Josh Ormond

Moderators
  • Content count

    723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Josh Ormond last won the day on August 16 2016

Josh Ormond had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

79 Excellent

1 Follower

About Josh Ormond

  • Rank
    Director of Structural Entropy
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rochester, NY

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://fmrift.wordpress.com
  • Skype
    jmormond

FIleMaker Profile

  • Profile Updated
    02/15/2016
  • FM Application
    15 Advanced
  • Platform
    Cross Platform
  • Skill Level
    Expert
  • Membership
    TechNet
  • Title
    FileMaker Developer
  • Industry
    In-house

Recent Profile Visitors

13,900 profile views
  1. No argument from me. I have long thought something like that would make FM more attractive. At some point, companies will need to upgrade. All it takes is one computer that goes down, or is upgraded.
  2. I have responded to similar posts before. Google Search Trends don't always tell the story you think they do. If you compare MySQL "Interest Over Time" with FileMaker...you see that the decline in interest in MySQL is significantly worse. And FM is fairly flat overall. So what does that say? That less people are using MySQL? That Oracle isn't making tons of money from it? I'm sure you get the idea. I've worked with and around marketing companies my entire working career. Searches don't = sales. Interest Over Time doesn't ( up or down ) doesn't indicate a successful/failed company or product. The last company I worked for saw that first hand. They were purchased by a company that showed amazing graphs about the amazing search results and hits they get. In reality, the numbers were extremely padded from SEM, and highly deceptive. The company's practices and overall business approach caused them to lose millions of dollars of business in the first year of taking over. But their Google Trends graph looked great!!!
  3. Do you use 2-Step Verification? If yes. I think you need to setup an App password. Not sure how that part of it works with multiple users.
  4. I've run into that issue with other Windows apps. Word included. I haven't pinpointed a series of events that causes it. But I work almost exclusively on Macs now. ::shrug::
  5. If that is needed, you should be able to use the task scheduler to have that done daily. If it is happening that often, there may be a corrupt font on the layout.
  6. @John May - Point In Space - I'm not not recommending it. The issue for us, specifically, is the hardware support for the number of users we have hammering on the file all day. We have a couple of Xserves that we might have been able use. However, with the amount of time and effort required for us to make the change and setup the configuration and test it, we only really have one shot to get it right. Since we don't have a dedicated server guy, the 2 developers we have here handle that. So we chose to go with a powerful, new server that has plenty of room to grow. Even with that, there are times of the day when we are stressing FMS.
  7. To be honest, I never got around to figuring out exactly what was causing the issues ( interference with FMS processes or file issues ). Turning off FV made everything run better. My guess is, and it's only a guess, is that since FMS runs as a service ( the machine doesn't actually have to be logged in ), that a couple processes were overlapping. It could be that the encryption process altered something in the process. Hopefully they can see something. But in 5 years, FMI's engineers stand by the recommendation to not use it. That says something. If it's fine, I'd love to hear that from FMI engineers. One other possibility that I didn't get a chance to explore while I was there, Is the hard drive failing? That is a very real possibility.
  8. To add to what @Wim Decorte is saying, our office tried to use a newer MacPro ( trash can ) to replace our 2008 Mac Pro that was barely handling about 60 users. What we experienced, we a decrease in performance. It simply couldn't handle the constant in/out of database operations. The machine was spec'd to max. In the end we moved to a Dell server and it is performing nicely, and it's spec'd to allow a lot of growth.
  9. I had last tested it with FMS 14 on both Yosemite ( 10.10 ) and El Capitan ( 10.11 ). I also wouldn't initially recommend OS X as the server either. But there are still many installations out there running a fair amount of users on it. In fact, we just moved of an older MacPro ( 2008-ish ) that is serving 60-70 users to an enterprise grade server. If the machine has the spare processing power, I could see some configuration working where the install files for FMS and the FM files themselves are not being touched by the process. But that is not something I've tested. In a previous job, we wrote up a proposal to request an exception be made for the FMS. We made it clear that if FV was required, FMS install was not an option. And the quotes to build the system in something other than FM was in the $400k-$700k range, with a development time of 1-2 years.
