Mac mini outperforms Xserve G5 in Web farm
updated 02:40 pm EDT, Fri March 30, 2007
Mac mini beats Xserve G5
Apple's latest Mac mini system with an Intel Core Duo processor and gigabit Ethernet outperformed an older Xserve G5 server system, according to one user who offers colocation services. "We picked up an Intel Mac mini 1.66GHz Core Duo, had it upgraded to 2GB of RAM (the G4's could only handle 1GB) and started to really put it through it's paces." Citing lower power consumption and resilient performance, the Mac mini stood up to vigorous testing. "No matter how hard I tried I could not make that Mini use more than 0.37A of power. I blasted that thing with multiple concurrent CPU and disk bound processes, getting really heavy loads and disk read/writes." Following the introduction of the Mac minis, an Xserve G5 was migrated in as a Web server in a load balanced group. The forum poster had to periodically adjust the weighting rules, however, to give more and more priority to the Mac minis.
Complementing Apple's small desktop system designed for consumers, the post writer attests to the computer's capabilities. "[The Mac mini] turned out to be a real winner [...] It really shone and had tremendous performance, even under load."
so...
03/30, 02:45pm reply
Good things DO come in small packages!
FastAMX79
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Sep 2000
2GB Ram in Xserve
03/30, 04:40pm reply
The Xserves have no problem handling 2GB of ram. Even the first version. The later models could do 8GB, and the current version is up to as much as 32GB.
Guest
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 1999
ram issue
03/30, 05:46pm reply
in response to the post by "guest" :
I believe the author was referring to the G4 mac mini when he mentioned the 1 gig of ram limitation. He was not claiming the xserver could only take 1 gig of ram.
Guest
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Nov 1999
xserve ram
03/30, 05:46pm reply
was not in question in the report. They stated that the early mac mini (G4) models could only accept 1 gig (unless I read it wrong too...)
Flying Meat
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2007
Power Consumption
03/30, 07:42pm reply
Did anyone notice that the title of the article has nothing to do with the headline? But I guess if the headline was actually truthful, and not misleading, no one would read it. I definitely wouldn't read an article titled "Mac Minis use less power than Xserve G5s."
iYeat
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2000
ID10T error
03/30, 07:44pm reply
OK my post should have read "title of the article has nothing to do with the article itself." - It's Friday.
iYeat
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2000
Maybe for CPU
03/31, 03:51pm reply
Not even vaguely for disk i/o... I recently had cause to run bonnie++ on a couple of XServe's, I wrote it up on my blog
Simon
SpacedCowboy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Mar 2007
Typo
04/01, 12:11am reply
put it through it's pace --> put it through its pace
vocaro
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Apr 2007
please read
04/02, 01:05am reply
the article didn't compare power consumption. yes, it's poorly written in that there is no direct comparison of the xServe and mini in performance testing. however, he directly implies that when, "The forum poster had to periodically adjust the weighting rules, however, to give more and more priority to the Mac minis," that means the minis were 'outperforming' the xServes regardless of RAM or power consumption.
i like good grammar as much as the next guy, but come ON people. stretch those brain muscles, eh?
heedlix
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Jan 2007