[tim_s]

Where are you located for such speeds in America?

I do not live in the US and it is a Fiber line.

[Mr.XXIV]

I do not live in the US and it is a Fiber line.

Yea, I pretty much have one of the fastest in America. Sucks for US, right? LOL

The best we got now, is just the Google Fiber, and I'm anxious for it to be on this side.

[tim_s]

Yea, I pretty much have one of the fastest in America. Sucks for US, right? LOL

The best we got now, is just the Google Fiber, and I'm anxious for it to be on this side.

Well you said 101 Mbps which is something like 11 MBs or so (Need a calculator) which is not bad even for delivering websites. It is about magnitude I.e. how many people are accessing content at the same time.

You mentioned that you maxed out a host gator package. The best hostgator package (which is pretty restrictive) is 100 mbps Uplink, so you have 1 megabit more but your I/O is probably reduced, your hardware is not designed specifically for this task and your setup has it more optimized for a desktop rather than a web server.

You will have other concerns,

Failure: For example the last Mac Book Pro I had - updated, and was stuck in a restart cycle repeatedly turning off - reaching the start-up screen and repeating. Are the users going to have to wait until you can afford a new machine? You are pushing it more than ever - it could happen at any time. In my instance I had to head home and get the disc that was supplied and start again but what if the hard drive goes?

DDos: What if you encounter this? - What preparations have you made to combat this effort?

Attack point: Now that your computer is public facing, what if the machine is compromised? Do you have the knowledge to resolve the issue?

Backups: What if your house catches on fire - no doubt your backups and machines are in the same location.

I could keep going, if the above is not relative to your situation - I will be able to find critical faults in the system.

[Mr.XXIV]

Well you said 101 Mbps which is something like 11 MBs or so (Need a calculator) which is not bad even for delivering websites. It is about magnitude I.e. how many people are accessing content at the same time.

You mentioned that you maxed out a host gator package. The best hostgator package (which is pretty restrictive) is 100 mbps Uplink, so you have 1 megabit more but your I/O is probably reduced, your hardware is not designed specifically for this task and your setup has it more optimized for a desktop rather than a web server.

You will have other concerns,

Failure: For example the last Mac Book Pro I had - updated, and was stuck in a restart cycle repeatedly turning off - reaching the start-up screen and repeating. Are the users going to have to wait until you can afford a new machine? You are pushing it more than ever - it could happen at any time. In my instance I had to head home and get the disc that was supplied and start again but what if the hard drive goes?

DDos: What if you encounter this? - What preparations have you made to combat this effort?

Attack point: Now that your computer is public facing, what if the machine is compromised? Do you have the knowledge to resolve the issue?

Backups: What if your house catches on fire - no doubt your backups and machines are in the same location.

I could keep going, if the above is not relative to your situation - I will be able to find critical faults in the system.

I'm aware of server risks, and failures. That's why I preferred running mine at home. I plan on getting the iMac at it's best, later this year around the same time I finance my car. I actually want to find something better than 101Mbps. Somewhere.

[tim_s]

This might seem like an odd question but why would you not just separate the two?

You have so many resources including the GUI running on your desktop that is just reducing performance and increasing your replacement cycle. Again iMac's are not designed for this work - Apple does make servers as well, a low end of this range would be much more suited.

On a bigger note, why Apple at all? This is not something they excel at!

This is something I have been trying to explain to people on Neowin, stop trying to force a screw driver to act like a hammer, IF you need both - buy both. Stop complaining when the Screw driver used incorrectly causes injury - If you cannot afford both seek finances or don't be a builder - people won't appreciate the lack of serious attention you give their lively-hoods and in the end - you will be the only person to lose out.

[winrez]

Use Windows Server or CentOS (on the cheap)

[Mr.XXIV]

This might seem like an odd question but why would you not just separate the two?

You have so many resources including the GUI running on your desktop that is just reducing performance and increasing your replacement cycle. Again iMac's are not designed for this work - Apple does make servers as well, a low end of this range would be much more suited.

On a bigger note, why Apple at all? This is not something they excel at!

This is something I have been trying to explain to people on Neowin, stop trying to force a screw driver to act like a hammer, IF you need both - buy both. Stop complaining when the Screw driver used incorrectly causes injury - If you cannot afford both seek finances or don't be a builder - people won't appreciate the lack of serious attention you give their lively-hoods and in the end - you will be the only person to lose out.

Because i love having enough space, but I will have 1 or 2 Mac Mini's coexisting with each other for several types of servers. And you forgot about Apple's 12 Core Server.

Because I prefer the utilities they & the community provides, there are many possibilities and I won't give up until there's a good solution under this OS, even if running Ubuntu Server under VirtualBox.

If I could later, I'd invest in the Nitro Server Media Temple has. But I prefer doing things on my own terms. Like it or not, not everyone will agree with the same things you do, some do it better than others, I'll make do with what's in front of me in the most necessary manner.

[tim_s]

There you go Centos - comes with gnome - Can run everything natively on it pretty easily. (This is an easy / cheap option.) Build your own desktop - research the parts and you might get it cheaper than your "iMac"

Because i love having enough space, but I will have 1 or 2 Mac Mini's coexisting with each other for several types of servers. And you forgot about Apple's 12 Core Server.

