PDA

View Full Version : is OS X server can really support up to 32G of Ram?

Ioky
May 19th, 2008, 02:11 AM
The other day, I was bored, so I go to the Apple Site, and check out the Mac Pro, so I go to the customize page. and I start doing some stupid stuff. and I end customize a computer that cost almost 30000$, right, 30000, not 3000.

I see that it can support two 8 core CPU along with 32GB or Ram, of course along with many other Crazy thing.

But is that real, that OS X Server can support up to 32GB at like once? So Mac Pro is more like Server, than a Desktop?
yssida
May 19th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Probably, if the processor is 64 bit.
LaRoza
May 19th, 2008, 12:37 PM
Probably, if the processor is 64 bit.

More importantly, if the chipset supports it. Even if the processor could handle it, the chipset is where it counts.
sr20ve
May 19th, 2008, 04:17 PM
Sounds like that would make a good virtual machine host.
ikt
May 19th, 2008, 08:27 PM
But is that real,

Yes.

that OS X Server can support up to 32GB at like once?

Yes.

So Mac Pro is more like Server, than a Desktop?

http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Mac pro is more a workstation than a server, it's used for intense applications like making huge graphics and video editing etc.
Ioky
May 20th, 2008, 02:22 AM
I see, Thanks for all the information. I not a big fan of OS X. But their Hardware are truly Amazing.
tylerspaska
May 20th, 2008, 02:30 AM
I've also worked at places that use the machines for DNA sequencing.

Macs arent' just for graphics and graphics aren't just for macs.
MaxIBoy
May 21st, 2008, 02:47 AM
32 gigs of RAM? That's ridiculous. You'd need a separate hard drive for swap!

I think this is a gimmick feature. OS X still sucks.
3rdalbum
May 21st, 2008, 07:51 AM
I would bet that the machine cannot actually handle that much RAM. If you were running the operating system on a cluster, then I bet you could address that much memory. I've never even heard of an 8 gigabyte stick of RAM, and you'd require four of those to make up the 32 gigs.

32 gigabytes is certainly not even approaching the limit of Linux's address space. Linux 2.4 supports up to 64 gigabytes of RAM, so I imagine 2.6 can address more than that.
tdrusk
May 21st, 2008, 07:54 AM
32 gigabytes is certainly not even approaching the limit of Linux's address space. Linux 2.4 supports up to 64 gigabytes of RAM, so I imagine 2.6 can address more than that.

I didn't know that. That's some neat info. Thanks.
3rdalbum
May 21st, 2008, 08:03 AM
I imagine OS X server can actually support more than 32 gigabytes of RAM, although the hardware probably won't.

An out-of-the-box Linux kernel supports up to 64 CPUs and 128 gigabytes of RAM. There are also reports that the kernel can actually (with some tweaking) support 4096 CPUs and 16 exabytes of RAM without clustering, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are theoretical maximums/emulation and not an actual computer :-D
3rdalbum
May 21st, 2008, 08:04 AM
Sorry about the multi-post; I long for the day when wireless works over short distances without problems :-)
MaxIBoy
May 21st, 2008, 02:50 PM
I imagine OS X server can actually support more than 32 gigabytes of RAM, although the hardware probably won't.

An out-of-the-box Linux kernel supports up to 64 CPUs and 128 gigabytes of RAM. There are also reports that the kernel can actually (with some tweaking) support 4096 CPUs and 16 exabytes of RAM without clustering, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are theoretical maximums/emulation and not an actual computer :-D

I have a sudden urge to build a computer like that. It would be amazingly epic and awesome and cool.


Is there a limit on hard drive space? I want it to have a RAID of terabyte Seagates that takes up a whole room.
hanzomon4
May 21st, 2008, 05:27 PM
Wow, I'd love to have a machine like that. Apple products and OS X are truly amazing. How could you use something like that to run Linux/Windows VR machines? How good would the performance be?
MaxIBoy
May 21st, 2008, 06:03 PM
At a certain point, these days that point is around 5 or 6 gigs, RAM stops being a bottleneck. And multiple CPUs stop helping after a while. So really, it would run very fast, but not epically fast. You'd just be able to run a LOT of programs at once.
Gauvenator
May 21st, 2008, 08:03 PM
32 gigs of RAM? That's ridiculous. You'd need a separate hard drive for swap!

I think this is a gimmick feature. OS X still sucks.

With that much ram you probably wouldn't need a swap.
MaxIBoy
May 21st, 2008, 08:58 PM
What about hibernation?
seanc7
May 21st, 2008, 10:39 PM
For true servers 32GB isn't unrealistic. I'm pretty sure 32-bit Win2003 enterprise or data centre server supports 32GB of RAM so it's not unheard of.

Now-a-days VMWare ESX server can support servers with 64GB of RAM.

