Jump to content

cbum

Members
  • Content count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cbum

  • Rank
    dilettante

Profile Information

  • Title
    Associate Professor
  • Industry
    Academia
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Baltimore
  • Interests
    Molecular Cancer Biology

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
    Intermediate
  • FM Application
    15 Advanced

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
    Mac
  • OS Version
    El Cap
  1. Thanks for the clarification - I did not pick up on that. I just tried it and it works great - thanks for that. It also works fine if the field is modified on another layout. Just trying to understand the mechanism here - if you define a variable as a field in a let statement, any modification in the field activates the autocalc after the semicolon? Is that described somewhere? Thanks again!
  2. Thanks Comment. I was considering triggers, but do they work in the context of another table layout? If so, this wold be perfect. Thanks for the "Self" - is that relatively new? c.
  3. Would appreciate help on what I thought was a simple problem: I would like to auto-update a date field ("FinalOutcomeUpdate") any time a user changes the entry in a text field ("final_Outcome"). Something like using the Auto-enter Modification Date, but only triggered by changes in (a) specified field(s). So far I tried variations of this calc, with no success: Case ( IsEmpty (final_Outcome) ; "" ; ContainsValue ( Get ( ModifiedFields ) ; 1 ; "final_Outcome" ) = 1 ; FinalOutcomeUpdate = Get (CurrentDate) ; FinalOutcomeUpdate ) Right now, this yield a "?" when modifying "final_Outcome", and entering a date into "FinalOutcomeUpdate" by hand is blocked. not sure if this is a correct way to use the customF "ContainsValue", to evaluate the "Get ( ModifiedFields)" function. Any suggestions welcome. Also, is there a way to define a "default result" for the case statement to be "do nothing"? (not "", since that blanks existing entries).
  4. Yes, I was wondering about the progressive backups as well, but I have not used them so far. The command line you mention, "fmsadmin pause", is invoked with a FM script, eg at a specific time to coincide with scheduled backups,, or is that something the OS recognizes? c.
  5. thanks guys, great feedback as always. I do not believe this is a cloud solution, certainly not like AWS, though possibly some institutional "cloud", and they do run virtual machines, I will have to find out if that is what they are planning for the FMS. As to backups & AV - I hear you, and hope they will. This may sound silly, simply reflecting my win ignorance, but can the win volume snapshot service be told to ignore specific files or subdirectories, or is it all or nothing? If the former, it should be feasible to tell it to ignore the live DB files and only back up the backup folder, no? I had not thought about AV - how do I address a possible data-center wide requirement that all drive be under AV control? Are there AV solutions that can run at intervals, coinciding with a script to turns the DB files on and off? Thanks
  6. For security reasons, my institution is requiring me to migrate my FMS15 solution, currently residing on a MacPro in my office, to the IT data center. Since they do not run MacOS, this includes a migration to a hosted windows server running FMS advanced. I no nothing about windows (eg: what is a hosted win server vs simple win server ???) , so I will be totally dependent on the IT staff knowing what they are doing (and they barely know FM, I narrowly escaped having them try to recreate the solution in Access for $$$$$ ...): Current Environment · FileMaker Server Advanced running on local Mac OS12.12 system. · RAID-0, Solid State Drives · 8-Core CPU · 32gb RAM · FileMaker DB is 100gb with additional storage required for temporary files and local DB backups Proposed Environment · Hosted Windows Server running FileMaker Server Advanced · 4-CPU · 16gb RAM · 1tb Storage I have many questions/concerns, but would appreciate feedback on 2 issues: 1. Backups: My understanding is that FM is adamant that no backup system can touch a “live” database file, causing potential corruption. FMS has its own internal backup mechanism, and you point it to some external drive / directory etc, where it creates backups that can then be copied/archived by a system process or third party backup system. The IT manager I am discussing this with replied the following: "Backups should not be an issue either. We've been using this model on our SQL servers and have not experienced a single issue over many years. They do their backups and we do our own as well." I don't know what the windows server system is doing for backups, but are the FM warnings about letting other backup systems touch live FM files only for 3rd party SW, and system processes are OK? Any specifics I should communicate to the IT guys? Again, I know nothing about how win or win/server does this. 2. Performance: I am obviously worried performance will take a hit, if only from networking. I am hosting a dozen related files ranging from 1-50 GB, typically 5-10 concurrent local and remote users. The proposed environment seems less optimized for DB performance - what are the key parameters I should negotiate on? My current 32gb RAM may well be more than what is needed (I don't use any web or go functions, just straight FM clients), but can I determine from the admin console logs/stats how much is really needed? My request for SSDs was immediately shot down, how much can I get from various RAID configs they may or may not agree to? Thanks for any feedback - I am so not looking forward to this...
  7. Hi Wim, thanks for your response - you were correct. I only got back now, and the folder containing the DB files indeed lacked fmserver as user. I was able to simply use the GUI in the cmd-i box to add fmserver with r&w privileges, applying it to all contained files, and all went back to normal. I had done this using chown & chmod a few years ago, so I was pleasantly surprised the GUI worked as well. It remains unclear why this corruption occurred, as mentioned, I had done both FMS and MacOS updates at the same time in a rush to get out the door...
  8. Thanks, they are not paused. Host is not asleep. ne other item: I had just updated the OS with its latest security upgrade before updating FMS to 15.0.3. Could there be some complications with the new security patch?
  9. I updated my FMS15 from 15.0.2 to 15.0.3 yesterday (on MacOS Sierra & latest updates) running on a MacPro. I shut off the DB before updating. Today, my host files are unmodifiable. Anyone see this? Did the files get corrupted? They behave normally otherwise... I am traveling, so I can't troubleshoot directly, but I can use the server admin console remotely.
  10. FileVault 2 and FMServer

