Comments on: Intel Macs as Servers http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/ Longer than a blog; shorter than a book Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:13:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Luc Beaudoin http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-40978 Luc Beaudoin Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:21:33 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-40978 I haven't done a proper comparison, but my experience is that OS X on intel does not multi-task Java applications very well at all (I'm using a MacBookPro2,2 Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz, which otherwise compares well with my previous machine, a desktop dual 2GHz G5). Two java applications just bogs it down. And three ... Mind you, I tend to run more than 10 apps at a time. But I used to do that on the old machine too. I haven’t done a proper comparison, but my experience is that OS X on intel does not multi-task Java applications very well at all (I’m using a MacBookPro2,2 Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz, which otherwise compares well with my previous machine, a desktop dual 2GHz G5). Two java applications just bogs it down. And three …
Mind you, I tend to run more than 10 apps at a time. But I used to do that on the old machine too.

]]> By: scott schmitz http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-33236 scott schmitz Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:26:39 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-33236 we use a mac mini running iTools LAMP stack. It's quite fast. We have identical setup on a shared server which we use for testing and the mini is smokin fast. we use a mac mini running iTools LAMP stack. It’s quite fast. We have identical setup on a shared server which we use for testing and the mini is smokin fast.

]]> By: Alex Blewitt http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-177 Alex Blewitt Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:07:29 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-177 The results from the anandtech testing weren't really indicative of real world systems. They showed that it was faster to spawn low-level threads in linux than high-level threads on Mac OS X, and concluded that this can be extrapolated to every other benchmark known to mankind. What makes more of a difference with the Intel Mac is the fact that the FSB speed is much faster than the PPC Mac, which means shuttling data in memory backwards and forwards is much better. Given that programs do that all the time, and that they don't spawn threads (let's face it, any decent server-side system uses thread pooling anyway), it's better to run a real system and see whether it works for you or not. Eclipse 3.2M5 supports SWT with a fat binary out of the box, by the way, so you don't need to refer to the SWT bugreport. It will be available with 3.2. If they get enough time, they might even backport it to 3.1, but I've not seen any intention of that at present. Alex. The results from the anandtech testing weren’t really indicative of real world systems. They showed that it was faster to spawn low-level threads in linux than high-level threads on Mac OS X, and concluded that this can be extrapolated to every other benchmark known to mankind.

What makes more of a difference with the Intel Mac is the fact that the FSB speed is much faster than the PPC Mac, which means shuttling data in memory backwards and forwards is much better. Given that programs do that all the time, and that they don’t spawn threads (let’s face it, any decent server-side system uses thread pooling anyway), it’s better to run a real system and see whether it works for you or not.

Eclipse 3.2M5 supports SWT with a fat binary out of the box, by the way, so you don’t need to refer to the SWT bugreport. It will be available with 3.2. If they get enough time, they might even backport it to 3.1, but I’ve not seen any intention of that at present.

Alex.

]]> By: cremes http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-171 cremes Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:27:47 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-171 Use <a href="http://darwinports.opendarwin.org" rel="nofollow">darwinports</a> for installing Apache 2.x, the latest Ruby, MySQL, etc. Most of these popular packages are being updated to build and install correctly for OSX-x86. Use darwinports for installing Apache 2.x, the latest Ruby, MySQL, etc. Most of these popular packages are being updated to build and install correctly for OSX-x86.

]]> By: Scott Ellsworth http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-163 Scott Ellsworth Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:58:49 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-163 I found those articles misleading for our work. We use mysql heavily, and did not see a substantial difference in performance for the schema and data load we had in our terabyte-sized sequence database. As always, therefore, test on the data set and schema you mean to use. Frankly, I doubt that most users are going to see a measurable speed problems, as long as the performance is reasonably close. Scott I found those articles misleading for our work. We use mysql heavily, and did not see a substantial difference in performance for the schema and data load we had in our terabyte-sized sequence database.

As always, therefore, test on the data set and schema you mean to use. Frankly, I doubt that most users are going to see a measurable speed problems, as long as the performance is reasonably close.

Scott

]]> By: Bob Thedino http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-162 Bob Thedino Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:24:10 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-162 It's worth checking out these articles about the performance of Mac OS X as a server. It doesn't run MySQL very well, compared to Linux, for example: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520 It’s worth checking out these articles about the performance of Mac OS X as a server. It doesn’t run MySQL very well, compared to Linux, for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520

]]> By: Scott Ellsworth http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-158 Scott Ellsworth Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:42:23 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-158 The version on the download server does not work out of the box, but if you scarf an Intel SWT binary from one of Andre Wienand's bug reports, it works just fine. (Since he wrote big parts of the SWT Mac port, this is a pretty safe thing to do.) Apparently, the next major release will work on Intel without needed the extra binary. Don't know yet, as Apple is not shipping a 17" MacBookProDeluxe. Scott The version on the download server does not work out of the box, but if you scarf an Intel SWT binary from one of Andre Wienand’s bug reports, it works just fine. (Since he wrote big parts of the SWT Mac port, this is a pretty safe thing to do.)

Apparently, the next major release will work on Intel without needed the extra binary. Don’t know yet, as Apple is not shipping a 17″ MacBookProDeluxe.

Scott

]]> By: markee http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-152 markee Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:30:52 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-152 Brilliant to see transparency working. Will SWT run on the new MACs? Brilliant to see transparency working. Will SWT run on the new MACs?

]]> By: Scott Ellsworth http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-151 Scott Ellsworth Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:52:47 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-151 IIRC, the bugs in transparency are addressed by recent Java 1.5 previews, available at connect.apple.com for free to all registered developers. These _are_ developer previews, of course, so do not deploy on a production system. I have not had a chance to do a comprehensive speed test, but he is claiming speeds similar to that of similar clocked PC machines, at least on the server side stuff he does. This does make some sense - the JIT is generating the same code, going to very similar chips. From the perspective of a current powerbook owner, it should be quite a jump, especially if you are running multithreaded server-style code, as that is in the sweet spot for Sun and Intel optimization. Scott IIRC, the bugs in transparency are addressed by recent Java 1.5 previews, available at connect.apple.com for free to all registered developers. These _are_ developer previews, of course, so do not deploy on a production system.

I have not had a chance to do a comprehensive speed test, but he is claiming speeds similar to that of similar clocked PC machines, at least on the server side stuff he does. This does make some sense - the JIT is generating the same code, going to very similar chips.

From the perspective of a current powerbook owner, it should be quite a jump, especially if you are running multithreaded server-style code, as that is in the sweet spot for Sun and Intel optimization.

Scott

]]> By: markee http://cafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-150 markee Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:14:15 +0000 http://minicafe.elharo.com/mac/intel-macs-as-servers/#comment-150 How does x86 Java on the Mac compare with the current version in terms of performance (I use a 1.33mhz laptop and it seems slow). Are things like transparency (which are broken on the Mac OS) fixed in x86 port? How does x86 Java on the Mac compare with the current version in terms of performance (I use a 1.33mhz laptop and it seems slow). Are things like transparency (which are broken on the Mac OS) fixed in x86 port?

]]>