  10. @Mike Duncan - are you using it on your FMS machine? Or just your laptops? I also use it on my laptop. But not the server. If there are files other than FM files that need encryption, I either put them on a separate machine, or in an encrypted/separate drive. There is, despite what Apple markets it as, a performance hit. The machine is busy doing something. With FV on, I've seen a lot of strange behavior with open/closing files, schedules running ( and file creation failing ), intermittent beach balls on the client end. In many scenarios, the only change I made was to turn off FileVault and the problems went away. I suppose the performance hit is minimal if you are just talking only the hit from FV. But on a busy server with 20-70 users, the performance hit gets amplified.
  11. The main item with FM's encryption at rest, is that the file is ALWAYS encrypted. If someone takes the file, there is no way to open it. Except to enter the encryption password. With FV 2, if someone pulls that file off the server, it is unencrypted. Unless you have FM's EAR turned on. And at that point, what is the point of turning an unsupported process at the OS level. One that you don't really know when the encryption/decryption happens. If the decryption happens before FMS has closed down the files, you may have a problem. Also, while you are reading Apple's marketing piece for FV 2 as being transparent and nothing happening, you don't really know for sure when it does it's thing. Which means you don't know for sure if the data is at risk. This is your, and the data owner's, risk assessment to make. I usually lean to the side of following supported configurations. We can only sound the warnings based on the info we have, and our own personal experience ( and that of each other ). While FV was running, I've tested FV 2, and I've running into a lot of unexpected behavior and performance issues. One REALLY important note. That kb article from FM was written in 2011!!! 2011!!! The same time FV 2 was implemented into 10.7 ( Lion ). It has been updated since then...and the recommendation remains the same. So, FMI engineers clearly know something IS happening behind the scenes.
  12. What benefit does FV 2 provide for FMS? The drive is unlocked and data unencrypted when booted up. Seems kind of pointless...especially when you already have the ability to encrypt the FM files at rest and in transit. It is my understanding that some of the processes involved in FV 2 CAUSE problems with FMS. Not sure exactly what it effects, but FMI still holds do not using it.
  13. What else are you looking for? FMI says explicitly that you shouldn't use it. Beyond performance, there are a lot of unknowns. From the perspective of FMS, the OS actions/processes are third party. FMI engineers rarely make statements about not doing something as specific without good reason. There is clearly something that causes and issue. I, too, would like to know what it is...however, I have dealt with many vendors that I don't know exactly the reason for the dos and don'ts. I can sometimes get some explanation, but other times not. It's often noteworthy that "absence of evidence of a problem is not evidence of the abscence of a problem". We are tryin to tell you what to do, we can only go off what info we have. The exact reasons for this position by FMI, is unknown or not publicly available.
  14. Be careful with replacing the Refresh Objects with Refresh window. With the implementation of Refresh Objects, Refresh Window now does exactly what it says...it refreshes every pixel in the window. That can be VERY costly depending on what you are doing.
  15. It does sometimes. But not always, and not always permanently. At a previous employer we ran into the problem a few times, until I reset the font cache. Edit: ( Tom was correct also. The Adobe cache was also part of the problem. ) This is FMI's official response on it. http://help.filemaker.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15419/~/some-fonts-are-replaced-with-an-unreadable-.tmp-font Some fonts are replaced with an unreadable .tmp font Answer ID: 15419 Products FileMaker Pro 15.x 14.x FileMaker Pro Advanced 15.x 14.x ISSUE: FileMaker, Inc. is aware of an issue that replaces some fonts with an unreadable .TMP font comprised of symbols. WORKAROUNDS: Update to the latest version of Adobe Reader. Delete the Windows font cache at C:\Windows\System32\FNTCACHE.DAT and restart the machine. Delete the Adobe cache inside C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Temp\acrord32_sbx\ Use a zoom level other than 100%. Created: Nov 17, 2015 11:41 AM PST Last Updated: Jun 09, 2016 07:41 AM PDT