Apple frees Mac OS X Leopard Server to run in virtual machines
A clause in the license for the latest server edition of Mac OS X will let the software run outside of a fully native environment — and developers are relishing the prospects of supporting virtual Macs for the first time.
"You may also Install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer," the new clause reads, "provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."
The agreement does not extend to the regular Leopard client and still requires a full paid license for each virtual machine, a move meant to discourage law-abiding users from running a multi-license copy of Mac OS X on a single computer.
Even with this restriction, the modification is already considered a watershed moment for Apple's efforts in business by its professional customers and those writing virtual machines, including Parallels developer SWSoft. The latter's Director of Corporate Communications, Ben Rudolph, notes that the ability to run one or more extra copies of Mac OS X on an Xserve computer could be a decisive factor for switching some Linux- and Windows-based server environments to the Mac.
Many of these businesses need to separate programs from the main operating system in the event of a malware infection or a crash, or else need a sandbox to test new software without buying an entirely separate computer. This is already commonplace with Virtual PC, VMware, and similar tools on most operating systems, but until now has been impossible with Apple hardware. This will change in the next several months when SWSoft intends to release Parallels with its first instance of Mac OS X virtualization support, Rudolph says.
"It is important to note that weâve already begun the steps necessary to technically enable this new policy and Leopard Server is an important part of our Parallels Server roadmap," he explains. "We know from many of you that the 'holy grail' of Xserves is to run multiple, isolated, near-native instances of OS X Server on the same box, at the same time. Couple that with the ability to run Windows and Linux next to those instances of OS X via Parallels Server, and youâve just made Xserves even more compelling for enterprises large and small, even non traditional Apple shops."
This has prompted speculation that Apple may be pressured to upgrade its Xserve rackmount system, which (along with the Mac Pro) has largely been left untouched since its debut in August of last year. Each virtual machine consumes a large amount of bandwidth, memory, and processor power, with more cores and memory often directly linked to more simultaneous copies. An eight-core or greater system could be essential to gaining a foothold in a business market that relies more and more on virtual operating systems, according to technology analyst and columnist John Welch.
"Apple doesn't yet make a box that's big enough to be an effective VM server for more than a handful of VMs if they're heavily loaded," Welch warns.
50 Comments
A clause in the license for the latest server edition of Mac OS X will let the software run outside of a fully native environment -- and developers are relishing the prospects of supporting virtual Macs for the first time.
The small but significant extension contained within the new software agreement (PDF) is the first sign that Apple is no longer insistent on a one-to-one ratio for Mac OS licenses to Macs, as it was with Tiger and all previous versions of the operating system. In the updated usage terms, a theoretically unlimited number of licenses can be in use as long as they remain valid.
"You may also Install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer," the new clause reads, "provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."
The agreement does not extend to the regular Leopard client and still requires a full paid license for each virtual machine, a move meant to discourage law-abiding users from running a multi-license copy of Mac OS X on a single computer.
Even with this restriction, the modification is already considered a watershed moment for Apple's efforts in business by its professional customers and those writing virtual machines, including Parallels developer SWSoft. The latter's Director of Corporate Communications, Ben Rudolph, notes that the ability to run one or more extra copies of Mac OS X on an Xserve computer could be a decisive factor for switching some Linux- and Windows-based server environments to the Mac.
Many of these businesses need to separate programs from the main operating system in the event of a malware infection or a crash, or else need a sandbox to test new software without buying an entirely separate computer. This is already commonplace with Virtual PC, VMware, and similar tools on most operating systems, but until now has been impossible with Apple hardware. This will change in the next several months when SWSoft intends to release Parallels with its first instance of Mac OS X virtualization support, Rudolph says.
