96 macbook server rack



  • I'd really like to know WHY. I mean, not a simple "we need to test on Apple hardware".

    Edit: wow, it's 2015 and web code can still mess up "special" characters



  • @Zmaster said:

    Edit: wow, it's 2015 and web code can still mess up "special" characters

    Welcome to Discourse. We hope you enjoy your stay. Make sure to check out the random teleportation, number-reordering, and text swallowing attractions.

    Anyway, possible reasons:

    1. The people who came up with this were dumb.
    2. The people who came up with this were dumb, and macbooks were cheaper for the same power compared to other Apple products (Unlikely, but Apple).
    3. The people who came up with this were dumb, and no one called them out on it.

  • mod

    @Zmaster said:

    I'd really like to know WHY.

    They said why:

    the testing we do requires Apple branded hardware, so this is what we came up with.

    I mean, shit, read what you link. :trolleybus:



  • I can only admire the sheer amount of dedication that went into this. Here we see how far the Apple-branded have advanced from the herd. Think different, think Apple-branded.



  • Say 40 people each in dev and QA, and a few to spare? Or 10 of each that needs 3 configurations each. Or vs/xamarin/ mono build servers?
    If they HAVE to run on bare metal this does seem like the best solution. How would you do?
    In my world that's not near a WTF.
    I mean, few poeple buy that much hardware without reason.



  • Unless they work at a company, then all bets of sanity are off. After all, management knows best.



  • Haven't we covered something like this before, except it was some graphics company doing rendering on them?

    Anyway, I wonder what kind of testing "requires" Apple branded hardware. I'd like to think there are some serious hardware compatibility issues they need to cover, but my bet is at "they didn't realize you can get OSX running in a VM too"...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @gleemonk said:

    Apple-branded

    FPA "Apple-braindead"

    @swayde said:

    If they HAVE to run on bare metal...

    Our requirements included Retina displays , small form factor, low power, cool running, Apple branded hardware, high density design, i7 CPU’s, 16GB RAM, etc…

    Doesn't really look like it. Except for the

    “Why didn’t you just use Linux?” or “Just use OS X in a VM on <insert hardware name here>”, but the testing we do requires Apple branded hardware,

    "We just do, OK?!?!?!" No cromulent reason given.



  • @PJH said:

    No cromulent reason given.

    What are they doing that they require a 'screen' or rather a 'Retina Screen' :copyright: but there is no need for the screen to be visible.

    At least in the Wimbledon IBM thing the laptops where still accessible and I could imagine that from an operational perspective that is an easy to control setup.

    But this ... there really doesn't seem to be a specific advantage for doing it this way.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Luhmann said:

    What are they doing that they require a 'screen' or rather a 'Retina Screen' but there is no need for the screen to be visible.

    But, but, but...

    We use 3D printed wedges to keep each lid open to 7mm, and other 3D printed parts to [find other random uses for 3D printed parts but could only find two semi-legitimate ones to put in here...]



  • Thinking about this makes my head hurt ...

    Once again it is shown that stupidity is a strong driving force


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    The OS X EULA says you can only run OS X on Apple branded hardware, so if their testing says "run on OS X" which if Retina (because Apple's high-DPI voodoo is different to Windows' high-DPI voodoo), clustering OS X on Apple gear is it.

    Maybe consolidation via VMs could be a thing but seems doubtful.



  • Yes, if they just needed Apple branded hardware as the physical hardware, they could use VMs.
    But VMs will report different hardware and maybe what they are testing cares.
    If they need to test the GPU and not a virtual one, then they need physical machines.

    And it sounds like to access the display, it can't be closed (or it shuts off), hence the 7mm wedge.
    A hard hack.

    Because of varying cost of Apple hardware, I'd read the Mac Mini's give the best performance per $. Perhaps it is limited in some other hardware avenue (I don't look at Apple hardware anymore. The MBP I had before exploded, among other problems so I don't really trust it any more than the cheaper stuff with upgrades).



  • @Nprz said:

    Because of varying cost of Apple hardware, I'd read the Mac Mini's give the best performance per $. Perhaps it is limited in some other hardware avenue

    You'd probably need to plug the minis into monitors, or you get the same problem as the MBPs with their lids closed.

