Apple on the Enterprise level

[tlarkin]

I wanted to start a general discussion about implementing apple products on the enterprise level. This is somethng that microsoft is dominating the market in. I am not an elitist either way, but would like to learn if anyone here using any of the following, and how it is working out for them.

Open directory master server, OS X with tons of users authenticating

ACLs, group policies, user management, home directories, etc

Data storage, and RAID solutions Xsan, etc

Printing server, network printers, mass document printing

Mass email on the enterpirse level

Network security, NAT, routing, gateways, etc

If you are running a pure mac enviroment please let me know what you are doing, if you are running a mixed enviroment what exactly do your macs do for you, and how do you think it compares (in an unbiased as way possible )

thanks for your feed back in advance

[maclova]

I sure hope Apple never becomes a Micro$oft!

[ArcticStones]

.
Now that’s an interesting topic! I know zilch about it, but look forward to reading more and repairing my ignorance.

Surely some of the IT professional on this Forum – and there appear to be a fair number – work with networks. I would think that at least some of these, such as in major advertising agencies, would be all Mac; and that there is lots of experience about mixed corporate networks.

[skeetone]

don't know much about macs in enterprises myself but these sites might also be useful:

http://www.macenterprise.org/
http://www.apple.com/itpro/
http://www.apple.com/xsan/
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/ (check links on the left side for more info on server capabilities).

All of this info is provided by people that work with apples and might not be objective. But macenterprise.org sounds alright (just had a very quick glance at it). Can't help you much more though. I'm quite curious about some more reactions here myself as well.

dav.

[tlarkin]

well for one, we run an enterprise level network at the school district I work for. We have a huge network that spans over three cities, and has over 52 buildings connected to it. We have at least one, if not multiple servers in each building. We have lots of enterprise solutions for print servers, NDS to authenticate users push home directories, we use zen to push out applications and utilties to our users as well as policy, we have about a 7% mac population out of over 10,000 computers. The macs are pretty much just clients, on their own network and they print via LDP and IP and they just have a few xservs running RAID for data storage. However, they aren't really part of the solution and they dont manage anything other than user data for our specialty labs. We have a small render farm that the G5s connect to for our computer animation lab, and that is probably the most high tech solution we have. Only one school is lucky enough to have the render farm though.

I was hoping someone could perhaps add some things that they use. I was reading about XSAN the other night studying for my tiger server cert, and it seems like a very expensive solution compared to others.

[tlarkin]

so I was reading further on this, and found this interesting

http://macenterprise.org/content/view/222/77/

however, there seems to be a lack of content. I know about tons of mac enterprise level solutions, I just don't really know anybody who uses them other than simply binding to AD for authentication and home directories, which makes it pointless IMHO. Considering AD is way more robust with permissions/policies/groups than just mapping home directories.

I really hope apple steps it up a notch, because I want to see them succeed and make the market more competitive, making the vendors produce better products due to more competition.

Anyways....discuss!

[fat elvis]

I think Apple is ready for the enterprise market...it's IT Management that isn't ready for the Macs. A few of the companies I've worked for have been bitter Microsoft opponents so there was no Microsoft presence in the backend. Things worked great. I do think the Exchange calendar system (from a PC) is the best I've used to date. I just wished it performed equally on the Mac.

At my current company it's a very MS-centric environment. Macs are getting better at integrating into the network. We don't use networked logins becuase the Mac "engineering" team feels it'd cause more problems that it solves.

Printing is handled via AppleTalk directly to the printers, with the exception of the Fiery boxes and HP plotters. The HP plotters give us a ton of problems. Basically they print 12-hours a day for six days a week...so they get worked.

We don't have wireless for a slew of reasons...

[tlarkin]

Cool, thanks for sharing. We just change our wireless solution over to a company called trapeze ( http://www.trapezenetworks.com/ ). So far all of our notebooks can connect to the wifi no problems (mac notebooks that is). Previously, we had 3COM, and those just kind of sucked all around to be honest. We only have it up in a few schools right now testing it, and we have juice boxes running power over ethernet to all the APs in the schools. So far it seems to be working nicely.

We also have digital class rooms with LCD panasonic projectors. These projectors actually have 802.11x cards in them, and machines can connect to them wirelessly for control and technically stream video, however we run analog video cables to the projectors anyways. We also got some new bluetooth tablets called Airliners. They allow intsructors to walk around the room and control their PC via BlueTooth. These devices work on both the mac and windows platforms. They come with a tablet, a pen, and a mouse. They are pretty cool actually.

