On 23 Jan 2013, at 14:05, Bosch, Juergen wrote:
> I assume nobody of you is running an actual Osx server ? I mean the upgrade
> to a full server version of the commonly distributed normal Osx releases ?
At the moment we have two OS X servers. One runs open directory for user
authentication. T
Hi,
I'm running a mac mini server.
The file sharing seems to work fine - I'm not running NIS.
There is a lag in software starting up - up to 20-30 s but once the software is
loaded, it runs fine.
We did some benchmarking with phaser last week & there was no perceivable
difference in running it
We have 10.5&10.6 servers and briefly tested 10.7 server.
Last time I tried, Ubuntu 12.04 box would not authenticate users registered on
the OS X Open Directory server.
Before that, 10.04 clients would cause random user lockouts.
NFS GUI is gone as of 10.7
Regards,
Dmitry
On 2013-01-23,
We did work with a full blown OSX Server in 2004 - indeed many issues on NFS
were Ok, but NIS was a problem - or we could not figure it out.
We used it as server for developers, running X-grid, SVN, WebObjects servers
for a couple of EC networks, but never deployed it fully
as a departmental-leve
I assume nobody of you is running an actual Osx server ? I mean the upgrade to
a full server version of the commonly distributed normal Osx releases ?
I have not done it yet but I do think many of the issues mentioned regarding
NFS/NIS could be addressed there. Regarding the missing macpro upgra
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 01:54 -0700, James Stroud wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Nat Echols wrote:
> > The real difficulty is integrating Macs into a
> > Linux-centric environment, for example configuring NFS, NIS, etc.
>
> That's because NFS and NIS are antiquities left over from the days o
In the great internet tradition I'll chip in with my opinion even though it
doesn't differ substantially from those already stated earlier in the thread.
I'm responsible for a mixed bag of Windows, Linux and Mac boxen used for
crystallography and structural electron microscopy.
In terms of sett
Cara you have re-ignited the perennial Mac v PC debate!!! You'll be asking
about depositing raw diffraction data next ;)
Cheers
Ashley
Sent from my iPhone
On 23/01/2013, at 10:29 PM, Anastassis Perrakis wrote:
> I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in between ...
>
> Here are my
I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in between ...
Here are my two cents based on personal experience ...
For example, I am happy myself using a MacBook Pro, which is sufficient for all
my activities, and has all software and data that I need.
Thus, I am myself on the 'new' paradig
On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Nat Echols wrote:
> The real difficulty is integrating Macs into a
> Linux-centric environment, for example configuring NFS, NIS, etc.
That's because NFS and NIS are antiquities left over from the days of
mainframes. Distributed file systems and user information data
Dmitry... everyone is of course entitled to their opinion - but as one of the
brain-washed masses I feel I need to at least reply (!). Sorry Cara...
>>> I am not happy with the direction OS X is going. Too much emphasis on eye
>>> candy and not enough on underlying technology.
Fair enough, but
I meant c.2006 iMac, of course.
James
On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:05 PM, James Stroud wrote:
> Get a quad-core. If you have iTunes going, some website running javascript
> without your knowing it, and you have a computational job running, then
> you've used up your dual core and things get sluggish
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:05 PM, James Stroud wrote:
> On Mac v. Linux where calculations come secondary to office-type
> calculations, you have to weigh your level of vendor lock-in. Do you run
> Libreoffice or Microsoft Office? Inkscape or Illustrator? Gimp or Photoshop?
> Etc. If you are lo
- Reply message -
From: "James Stroud"
Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:05 pm
Subject: [ccp4bb] Mac mini advice
To:
Get a quad-core. If you have iTunes going, some website running javascript
without your knowing it, and you have a computational job running, then you've
used up
Get a quad-core. If you have iTunes going, some website running javascript
without your knowing it, and you have a computational job running, then you've
used up your dual core and things get sluggish. It happens to me all the time
on my c. 1996 iMac, which is still (barely) good enough for me.
AFAIK there is no problem mixing and matching different timing RAM: system will
run at the speed of the slowest module.
I don't think anybody will notice the difference with CAS latency Coot'ing and
Refmac'ing.
I don't think there is much sense in having more than 4 GB of RAM per physical
core
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Phil Jeffrey wrote:
> I don't think that anybody has shown a significant performance difference
> on Apple memory vs a reasonable 3rd party supplier. Apple may potentially
> have better quality controls but places like Crucial essentially have
> lifetime warrantie
> Any reason for the Mac Mini over the iMac
A zalman monitor ir can you hook up a second monitor in stereo mode to your
iMac ?
Jürgen
..
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Researc
Hi Cara,
Any reason for the Mac Mini over the iMac? - presumably as you've got a
suitable monitor / keyboard already?
We're pretty much exclusively iMac of late (ditched the towers) and finding
them absolutely fine for both fairly intensive jobs (refinement) and
visualisation/building (Coot
I don't think that anybody has shown a significant performance
difference on Apple memory vs a reasonable 3rd party supplier. Apple
may potentially have better quality controls but places like Crucial
essentially have lifetime warranties on their memory. I use Crucial at
home and at work.
I
On Jan 22, 2013, at 13:08, Nat Echols wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:59 .
>
> I would definitely recommend maxing out the memory, but don't buy it
> from Apple - we were able to get 16GB from CDW for less than $100.
I think it is just that Apple only offers the highest end memory - CL and a
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Cara Vaughan
wrote:
> I've seen from the archive that some people do use the Mac Mini for
> crystallography and I've got two questions:
> 1. Do I need the Quad core or is a Dual core processor enough?
You can survive with the dual, but I would definitely spring fo
Current Mac minis outperform my 2009 models with which I am still happy. So
dual core I guess would be sufficient no need for upgrade on graphics card.
Jürgen
..
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Johns
Dear CCP4BB
I'm thinking about buying a Mac Mini and was looking for advice from
people who have used these for crystallography.
We don't need the computer to do serious number-crunching as we have
back-end servers that can do this for us, so it is primarily for
running coot for model bui
24 matches
Mail list logo