"It is important to note that we?ve already begun the steps necessary to technically enable this new policy and Leopard Server is an important part of our Parallels Server roadmap," he explains. "We know from many of you that the 'holy grail' of Xserves is to run multiple, isolated, near-native instances of OS X Server on the same box, at the same time. Couple that with the ability to run Windows and Linux next to those instances of OS X via Parallels Server, and you?ve just made Xserves even more compelling for enterprises large and small, even non traditional Apple shops."
This has prompted speculation that Apple may be pressured to upgrade its Xserve rackmount system, which (along with the Mac Pro) has largely been left untouched since its debut in August of last year. Each virtual machine consumes a large amount of bandwidth, memory, and processor power, with more cores and memory often directly linked to more simultaneous copies. An eight-core or greater system could be essential to gaining a foothold in a business market that relies more and more on virtual operating systems, according to technology analyst and columnist John Welch.
"Apple doesn't yet make a box that's big enough to be an effective VM server for more than a handful of VMs if they're heavily loaded," Welch warns.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
the $2,999.00 xserve with only 1gb of ram, no on board raid, only an 80gb HD will need to do a lot better and $999 for a 3 PORT raid card?? You can get high raid cards with raid 5 and 6 with lot more ports for that price.
the $2,999.00 xserve with only 1gb of ram, no on board raid, only an 80gb HD will need to do a lot better and $999 for a 3 PORT raid card?? You can get high raid cards with raid 5 and 6 with lot more ports for that price.
Your thinking is short sighted here Joe. A Server has many functions so typically no pre-built config is going to work out. Apple doesn't ship 0/0 configs so they have to have the bare minimum RAM and HDD to ship a working unit. If I'm going to connect to external Direct Attached Storage then the internal storage mean very little beyond housing the OS
The RAID card "does" support RAID5. The current Xserve wouldn't support RAID 6 because you need a minimum of 4 drives for the double striped parity. Also keep in mind this RAID card doesn't use a PCI Express port so that's still open to accept Fibre cards or whatever else you need to run.
The Virtualization of OS X Server is a good move on Apple's part. Next year there will be 16 Core 2-socket servers that appear to the OS like 32 logical processors. Now you will be able to virtualize multiple Server OS X version across this hardware. Couple that with the doubling of PCI -Express bandwidth and you some some very nice server consolidation features coming.
Also keep in mind this RAID card doesn't use a PCI Express port so that's still open to accept Fibre cards or whatever else you need to run.
You might want to explain that, since the card is required to occupy the top PCI Express slot, slot #4.
Many of these businesses need to separate programs from the main operating system in the event of a malware infection or a crash, or else need a sandbox to test new software without buying an entirely separate computer. This is already commonplace with Virtual PC, VMware, and similar tools on most operating systems, but until now has been impossible with Apple hardware. This will change in the next several months when SWSoft intends to release Parallels with its first instance of Mac OS X virtualization support, Rudolph says.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I'm no server guy and I can understand the test environment argument but given the lack of malware and general crash resilience of OSX (apps aside) how significant is virtualisation to the server market outside of Windows? I always thought multiple servers were a necessity of Windows' original instability & insecurity and virtualisation was a way to consolidate physical resources whilst maintaining the logical benefits - assuming that the resource partitioning isn't hard & fast and allows resources to be redistributed on the fly. Surely with OSX & LINUX some form of system level resource management in the form of application/task prioritisation should suffice as running multiple OS instances must have some kind of overhead.
From my, somewhat simplistic & theoretical, point of view OSX seems to be behind the game it doesn't have to play in the first place. Have I got this wrong or is the purpose of the exercise to curry favour with enterprise?
McD
From my, somewhat simplistic & theoretical, point of view OSX seems to be behind the game it doesn't have to play in the first place. Have I got this wrong or is the purpose of the exercise to curry favour with enterprise?
McD
Yes, i would like to know this as well. Can someone give a real world example why this is needed? If you have to increase the processors/ram/bandwidth anyway, why would you not just purchase another box? There has to be some overhead running in VM mode?
sorry in advance for the ignorance \