Server or client for MAMP?

Question

Level 1

10 points

Server or client for MAMP?

I maintain a Java web application built on Apache, Tomcat 6, PHP, and MySql (with bits and pieces of CGI and Perl). It runs quite readily on both OS X 10.6 server and client. Server 10.6's Server Admin app adds monitoring and a firewall GUI, plus basic control over Apache and Tomcat, all of which is kind of nice.

The current incarnation of OS X Server (Mountain Lion: 10.8), however, no longer includes Tomcat, MySQL or even Java by default. The firewall GUI is gone. Are there subsitutes provided and can anyone say from experience what the migration learning curve is like? I've been slowly adding MySQL, Tomcat, etc. to 10.8 but then I started wondering, why bother? I can add those to the client just as well.

And, if anyone else is running MAMP/Tomcat applications on Mountain Lion, do you use client or server?

I'm getting a bit fed up wrestling with AFP login problems and setting up DNS and LDAP servers I don't plan to use, but 10.8 won't work without them. Change IP and it breaks. It crashes periodically. Mountain Lion server is advertised as "the server for everyone". Does that mean everyone except MAMP users? I thought there were more of us… or am I missing something?

More heretically, should I just bite the bullet and move our Tomcat app to a cloud Linux host? Is Apple giving up on the server market?

edit: I'll just add, I wouldn't even be migrating to Mountain Lion except that the latest hardware no longer supports 10.6. Virtualization is looking better and better.

Posted on Sep 9, 2013 2:59 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Chris Rolfe Author

Level 1

10 points

Sep 10, 2013 5:43 AM in response to Chris Rolfe

No responses? No Tomcat users? Is there a more appropriate community for questions about OS X Server and Java/Tomcat?

Perhaps my early post was a bit too cranky (no one likes a cranky developer), the product of a frustrating few hours wrestling with DNS and Open Directory after a dynamic IP change… not recommended for the faint-hearted. In any case, Mountain Lion or Server.app both obviously have many fine attributes.

Reply

Answer 2

Sep 10, 2013 11:34 AM in response to Chris Rolfe

Apple hasn't been aimed at the "enterprise" market and high-end nor at tailored or bespoke or custom servers for a while now, if ever. Simple servers, yes.

Without intending any snark, definitely consider running Linux or BSD here, or hosted equivalents. That's probably a better choice for how you're seemingly preferring to operate with your servers. (And again, this is not intended to be flippant, nor to dissuade you from OS X or OS X Server. It's just that tussling with how Apple does things is... an effort. If you want or need customizations, that's possible with Apple but tends to be more of an effort to install or maintain.)

As for OS X, there are some command-level mechanisms for accessing various components that were once available via the GUI, including the firewall. man pfctl, for instance.

OS X Server does not "appreciate" operating on dynamic addresses, nor do most other servers I've worked with. It'd be more typical to use a static IP address, or a NAT box out front that masks the DHCP shenanigans from view of the OS X Server box. (There can also be ISP port blocks and other issues arising with dynamic addresses.) This issue also also ties into DNS and security, as well; DNS and IP and certificates are all aspects of how connections are secured and how web and mail servers are authenticated...

In general, DNS is a requirement for running most servers these days. You could get away without that back around 10.5 or so, but more recent releases use DNS for both communications and for security; certificates are based on DNS, for instance. (If you do choose Linux or BSD, you'll still need a correct DNS configuration for starting up and using HTTPS and SMTP, for instance.)

Apple deprecated Oracle Java at 10.7, which would also apply to Apache Tomcat. (For many folks using OS X and OS X Server, Oracle Java has been little more than an unnecessary security vulnerability, and a source of various security updates from Apple for releases prior to 10.7 deprecation and from Oracle with 10.7 and later.)

I've used MAMP and it's a good testing environment and was (at the time I was using it more often) much cheaper than OS X Server, but wouldn't generally recommend mixing MAMP with OS X Server. Particularly given the reduction in pricing with OS X Server. (MAMP was also recommending against Internet-facing production use in the past, due to the fairly open configurations of the included products. Haven't checked recently.)

Reply

Answer 3

Chris Rolfe Author

Level 1

10 points

Sep 10, 2013 12:46 PM in response to MrHoffman

Thanks for the detailed response and your advice.

Btw, I didn't mean the software installer package, MAMP, but simply the combination of Apache, MySql, and Tomcat running on a Mac.

Reply

Answer 4

Sep 10, 2013 2:17 PM in response to Chris Rolfe

Ah, OK.

To be clear: what you want to do is entirely possible atop either OS X and OS X Server, though you'll obviously be maintaining and managing Java, Tomcat and MySQL/MariaDB yourself.

If you're not using the MAMP package but are rather integrating your own pieces, then sure, I'd likely do that atop OS X Server as that has somewhat better control over Apache, has DNS and some other baseline controls, and OS X Server is now very cheap.

Or you could pick well Linux, BSD or maybe even OpenIndiana, some of which may well have (do have?) pre-built deployment images with this configuration directly or easily available for you.

Yes, there are various folks around — myself included — that are still dealing with some old OS X Server 10.6 systems because of changes in more recent OS X Server releases. Changes that make upgrades somewhat more challenging, and, well, 10.6 still works.

Reply