MAC Which Mac mini for filemaker server 11?

[Valdrin]

Hi everyone,

I am deploying a solution for a small shop that will have 7 clients and one server. They are an all mac shop and want to go with a Mac mini for the FMP server, and I was wondering which would be better -- the 2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 on Apple's "server model," or upgrading the non-server model to a 2.7GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7?

Thanks in advance.

Val

[Vaughan]

IMHO if you're going to go Mac Mini then get the server model and raid the two disks to improve reliability.

I've got two clients with Mac Mini servers that are 1-2 years old, and in the past month both have had disk problems. Make sure the databases are backup up to media off the machine.

[IdealData]

In my shop I have 30-40 users all day running off previous model Core 2 Duo Mac Mini, 4GB and 64GB SSD - no issues at all.

Even the entry level mini will be more than adequate with 4GB and 64GB SSD. Use the original 500GB drive as your backup in a self powered USB case.

Incidentally, get the memory upgrade 3rd party, the Apple price is horrific.

[VincentO'B]

I also have a core 2 Duo 2Ghz running for about a year with only a couple of restarts in that time avg. users about four.

No problems whatsoever but make sure to get at least 1 offsite back up every day, I do not think that you would notice the performance difference between the server and client model with 7 clients, although you would miss out on the server software which may be usefull

I would max out the Ram and I strongly agree with IdealData buy it anywhere other than apple £160 as opposed to £20 from a third party suppler, overcharging by a factor of 8!!, they should give out free hardware at those prices.

Vincent

[Steven H. Blackwell]

I certainly would never recommend use of the Mac Mini as a FIleMaker Server machine for any mission critical database. There are other Macintosh options.

Steven

[kptchris]

I certainly would never recommend use of the Mac Mini as a FileMaker Server machine for any mission critical database. There are other Macintosh options.

Steven

This is pretty typical response of the the 'current' generation of old IT folks. So you're saying they should run right out and drop 5k on a Mac Pro and load it up?

When they could have a 5 stack of Mac Mini's instead. With Core i7's, 16gb of RAM, a fast SSD drive and thunderbolt backup options?

You've been quoted multiple times saying this machine isn't recommended, but several others have posted that they've been using these little boxes, which are cheap, which are easily replaced, and have provided exactly ZERO, NADA, NIL, ZILCH reasoning.

As a professional IT person, I would rather have 5 redundant Mac Mini's than a single Mac Pro tower at this point, as they are an inexpensive solution that is EASILY REPLACED. I can't just walk down to most stores, and in some case even Apple Store's and pick up a top of the line Mac Pro. But I can walk into most places that sell Apple Products and grab a Mac Mini and have something back up and running from a restored backup in no time.

<REDACTED BY ADMIN - UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR>

Edited September 12, 2011 by Ocean West
poor conduct.

[Bailey Kessing]

Hmmm, While perhaps a little too forceful, I have to agree with the “mac mini is an option crowd”. Been using them for years (5 of them) with ZERO problem. I do backup twice a day (just important to my group) off site. I have >100 million records across the multiple servers. I also would use lots of ram. I haven’t use the SSD drives but think that is a great idea. Redundant servers + cheapness + performance all work out well with the Mac Minis.

[John May - Point In Space]

I've heard *lots* of nightmare stories about using Minis for serving. Fried power supplies, drives, etc. They're just not server-class machines, no matter how much Apple claims they are.

If you can afford downtime, then feel free to use them, because you're pretty much guaranteed a failure at some point. That's why we don't, and don't recommend such.

- John