We use iprint (novell) for our print servers and man it is a really nice web based product. I can print to any printer in the whole school district city wide over the internet the only problem is the support for macs is not really that great.

[lyndonl]

We don't exactly run an enterprise level service from the xserve's we have but its getting there.

We run a network of about 300 users country wide using 2 xserves and 4 xraid units. this is about to expand by 2 more xserve's (when the intel ones come out)

Currently we run mail web shared folders and backup data for all the users as well as DNS.

When 10.5 is released we will most likely include calendar services too.
As OS X Server get more advanced we use more and more of its features.
The people who run the company are pretty much against the way Microsoft charge for licenses, and are big fans of the Apple Servers and all thing open source. This is a pretty big step for the industry they are in which here in South Africa is pretty un-dynamic when it comes to technology and not doing what everyone else in the pack is doing.
They are one of the top 10 Medical Insurance companies here.

[CAlvarez]

I manage a few mixed environments, and am just reaching the level of Mac penetration where I need better ways to manage them. Right now, I don't know how to do it, in an Active Directory environment. The AD isn't going to go away, so the Macs need to somehow integrate. There's an add-on product I'm going to check out, but it's expensive.

[tlarkin]

I feel that soon we will change as well. It looks like to me that Novell is pretty much changing their goals. I am sure that Netware is almost a thing of the past, especially since Novell bought out SUSE Linux, and if you actually look what they have done to it. Novell has really done some great things with Linux.

They now offer enterprise desktop and server in SuSE. WIth that being said, I think eventually all our netware servers will go away. Most likely to Linux is what it looks like with a few win2k3 (or whatever MS version is out at the time) servers.

We have a few xserves and a few RAIDs but they are used in specialty labs, and not really a solution to the whole network.

[tlarkin]

to ressurrect an old thread here...........

Okay so vista is now released and so is the forth coming of some of the new MS server products. I am going to some MS training in two weeks for IT managment, IT Professional, vista deployment, the new exchange server training, office 2007 deployment, etc.

Basically its a giant sales pitch MS does, and I am sure several of you here have been to their road show training events.

With that being said and with vista the mess that it is I think Apple now has the opportunity to act and gain some enterprise level sales. OS X Server definitely needs revamps all around, and there needs to be more models available to the consumer. They need to have a Core 2 Duo desktop that is NOT an all in one machine.

Just to bring up another point of why they should do this, we run novell/NDS here and Vista pretty much broke everything that novell had to offer us, so we now have to wait for everything to catch up before we can even start to think of deploying vista. With that being said, and Novell pretty much is at the point of just dropping netware completely and going with Linux that leaves a decent percentage of Enterprise level networks (mainly in education and goverment) that use Netware/Novell that perhaps may be looking for a new way to migrate into a new solution.

Novell's main problem is that they do not offer any smooth painless way to migrate from netware to Linux. To be fair, no one really offers a painless way to migrate.

However, I think if apple could come up with a way to migrate like lets say an AD/NDS network into their own this would be the time to do it.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin ...with vista the mess that it is I think Apple now has the opportunity to act and gain some enterprise level sales... Just to bring up another point of why they should do this, we run novell/NDS here and Vista pretty much broke everything that novell had to offer... ...a decent percentage of Enterprise level networks ... may be looking for a new way to migrate into a new solution. ...To be fair, no one really offers a painless way to migrate. I think if apple could come up with a way to migrate like lets say an AD/NDS network into their own this would be the time to do it.

What you’re basically suggesting is that Apple offer a carefully considered "Switch" strategy, with appropriate high-power tools, to prospective enterprise-level customers?

Is that right?

1.) Could you detail what that Switch Strategy would have to comprise?
2.) And the ideal Switch Tools for the job?

Go ahead, it may be dreaming, but I would really like to see you paint some details of that picture.

Best regards,
ArcticStones

[trumpet_999]

The local hospital near my place was running a full windows setup for 3000+ users and machines, until they had one crash - which for a hospital setup is one too many, at a loss rate of $570,000 an hour downtime. They are currently in the process of switching to Mac servers i believe, i'll post back once i have more details.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by trumpet_999 The local hospital near my place was running a full windows setup for 3000+ users and machines, until they had one crash - which for a hospital setup is one too many, at a loss rate of $570,000 an hour downtime. They are currently in the process of switching to Mac servers, I believe. I'll post back once I have more details.

