Lion Server for Home use reality check

Question

Level 1

14 points

Lion Server for Home use reality check

Hi All,

as many others I had the best intentions buying Lion Server for my home network (5 Macs, 2 iPads, 2 iPhones) to manage everything.

It was destined to be a central server for user management, configuration management, home directories, file server, software update server, web server and Time Machine server and possible VPN gateway to my home network.

I did not intended to use as Address Book, iCal, Mail server as I use iCloud. I just don't see the point of iChat, Podcast, Wiki server for my home use.

Anyway the bits I had to abandon so far are:

configuration management - Profile Manager works only sometimes and is sluggish to say the least
home directories - the home sync just doesn't work for Mac libraries such as iPhoto and iTunes
software update server - worked, broke, fixed, worked, broke, fixed, ... going away with Mountain Lion.

What works for me is user management, file server, web server and Time Machine backup, haven't gotten around to test VPN yet.

Given that Mountain Lion is coming next month and presumably I'll have to buy new license for the Server version I am not sure if it's worth it.

As I see it using a plain vanilla Lion or Mountain Lion system I can still do file server, web server and Time Machine backup. What I'd lose is the user management and I am not sure about VPN on a non-Server system but not really important. User management is a one time task for 5 Macs that's it.

Would be interested to hear opinions from you folks about pros / cons of using a plain Lion or Mountain Lion OS X for server tasks vs Server version?

Anything I am missing here?

Thanks

Andy

Mac mini, Mac OS X (10.7.1), Server

Posted on Jun 12, 2012 10:10 PM

Reply

Answer 1

iToaster

Level 3

739 points

Jun 13, 2012 8:49 PM in response to aschmid

SUS is not going away wth ML server

see http://www.apple.com/osx/server/specs/

Reply

Answer 2

aschmid Author

Level 1

14 points

Jun 14, 2012 12:22 AM in response to iToaster

Hhm, I thought it was as it get's combined with AppStore, but anyway it's not working proberly anyway.

Reply

Answer 3

iToaster

Level 3

739 points

Jun 14, 2012 5:47 AM in response to aschmid

most osx server issues are usually DNS problems

if that is not correct practically nothing else will work correctly

if your trying to have portable home directories and having iphoto library sync'd

I don't recomend on wireless , even on a wired 1gb network it's slow

use WGM to skip iphoto or be prepaired for a long wait

SUS can also be problematic if you've updated

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3867?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

if past OSX server history is anythng to go by, don't count ML server on it being relitvly problem free till v 4 or 5

for the cost of ML server it's probibly cheaper in the long run then the time you'd spend

trying to get the same funtionallity via terminal. plus the posiblity of a OS update

that may blow all your finely crafted terminal work all away.

but i guess it would depend on

how much value you place on all the midnight oil

you'd be burning trying to get it all working

Reply

Answer 4

aschmid Author

Level 1

14 points

Jun 15, 2012 12:50 AM in response to iToaster

iToaster wrote:

most osx server issues are usually DNS problems

if that is not correct practically nothing else will work correctly

That's probably true but also within that lies a major problem how this is positioned "The Server for Everyone". I am in IT and know what a DNS is. Most home users would NOT have a DNS running as it's not necessary not even talking about SSL certificates. I think this is a major problem here that it market incorrectly.

iToaster wrote:

if your trying to have portable home directories and having iphoto library sync'd

I don't recomend on wireless , even on a wired 1gb network it's slow

use WGM to skip iphoto or be prepaired for a long wait

It's not so much a network bandwidth problem but the fact that home sync doesn't work for package files such as iPhoto, etc. Many people have confirmed that that home sync actually corrupts those files.

iToaster wrote:

for the cost of ML server it's probibly cheaper in the long run then the time you'd spend

trying to get the same funtionallity via terminal. plus the posiblity of a OS update

that may blow all your finely crafted terminal work all away.

Don't intend to do terminal but for example take "File Sharing". It's an Server option but every Mac also has file sharing under the "Sharing Settings". As far as I can tell the server actuallty is just an overlay over the Mac sharing option because if I define a file share it's also updated in the sharing option.

Same thing goes for the Webserver. Hence I am thinking that Server really only is a central console for some basic services that can also be available by using standard OS X functionality.

Reply

Answer 5

iToaster

Level 3

739 points

Jun 15, 2012 10:36 PM in response to aschmid

Yes I whole heartedly agree the majority of home users would have no idea about DNS

or certificates, personally i think it's a mistake pitching at home users

it's the large iphoto library that's the problem it can't be sync'd incrementally. add 1 photo, the complete library is re-sync'ed , just opening iphoto causes a re sync. the iphoto lib can be a huge size.I have some users with 8gb and over multiply that by xx amount of users = problems

I have not had any problems with file corruption, the main problem's I've come across is it's to slow if iphoto lib is included. Users impatience waiting for sync to complete. multiple copies if sync'd data in users home directories .PHD works reasonably well if you take the time to customize what and when you sync and consider how users operate. I guess you'd call it working within the limitations of what you've got. 🙂

I'd have thought by know apple would have updated serve side support the various lib packages to enable the server to see individual files inside the likes of iphoto to get some incremental syncing going, but no, no they haven't

I guess it would depend on how much of the server features you require eg OD, DNS, profile manager, VPN, PH, web server GUI. address book server etc etc if you don't need any of that then yes you could just as easily use standard desktop. Looking at the way ML going who knows how much longer those falicties are going to be there

Reply