sfpx

How does MS work with the "new" FM licensing system ?

5 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

We are currently using MS with FMS 14 ( concurrent connections license).

The new licensing (which I really hate) of FMS 15 and 16 use the notion of "users" instead of concurrent connections.

How does MirrorSync work with that system ?

If I have 50 different users who sync their offline database , do I really need to buy 50 FLT licenses (knowing that those users will not connect directly to the server and only use MS to sync) ?

 

 

Edited by sfpx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MirrorSync does not need any FileMaker Server licenses to sync. All communication with FileMaker Server is via JDBC or XML, not via a connected FileMaker client application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply Jesse.

What about containers ?

From the documentation

Quote

MirrorSync 2.1 and later does not use any concurrent connections for non-container data (text, number, date, time, timestamps). If you are syncing container fields, then MirrorSync may need to connect to FileMaker Server for the duration of the sync (it disconnects as soon as the sync finishes), depending on what version of FileMaker Pro/Go you are using, as well as the size of the container field contents.

Should I convert my container fields into base64 text fields to avoid that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is very inefficient to deal with container data as base64. By default, MirrorSync will not switch to using a FileMaker client guest connection unless it is transferring container data where a single field is larger than 10 megabytes. It is rare for a single container field to store data that large (iOS pictures taken with the camera are typically 1-3 megabytes). If you do have container fields larger than 10 megabytes, and you want to prevent MirrorSync from connecting as a guest of FileMaker Server, you can set a global variable to increase that threshold to a large number. That would be a much better solution than using base64 encoding for all container data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now