Wow! Is that getting appropriate press coverage?
I can see the headline:

Macs to cure virus-infected hospital

I guess they can’t exactly add the cost of computer downtime onto their patients’ itemised bills...
.

[tlarkin]

Well, this is of course my opinion based off my experience.....There are things apple should do to make it easier to enter the enterprise level.

1) Apple needs to make a mid range desktop. A Mac Pro for most users is over kill. Not everyone needs dual xeon processors and 6 gigs of ram. Apple needs to make a Core 2 Duo basic mid tower computer that has a lot of customization options (storage, video, peripherals etc). That way a company could buy in bulk for its users. At my work we have 55 buildings now spanning over 3 cities, 34,000 users, 10,000 computers and only like a 3 to 4% mac population out of all of that. A lot of people do not want to buy All-In-One machines like the iMac and the mac mini is not really upgradeable. If they had a mid range basic barebone tower, which was competitvely priced it couldn't do them any harm. they also need to make these desktops easy to work on. put the logic boards on trays that pull out, access panels to everything, trays or rails that hold drives, easy access powersupplies. You know, to make it easier on the companies IT staff, and for minimal down time. I replaced a HD in a powerbook yesterday out of warranty. It took me about 6 hours to replace it, reload the OS and add all that users apps. Normally, I would have used an image, but this user had a custom set up.

2. Easy migration or Organization tool. Novell came out with eDirectory, which in a way is a very genious product. eDirectory basically can be placed over any existing network, on any platform (unix, windows, Linux, mac) and it can organize and help network everything. of course it is not as simple as it sounds. Apple needs to make either built in support for AD/NDS networks, or come up with a technology that is similiar to eDirectory. Something on the back end they can just lay over the whole entire network. Since Macs are based off of x86 technology they already have the hardware compatibility of a PC now, they just need to develope for it. This could even start out as an open source project and wouldn't cost apple that much in overhead in the begining. Basically Novell did a lot for modern networking and a lot of companies ripped off novell's product and made it better. Novell's downfall is that they didn't improve their product at a rate their competitors did. Like if you could have an Xserve running OS X Server OD master mirror an MS AD network or something like that. There has to be a way to integrate that kind of stuff. I am sure that there are intulectual property problems and other legal matters that may make this process hard...

I think those two things would be the first step in making Apple a MAJOR competitor in the Enterprise world of business

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin 1) Apple needs to make a mid range desktop.

It's called the iMac. For most users, the only upgrading it will ever need (before being replaced by a new Mac in 4 or 5 years) is extra RAM.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin 2. Easy migration or Organization tool.

I think this is one of the areas where most IT departments fail miserably. The implication is that Apple needs to do things the PC way, when the reverse is true. It's the Apple way that has resulted in relatively secure, hassle free computing, not the PC (also the IT) way. Until businesses recognize that the user experience is more important to their bottom line than placating their IT departments, this argument will continue to keep Apple out of the enterprise, no matter what Apple does, short of selling Windows boxes.

I'm not saying there aren't things that Apple could/should do to improve management of a large number of networked Macs. I'm just saying that it is an overused excuse, and it isn't a legitimate reason to lock them out.

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam It's called the iMac. For most users, the only upgrading it will ever need (before being replaced by a new Mac in 4 or 5 years) is extra RAM.

The iMac is not the answer. This is why

1) All in one machines are not ideal. You could cut costs by making an iMac in a mid tower with no LCD built in. That way when your replacement cycle comes up to replace the work stations, you can save money by not having to buy a new monitor. Of course this will also drive the cost down of replacing computers because you aren't buying a new LCD every time you buy a new system.

2) Repair. Downtime is a factor, a big factor. I have been Apple certified for some years now and Apple's service/self maintainer end is very nice. You get parts next day air, and their web based service system is easy to use and works on any platform, ie no buggy ass active x application to deal with. The down side is, the iMac is not really that easy to repair compared to a buisness class desktop. It takes me litterally 10 minutes to exchange a motherboard out of our HP business class desktops, flash the bios, and run the naming app to rename the computer. Taking apart an iMac takes a lot longer. Having a desktop mid tower C2D system, which is spec'd like an imac would be more ideal. this also gives the orginization the ability to cut costs. Things like video cards, optical audio, etc would be options that the business/orginization could configure. Why pay for optical audio if you don't need it? Why pay for a mid ranged ATI Radeon video card, when a cheaper one would suffice? Enterprise level things look at dollar cost just as much as functionality. That is why sometimes the cheaper solution gets put in, and well if you work IT you know what I am talking about. It can suck sometimes.