64-bit of anything can support that for sure.
K.Mandla
May 22nd, 2008, 01:15 AM
Moved to Mac OSX forum.
D-EJ915
May 22nd, 2008, 03:20 AM
you can stick 128GB of ram in the HP XW8600...I'm not sure why you would do that in a dual quad-core system, but you can if you want to


oh and by the way, the thread title was painful to read
Alfa989
May 22nd, 2008, 09:39 AM
I would bet that the machine cannot actually handle that much RAM. If you were running the operating system on a cluster, then I bet you could address that much memory. I've never even heard of an 8 gigabyte stick of RAM, and you'd require four of those to make up the 32 gigs.

I bet it can. Otherwise, they wouldn't sell it with that option... :)
Alfa989
May 22nd, 2008, 09:40 AM
I think this is a gimmick feature. OS X still sucks.
Just because you say yo? :lolflag:

The earth is flat. Why? Cause Alfa989 thinks so.
Alfa989
May 22nd, 2008, 09:40 AM
I imagine OS X server can actually support more than 32 gigabytes of RAM, although the hardware probably won't.
As I said, it probably can, as they have that option... :)
Alfa989
May 22nd, 2008, 10:06 AM
ve never even heard of an 8 gigabyte stick of RAM, and you'd require four of those to make up the 32 gigs.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8853/picture1zo4.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8853/picture1zo4.ba2b28e60f.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=209&i=picture1zo4.png)

:)
paintba||er
May 22nd, 2008, 04:25 PM
A better question would be: Does anyone actually pay apple $9,100 for RAM? I love Apple, but their prices for RAM are just absurd.
Alfa989
May 22nd, 2008, 06:19 PM
A better question would be: Does anyone actually pay apple $9,100 for RAM? I love Apple, but their prices for RAM are just absurd.
Agreed, everyone (if not, they should) buys the RAM individually and then installs it... :)
gameryoshi600
May 22nd, 2008, 08:21 PM
I do not know who would need 32 GB of ram
Ioky
May 22nd, 2008, 08:53 PM
I do not know who would need 32 GB of ram

well, for computer graphic in movie, people will need as much. And people who do Bio and Physic Emulation in Science will. For most of us, 4GB is enough. 8GB will be more then enough for a while, well, we already get all this. I mean , I run my computer with all the shiny looking feature on, like AWN, Compiz, along with 4 to 5 common use software, like music playing browser, IM client, Office going on at the same time, It only takes about 500 Ram. which is only 25% of 2GB ram. so
3rdalbum
May 22nd, 2008, 11:23 PM
Ahh I didn't look at the site. After doing some research I did find 8 gig sticks.

Why on earth do we need multiple GIGABYTES of RAM on desktop computers anyway? Everything I do today, apart from VOIP, I could do on an iMac with 96 megabytes of RAM, and I'm sure even that is bloated.
LaRoza
May 22nd, 2008, 11:31 PM
Why on earth do we need multiple GIGABYTES of RAM on desktop computers anyway?

It is likely for server use.
hanzomon4
May 23rd, 2008, 06:11 AM
But why would a server need so much punch, I mean don't servers just sit there being lazy and not getting a job... Always expecting government hand outs(I'm making fun of the stereotype here people, not the stereotyped)
YogiPaolo
May 23rd, 2008, 11:17 AM
32 gigs of RAM? That's ridiculous. You'd need a separate hard drive for swap!

You'd never NEED swap....
the6step
May 31st, 2008, 09:43 PM
Why on earth do we need multiple GIGABYTES of RAM on desktop computers anyway?

Mac Pro's are Workstations, not exactly meant to be used on the consumer level.......

You might not use that much, but better to offer a choice than not to. Isn't that the philosophy of linux? To offer choices?
Ioky
May 31st, 2008, 11:31 PM
Mac Pro's are Workstations, not exactly meant to be used on the consumer level.......

You might not use that much, but better to offer a choice than not to. Isn't that the philosophy of linux? To offer choices?

haha, how is that related to Mac?
the6step
June 1st, 2008, 12:14 AM
haha, how is that related to Mac?

A lot of people are making "Why would you ever need that much ram, that's pointless" comments. Most of these people being Linux users, I wanted to remind them of their own rule they like to go by, that rule being choice.
3rdalbum
June 1st, 2008, 07:52 AM
Mac Pro's are Workstations, not exactly meant to be used on the consumer level.......

You might not use that much, but better to offer a choice than not to. Isn't that the philosophy of linux? To offer choices?

By that stage I was talking more of general desktop computers rather than the Mac Pro itself :-) On the desktop, we're doing the same stuff with 2 gigs of RAM that we did in 10% of that amount. Just imagine: Some day, an average personal computer will come with 32GB of RAM and actually REQUIRE a significant portion of that!

On servers, the load on them is increasing, and scientific applications run faster with more RAM, so of course we're right there. But you'd find that Macs aren't very popular for use as servers.