Richard Fincher

Members
  • Content count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Richard Fincher last won the day on July 29 2014

Richard Fincher had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Richard Fincher

  • Rank
    Managing Director of Room101 Ltd

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London, UK
  • Interests
    Hosting, Business Process Management Systems

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.room101.co.uk/

FIleMaker Profile

  • FM Application
    13
  • Platform
    Mac OS X Mountain Lion
  • Skill Level
    Intermediate
  • Industry
    Datacentre Hosting

Recent Profile Visitors

1,713 profile views
  1. Thanks for this. Its behind a ASA Firewall, the admin ports IP restricted (16000)
  2. Hi all, I recently upgraded my Filemaker Server 13 to Filemaker Server 14. To get the new version to install, I had to downgrade my Java8 from u113 to u67 (separately installing the old Java version, not allowing the FMS installer to install Java itself). I also had to fiddle around to make sure it was running the httpd which comes with FMS and not the one bundled with Mac OS X El Capitan. My question is, am I now save to upgrade Java back to the latest version. I'm not anticipating needing to install FMS14 anytime soon, but does the "Deployment" part of FMS use Java, and if so, is it similar fussy about which version?
  3. FileMaker Inc's new licensing seems to favour multiple VMs running separate server licenses. per VM. I've tried FMS (actually 13.0.9 so far) in a 4GB VM with 2 cores and it seems to cope with moderate load OK. But I guess the real test is if you have multiple similar VMs competing for host-node resources. Using Parallels Desktop at the moment (as that's what I know), but also considering VMWare Fusion, and regular VMWare installed bare-metal hypervisor without any Mac OS X on the host. Anyone else tried anything like this?
  4. Agree with the comment about unfiltered daemon ports in datacentres. Our Mac servers are behind PIX firewalls with only port 5003 open to the world.
  5. I've been inserting small bits of data from Filemaker Pro into other systems we've written for some time using "OpenURL". However, this approach works, but leaves you with a browser window open, and isn't able to see what the other system returns. So moving to the "Insert from URL" script step instead. This seems to work fine when the "Insert from URL" is the only step in a script, but it doesn't complete satisfactorily when "Insert from URL" is one of multiple script steps. What could be happening? My first thought was that perhaps the script step isn't given enough time to complete, but now I'm not sure that's the answer.
  6. We don't have any experience with securing and maintaining Windows servers. A long time ago, there was Filemaker Server for Linux, but it was dropped from the product lineup.
  7. Regarding virtualisation, we use both KVM and OpenVZ on our Linux boxes, and many of the VMs have their storage on our SAN. We also use Parallels Desktop to host a FileMaker Pro 11 virtual machine for one customer who won't upgrade. at present, Apple's EULA for Mac OS X doesn't permit it to be virtualised other than on Apple Hardware. We are expecting this to change within 2 or 3 years.
  8. Yes, we do routinely retire our Linux boxed after 3-5 years, even if there's nothing wrong with them. But with the Filemaker Server setup, I wanted to run Mac OS X Mountain Lion, which the latest Macs don't run, and the aforementioned redundancy factor for PSUs and HDDs had to be weighed in the balance with the negatives connected with EOL equipment. I've seen a rack mount kit for the cylindrical Mac Pro and its massive (accommodates two Mac Pros though). Form factor was also relevant, as space in our datacentre is limited and at a premium. Our SAN does do iSCSI, but at the moment it is being used with NFS. but I've had trouble putting the /Library/Filemaker Server directory on anything but the boot drive.
  9. Yes, I am offering a commercial Filemaker Pro / Server hosting solution, however, we're more of a boutique ISP than a "pile-em high, sell-em cheap" ISP. In the first instance we'll probably have 5 - 10 WebDirect concurrent connections. My main priority and the reason for my question is, a large part of what I do as a sysadmin is minimising the effect customer A's activities have on customer B, or specifically in this case, making sure that customers who use WebDirect (which I gather is quite processor-intensive), are isolated as much as possible from customers who don't use WebDirect. But in the light of previous comments here, I'm wondering if "hot spare" might be the best use for the second machine rather than a two-machine deployment.
  10. Yes, Quad-Core 2.26 GHz, but only one CPU in each machine. The two CPU versions are rarer. thank you
  11. There's a company who I bought one of the X-Serves from, who reconditions them and gives a one year guarantee. Funnily enough, failover was one of the reasons I switched from Mac Mini Server to X-Serve. All my Linux servers have RAID5/10 and dual power supplies, so I felt a bit exposed with the Mac mini not having hot-swappable psus and hard disks. Getting the second X-Serve was partly driven by failover as well, after collecting your comments perhaps I should not do a two machine config, and use the second one as a hot spare? I think Filemaker Server 14 has a new feature which makes this possible? I expect a cylindrical Mac Pro will feature on the horizon in the next year or so, especially if I figure out how to use it with my SAN (Gigabit Ethernet). The latest Mac OS X still supports X-Serve, although it must be the final model known as "Early 2009"
  12. Am about to move to a two-machine deployment of FMS 13.0.10, having acquired a second X-Serve. However, although both have the same CPU, one has 12GB RAM and one 24GB. Also, the bigger one has 3x 15000rpm SAS drives, whereas the smaller one has the more usual 3x 1TB SATA drives, (RAID5 in both cases) My plan was to utilise the new smaller one as the WebDirect Server (as not all my hosted solutions use WebDirect). But am wondering if this is the best way around.
  13. There are several ways to achieve this. You could setup a VPN from the remote location, you could Portmap a public IP number (ideally a static IP number) through your firewall to your 192.168 number, or you could go with a professional Filemaker Hosting company, like us, who would host your fmp12 file in a datacentre
  14. I was agreeing with James Gill about Mac OS X Server (although not necessarily about using Windows Server instead)
  15. I've read in several posts that using Mac OS X Server with Filemaker Server was a no no, so my X-Serve runs regular Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, without Server Extensions. I'm about to try Filemaker Server 14, but will be doing this within a Parallels Desktop Virtual Machine. I realise that this won't give an indication of true speed, but it will let me proceed with testing without upgrading the main server to 10.9 Mavericks (at least until I'm ready)