Quote: I think this is one of the areas where most IT departments fail miserably. The implication is that Apple needs to do things the PC way, when the reverse is true. It's the Apple way that has resulted in relatively secure, hassle free computing, not the PC (also the IT) way. Until businesses recognize that the user experience is more important to their bottom line than placating their IT departments, this argument will continue to keep Apple out of the enterprise, no matter what Apple does, short of selling Windows boxes. I'm not saying there aren't things that Apple could/should do to improve management of a large number of networked Macs. I'm just saying that it is an overused excuse, and it isn't a legitimate reason to lock them out.

I disagree and I think you misunderstood what I am saying. First off, I hate vista, and am no fan boy of any OS or platform. I have my problems with OS X, Linux, Windows, etc. I have no favorite OS. I think they all have their flaws and they all annoy me in one way or another. When I was referring to eDirectory and what they did, does not reflect what you are saying. Their product works over existing networks, on all platforms. It may not be the best, but it works and it is very secure. Basically it puts what they call a container over whatever domain network you are running and allows you to organize it through console 1, zen, etc. These tools work with existing platforms.

I was suggesting Apple take the same approach. I am not saying they need to change their platform, but make it more available, more compatible, easier to integrate.

Also, MS does do some things right. Exchange, AD are all good technologies.

I also disagree with your statement about IT departments fail to realize these things. If migrating from an existing windows 2k3 AD/Exchange enviroment to the Apple platform was easy and inexpensive maybe a lot of people would switch. The fact of the matter is, migrating to anything isn't easy. We still run netware at my work because it really isn't easy to migrate to anything else. it is not an overnight process. It is a long, drawn out process of testing and making sure things work before you go live with anything. AD and OS X boxes are a mess right now, just ask any admin on this forum who has to deal with it. Lucky for me we run NDS/LDAP so its not as bad. However, next replacement cycle of servers we go through we have a chance of changing the platform we run since Novell is Linux based now and Netware is kind of at end of life at the moment. If it were an easy process to Migrate we would probably do it a lot sooner.

It is of my opinion that Apple really doesn't want to get into the Enterprise level of things. I think their only buisness demographic they go for, is the small business. They spend a lot more time and money marketing their products towards the consumer (as in end user) and not towards business.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin The iMac is not the answer.

Maybe not for everybody, but for most, it's fine.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin ....sometimes the cheaper solution gets put in, and well if you work IT you know what I am talking about. It can suck sometimes.

Yes, it can, and that's what I'm talking about. The idea that the cheaper box is the better buy is just silly, and an IT department that makes that assumption is starting off as a failure.

The fact is, the iMac is often the better buy, as is demonstrated by small busiesses and consumers, neither of which has an IT department to keep a system running. I do agree that the iMac could be (and future versions likely will be) easier to repair, but it isn't about the cost of working on the hardware. The idea behind the Mac is to reduce support costs by reducing support calls, not the amount of time it takes to replace a part.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Basically it puts what they call a container over whatever domain network you are running and allows you to organize it through console 1, zen, etc. These tools work with existing platforms.

Then it's up to their developers and not Apple to make them work just as well with the Mac.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin I was suggesting Apple take the same approach. I am not saying they need to change their platform, but make it more available, more compatible, easier to integrate.

Who needs to be more compatible? The Mac can read/write to PC disks, use SMB, etc. but what has Microsoft done to integrate with other operating systems? Half the time, Windows doesn't even work well with other versions of itself!

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin The fact of the matter is, migrating to anything isn't easy.

Migrating from 68K to PowerPC wasn't bad. Neither was the transition from PowerPC to Intel. The difference is, those didn't involve Microsoft.

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin AD and OS X boxes are a mess right now, just ask any admin on this forum who has to deal with it.

Yes, it is a mess. What I take issue with is blaming Apple for it. AD is a Microsoft product. If it doesn't work well with other platforms, it IS Microsoft's fault!

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin It is of my opinion that Apple really doesn't want to get into the Enterprise level of things. I think their only buisness demographic they go for, is the small business. They spend a lot more time and money marketing their products towards the consumer (as in end user) and not towards business.

Of course they don't market to large businesses! Who could blame them? They know that they've got an uphill battle in the enterprise that has nothing to do with their products or services.

