I am about to set up OS X server and was wondering whether there was any advantage to picking up a used mini and using that and a connected drive for the server as opposed to my Imac. I'm not hosting a huge amount of files, enough though to make dropbox too expensive. I have some large drives sitting around, so that presents no extra expense.
thanks for any advice,
jeff
For me, on principal, I didn't want to run services on my main iMac - using a mini meant I could have a dedicated, clean, server. It also reduces the risk of interference between the (many) apps I have on the iMac and the services I want to keep robust.
Also, I get to play around with how the servcies on the mini are configured wthout risk to my main machine. And I can secure the mini separately from the (somehwat more relaxed) protocol I use on the iMac.
I use Server for mail and calendar (for home and a small - 2-person - business) mainly, as well as file services. It may be that, if all I wanted to do was share some files, I'd have settled for sharing an extenral disk on the iMac, or attached to a router.
For me, on principal, I didn't want to run services on my main iMac - using a mini meant I could have a dedicated, clean, server. It also reduces the risk of interference between the (many) apps I have on the iMac and the services I want to keep robust.
Also, I get to play around with how the servcies on the mini are configured wthout risk to my main machine. And I can secure the mini separately from the (somehwat more relaxed) protocol I use on the iMac.
I use Server for mail and calendar (for home and a small - 2-person - business) mainly, as well as file services. It may be that, if all I wanted to do was share some files, I'd have settled for sharing an extenral disk on the iMac, or attached to a router.
There's no right answer. If you're just seeking to host large volumes of local storage, then you can activate file sharing on OS X. You don't need OS X Server for that. And if all you're looking for is file sharing, then an external network attached storage (NAS) box can be a simple approach; Synology and many other folks are in this market.
Nick101: I'd tend to invert your considerations with the sorts of playing around that'll occur here. What you're referencing with playing around is great for the first week or two and when you're just getting started with a server. Particularly get local DNS services working first[1] and then get the rest of the services configured and started. But once you have the local services going and stable, then you'll tend to start to build operational dependencies on the server.
Client systems can startup, get rebooted, get reconfigured, upgraded, and can generally get played around with, changed and tweaked without particular repercussions to anyone other than the user of that client system. Only one user is usually effected if there's a problem.
With servers, outages almost inherently effect more than one user, which means that the software configurations can tend to be more static, and upgrades can be more carefully staged. There can also be RAID[2] on server storage as well as specific backups and other functions that might not be deemed necessary on a client. There are also a few considerations for who can log into a server[3].
Some servers are also exposed to the Internet, which means I can want to minimize what's available on those systems to attack, and to partition the data and/or to possibly isolate the server on a DMZ network. This so that a potential breach is somewhat contained and somewhat more difficult to extend.
[1] FWIW: on a NAT'd network with no other DNS services on the LAN, always get local DNS configured and started before any other components or services. You cannot just use ISP DNS on a NAT'd network, as the ISP DNS won't return the address-to-name DNS responses expected by a server for use with network encryption and authentication services.
[2] FWIW: RAID is not a backup strategy. RAID protects against disk failures. RAID does not protect against accidental deletions, volume corruptions or some yutz that breaches the server and starts deleting random stuff. You'll want separate backups, even if RAID is in use.
[3] Typically you don't want anybody and everybody logging into and administering the server. Also, should you decide to migrate to network users (possibly migrating local users to domain users), then Apple recommends against having network users log directly into the server.
Thank you. These two replies were very helpful. I did try a Synology NAS box but had to send it back. It was very aggravating, as it turns out that several hundred gigabytes of searchable pdfs are not searchable on network drives (confirmed both by Apple and synology), so while I find the OS X server frustrating I've decided to go with that. I'm thinking too that putting it on a Mini is a wise choice. The files are being shared with researchers across the country. the big problem is they are windows folks which makes for some complications in terms of the set up. I've spent literally hours with the folks at Apple enterprise on this, as the VPN issues are well documented.
For what it's worth, I've also found the Synology customer service to be very iffy. When calling, I'd sometimes get people who were very helpful, but too many times it felt like I was interrupting their coffee break. Email support works but there are often hours between answers when a five-minute conversation would solve the question. It was better than Asustor though. They have no phone support and the emails were often hilariously incomprehensible. And while Apple hasn't always been able to solve my problems, I've always found them to be extremely helpful and patient. I do wish the product was more stable though.
FWIW, with OS X Server, absolutely get local DNS services configured and working, and then confirm a correct configuration with the following harmless, diagnostic command:
sudo changeip -checkhostname
I'm a bit confused. Both Apple and synology said that for all practical purposes, I wouldn't get good results, trying to take advantage of searchable pdfs on my Synology NAS, that if I did do searches they would just take too long because OS X just wouldn't index networked drives down to the file level. That certainly was true of the Synology NAS. If I entered a term in the search box, I'd get just a few listings returned and it would take forever even to get those.
I sent back the NAS (didn't love it anyway). Apple said a networked Mini would present the same problem, but tonight I was fooling around with my Mac Air, attaching it with an ethernet adaptor to one of the ports on the back of my Airport Extreme. I then turned off wi-fi, found the Air in my shared devices on my imac and did some searching through the Air's folders where my pdfs are stored. it returned very complete responses almost instantly. What's the deal? Were Apple and Synology wrong or was it because I'm dealing with an OS journaled drive? I'm assuming that would mean a MIni with a drive attached via its usb and then the Mini wired into the AE via ethernet would respond similarly, no?
thanks again for all the help,
jeff
The search issue is that Spotlight doesn't index network drives - however they're connect or accessed by default. It is possible to enable it using the commandl ine - details here - but it doesn't always work completely corrrectly.
http://krypted.com/mac-security/enabling-spotlight-for-network-volumes/
MrHoffman's point about "playing around" is well taken, and I should emphasis that I was erferring to the initial process of getting things working, in which I found myself doing a fair amount of experimentation which entailed rebooting the mini and reinstalling stuff. Diring that period, it suited me to be able to work on "normal" stuff on the iMac without interruption.
Now the mini server config is stable and working OK, I don't fiddle
Right, but why, without the command line, was my imac able to effectively search through the pdfs on my Air, which I set up as a networked computer via the ethernet to my AE? And it wasn't able to do the same thing on the NAS, which was hooked up the same way?
Don't know - sorry. My best guess is that it's because tha NAS uses a different networking protocol.
Advantages of using a mini for the server over my Imac?