    So our best bet is: they are testing some kind of GPU driver for MacOSX.



  • You can use an hdmi adapter, which will do a similar thing. $15 is cheaper than buying an actual monitor. :wink:

    [edit] and in case anyone didn't look, the same person racked 160 mac minis. I don't see that he used the adapter though.



  • @Arantor said:

    The OS X EULA says you can only run OS X on Apple branded hardware

    The question is what kind of masochist wants to develop for a platform that has restrictions like this, forcing you to come up with workarounds like this.

    I'm picturing the Apple executives in a dark room, smoking cigars with an evil grin on their face, discussing how they can fuck even more with their developers.

    "What if we made them buy a new device for each new app they make?" "They'd never take that, we need to be more subtle." "What if we made a mobile version of Xcode, then deprecated the desktop version? We could make up some gibberish about mobile development being the future. And make it incompatible with hardware keyboards!" "Ooh, that is so evil, I love it!"



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Haven't we covered something like this before, except it was some graphics company doing rendering on them?

    https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/this-is-the-dumbest-idea-ive-seen-in-a-long-time/48403


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @anonymous234 said:

    I'm picturing the Apple executives in a dark room, smoking cigars with an evil grin on their face, discussing how they can fuck even more with their developers.

    I'm not convinced. Apple being Apple, they probably don't smoke anything so plebeian as cigars.


  • sockdevs

    @dkf said:

    Apple being Apple, they probably don't smoke anything so plebeian as cigars.

    no, they hire loincloth clad men to smoke the cigars for them and then use mouth to mouth to transfer the smoke.

    mmmm..... :drool:

    what? oh! i seem to have let that get away from me..... where were we before my train of thought derailed?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    they hire loincloth turtleneck clad men

    FTFApple


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    From this pic

    It looks like he's tucked each laptop into the one behind it an inch or so, maybe because they wouldn't all fit on the shelf otherwise, meaning that 3d-printed wedge probably wasn't necessary.



  • @dkf said:

    Apple being Apple, they probably don't smoke anything so plebeian as cigars.

    Is there an e-cig vaporizer version of a cigar?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @hungrier said:

    Is there an e-cig vaporizer version of a cigar?

    Hmm, an iCig?



  • A small detail no one has mentioned

    You can’t see the temperature sensors tucked into each notebook’s keyboard area.

    Um, are you aware that laptops already have several temperature sensors on the inside?



  • That sounds sane. Did you not notice the server rack full of notebooks?



  • There's a vaporizer pipe:



  • Ok, I like Apple products like.. a lot, but this is stupid. That's like $240,000 for no reason.



  • @Nprz said:

    [edit] and in case anyone didn't look, the same person racked 160 mac minis. I don't see that he used the adapter though.

    And he says that they've been running for 2 years at 97% utilization.

    also:

    @Steve said:

    I love all of the interest in the current rack of 160 Mac Minis, but yesterday I spoke to the shelving vendor and we are going to begin working on a solution to fit 6 mini’s per 1U of space, resulting in a rack with 240 Mac Minis in it. I can’t wait to start working on that in January. People thought I was crazy building this??? Wait till they see the next one :-)

    @Steve said:

    Q. Why on earth would you build this? There are easier and cheaper ways to get this density.

    A. The company I work for requires large numbers of machines to build and test the software products we make, these products support Windows, Linux and Mac so we have data centers with thousands of machines configured with all 3 OS’s running constant build and test operations 24 hours a day 365 days a year. This is just a small look at the Mac side of things.


  • mod

    ...is the company something like SauceLabs? I could see this being a feature worth paying for: "Ensure that it runs on real hardware, not just VMs!"



  • Well yeah, there are valid scenarios for that. I think TRWTF is Apple not providing a properly rackable form factor for their hardware.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    I think TRWTF is Apple not providing a properly rackable form factor for their hardware.

    They see themselves as mainly a designer consumer goods company, not a maker of server-class computers.


  • area_deu

    Is there really anyone who is waiting for the Xserve's great comeback?



  • There are people waiting for the Classic Mac's great comeback (*cough*Blakey*cough*), so probably, yeah.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I know two companies that want Xserves.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.