[tlarkin]

Quote: Yes, it can, and that's what I'm talking about. The idea that the cheaper box is the better buy is just silly, and an IT department that makes that assumption is starting off as a failure. The fact is, the iMac is often the better buy, as is demonstrated by small busiesses and consumers, neither of which has an IT department to keep a system running. I do agree that the iMac could be (and future versions likely will be) easier to repair, but it isn't about the cost of working on the hardware. The idea behind the Mac is to reduce support costs by reducing support calls, not the amount of time it takes to replace a part.

Okay, we can get a business class HP destkop, 17" LCD with keyboard/mouse/speakers on board gigabit nic, 2 optical drives 1 of which is a lightscribe DVDRW, 1gig of RAM, PCI-E expansion slots with an AMD64 processor for under 1,000 dollars. Comes standard with a 3 year warranty, and is easy to repair. Down time in minimal. If a part dies, I can order it and get it next day go to location and fix it in a matter of minutes. The cost of hardware is a big deal. Apple charges like 300 dollars for logic boards on G4 iMacs right now, we are talking about a machine that is old. I just replaced a 700Mhz G4 iMac logic board this week. I had no choice because that building is not due to have replacement computers for one more year, so either I had to repair it or they had to lose it. So, I repaired it.

That is why apple can't compete, and that is why the iMac is not the answer. A regular mid tower desktop would be easier and cheaper to mass produce over an iMac. Also, I am sorry but you are wrong cost does become a huge factor and it is looked at. If we are going to order 2500 comptuers and can save 100 dollars per a unit at really no feature or benefit loss, then we will probably do it.

Also, just like every other enterprise the IT department usually isn't in charge of the money. I have no purchasing power at all. The only thing I get to do, is put in my input when asked about said technology.

Quote: Then it's up to their developers and not Apple to make them work just as well with the Mac.

I disagree here as well. there are third party products that integrate a mac os x network very well with NDS, but its like over $10,000 USD for an unlimited license of this software. Why couldn't apple just develope their own plug in? Which is probably why MS just bought out $350 million dollars of technology from Novell, so they could natively add support for this in there. MS knows Netware is at end of life and they are probably planning on making a nice Migration tool from NDS to AD environment.

[quote]Migrating from 68K to PowerPC wasn't bad. Neither was the transition from PowerPC to Intel. The difference is, those didn't involve Microsoft.[/quote

sorry for the confusion on this one, I was speaking of OS platforms. Migrating from a previous version of netware to a new one is very easy and simple. Migrating from a previous version of MS server is somewhat painless, but it does have its issues. Migrating from OS X 10.1 to 10.4 is for the most part not that bad.

Migrating from NDS to AD, a pain. Migrating from Netware to Linux, a huge pain. Migrating from Windows to Unix/Linux huge pain. That is what I meant.
That being said...
[qutoe]Yes, it is a mess. What I take issue with is blaming Apple for it. AD is a Microsoft product. If it doesn't work well with other platforms, it IS Microsoft's fault![/qutoe]

To quote Carlos again (like the third time I have quoted him this month) AD isn't going to disappear anywhere and it works fine for the windows environment. So there is no need to change or make a huge mess out of migrating, unless apple has some way of making it not such a huge pain in everyone's ass. Talk to Yellow about getting macs to work with AD and I am sure he can tell you it plain sucks. Pointing out who's fault it is, is not going to make any difference. AD is an established product and is everywhere. Apple needs to make itself play nicely with it because no one wants to restructure an entire enterprise network. Any Sr. network engineer is going to tell you know if it requires that much, and I wouldn't blame them. The downtime alone would be annoying enough.

Quote: Who needs to be more compatible? The Mac can read/write to PC disks, use SMB, etc. but what has Microsoft done to integrate with other operating systems? Half the time, Windows doesn't even work well with other versions of itself!

You are totally right, but I am talking about bigger scale networks with SANs, Print servers, redundancy DNS and back up solutions, extensive permissions and policies being pushed out, virtual LANs, DHCP servers, massive email, corporate calendars, data recovery (novell can salvage files you deleted its very nice) etc. OS X really doesn't offer any kind of solution for this stuff now. I have played with the admin tools and an Open Directory master server with Tiger server to learn it, and you can do some stuff but the windows and novell side is just more robust of what you can do.

If you could push out policy from a windows server to mac clients I could see some companies switching over to the mac platform.