Because I prefer the utilities they & the community provides, there are many possibilities and I won't give up until there's a good solution under this OS, even if running Ubuntu Server under VirtualBox.

If I could later, I'd invest in the Nitro Server Media Temple has. But I prefer doing things on my own terms. Like it or not, not everyone will agree with the same things you do, some do it better than others, I'll make do with what's in front of me in the most necessary manner.

Hey I am not judging nor am I a Windows / Linux rep. - I am donating my time to help you. I am just trying to tell you - you can get more bang for your buck, In the end - IF it works, I am happy for you.

[Mr.XXIV]

There you go Centos - comes with gnome - Can run everything natively on it pretty easily. (This is an easy / cheap option.) Build your own desktop - research the parts and you might get it cheaper than your "iMac"

I'm a developer & designer, I have a Mac for a reason. The server Host Gator has can't even compete with the iMac with the chosen configuration in my head. I don't need Linux with a GUI. I can run a Debian or Ubuntu with just the Terminal.

[n_K]

I have a Mac for a reason. The server Host Gator has can't even compete with the iMac with the chosen configuration in my head.

I am sorry but you really are speaking total ********.

The reason ALL BAR ONE website providers use ANYTHING BUT MACS for hosting is because macs are NOT designed for hosting AT ALL, from what I remember, apple has a few apple servers dotted around for their frontmost facing websites and everything behind them is NOT mac.

Honestly do what you like, but please do NOT spread more misinformation. Macs, like windows clients, are built with options designed for a desktop use except the old OSX Server for XServes which they discontinued (Probably because no-one bought them either; overpriced and again very unoptimised for server use).

If you want to learn more about the differences between desktops and servers, get a linux distro installed and compile your own kernel, selecting all the options such as timer frequency, block schedulers, latency-aiming and whatnot and you'll soon realise very quickly why macs are NOT designed to be servers - they come with one kernel and one kernel only.

[Mr.XXIV]

I am sorry but you really are speaking total ********.

The reason ALL BAR ONE website providers use ANYTHING BUT MACS for hosting is because macs are NOT designed for hosting AT ALL, from what I remember, apple has a few apple servers dotted around for their frontmost facing websites and everything behind them is NOT mac.

Honestly do what you like, but please do NOT spread more misinformation. Macs, like windows clients, are built with options designed for a desktop use except the old OSX Server for XServes which they discontinued (Probably because no-one bought them either; overpriced and again very unoptimised for server use).

If you want to learn more about the differences between desktops and servers, get a linux distro installed and compile your own kernel, selecting all the options such as timer frequency, block schedulers, latency-aiming and whatnot and you'll soon realise very quickly why macs are NOT designed to be servers - they come with one kernel and one kernel only.

Major ********, I'm pretty sure just like every other OS, OS X is definitely usable as a server.

OS X may be not designed for the server, but with the system itself I can do anything. I have a Mac because I also have to develop for the mobile.

Since when was OS X Server discontinued?

[n_K]

Major ********, I'm pretty sure just like every other OS, OS X is definitely usable as a server.

OS X may be not designed for the server, but with the system itself I can do anything. I have a Mac because I also have to develop for the mobile.

Since when was OS X Server discontinued?

Since the xserve got retired, they removed the seperate mac osx server and replaced it with some product for $15 or so in the app store, and if you read the comments on it on the app store you'll see many 1 starts and customers complaing its crap, unfinished and very buggy.

You have a mac because you have to develop for mobile? Seriously - you have a mac for whatever reason you want (I don't care) but so far just so you know - every reason you've came up with is complete and utter garbage.

In fact; https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/os-x-server/id537441259?mt=12

Read them yourself.

'I never had an issue with File Read/Write Permissions with File Sharing, but after using Server, I simply can't easily edit files created by another user in the same network or workgroup? We are spending a lot of time fixing permission issues'

'With the last version adding DNS/DHCP controls back, we're finally feeling like it's becoming a server again compared to the first releases.' LOL at it being without such a basic tool.

'First, for anyone or any organization hoping for an out of box solution, fahgetit! Even though it has the web server and wiki built in, in my opinion, neither of them can serve a useful purpose.'

[Mr.XXIV]

"for whatever reason"

So any reason I have a mac is utterly stupid?

[n_K]

You've said you've had one so far for:

-> Backend web development

-> MySQL server

-> Other server

-> Desktop

-> A full server for a site

-> Mobile use

Quite a few people have told you about why not to use a mac as a server, feel free to do it if you still want to and you'll learn the hard way. Desktop use is a preference, if you prefer mac feel free to use it.

But I'm telling you now, if you get co-location hosting or whatnot with an 'imac' or 'mac mini' and you waltz on through the door with it, they'll show you the exit right away and won't stop laughing.

[Mr.XXIV]

You've said you've had one so far for:

-> Backend web development

-> MySQL server

-> Other server

-> Desktop

-> A full server for a site

-> Mobile use

Quite a few people have told you about why not to use a mac as a server, feel free to do it if you still want to and you'll learn the hard way. Desktop use is a preference, if you prefer mac feel free to use it.

But I'm telling you now, if you get co-location hosting or whatnot with an 'imac' or 'mac mini' and you waltz on through the door with it, they'll show you the exit right away and won't stop laughing.

Womp.