    Apple tech support called back with feedback from their engineers, who echoed what they had said: FV2's EAR means that except for boot up and shut down, there is nothing interfering with running apps. FV2 encrypts the drives at the logical volume level using core data at shut down. And indeed files can be copied unencrypted from a logged in account, so be aware of that. The engineer asked for details about the FMS issues that had been reported, so I told the support guy to copy and paste the most informative passages from this thread to the engineer. I will update if I hear anything back.
  11. FileVault 2 and FMServer

    Josh & Mike, Thanks for your comments. The issue that files on a logged in mac are unencrypted and subject to getting copied to a thumb drive etc is definitely real, and may be a strong argument against FV in certain situations, but is not relevant here, as we are not concerned about Mr. Robot-style cyberwarfare. My data does not leave the server, users work on it remotely (using SSL). IP sec is just concerned about someone breaking into (locked) offices and grabbing computer hardware to sell. They don't want unencrypted PMI on stuff that can be carried away, so boot or other drives need to be encrypted by an approved method . PMI does not have commercial value of the kind usual thieves would care about, so I don't see anyone breaking in and sticking in a thumb drive to covertly steal PMI from a running server. Josh, your experience with FV on 10.10 and 10.11 does not jive with what Apple is saying. I called them again this morning and gave them the link to this thread. They maintain that FV2's EAR only affects boot up and shut down, there should be no processes interfering with the FMS engine once it's running (I'm a bit confused about your point about opening and closing files showing strange effects - I don't usually open or close files, they keep running once FMS is running...?) They read your posts, and do not see how FV could be involved, but they agreed to get in touch with the engineering guys to discuss possible low level processes etc that are not usually discussed. I will let you know if they get back to me.
  12. FileVault 2 and FMServer

    According to Apple, is decrypts at boot up, and encrypts at shut down. While the server is running, it's transparent and nothing is happening. Do you know anything different? As such, it's simply designed as safety against physical theft, nothing else - IT sec is fine with that, as all network traffic is secured by SSL by FMS. I'm assuming that's how the FM version of encryption at rest does it as well, but I don't know?
  13. FileVault 2 and FMServer

    Wim, I know about "FMS requires exclusive control over the files" - that's why I don't use Time Machine as backup etc. But you guys did read my post, right? Where I mention that FV2 does encryption at rest, not on the fly, exactly what is said about the FM solution. Where do you see "Apple FV's routines ... being ... smart enough to interpret what FMS is doing" creating a problem if that is true? According to Apple, 2 days ago, nothing is happening regarding FV routines while FMS is running. That is what encryption at rest means, after all. What is vague or unclear about that? Or are you just telling me Apple tech support is lying to me? Josh, re: "drive is unlocked and data unencrypted when booted": How is that different from the FM version of encryption at rest? Isn't that exactly what it does as well? re: "It is my understanding that some of the processes involved in FV 2 CAUSE problems with FMS. Not sure exactly what it effects..." Right, that is what FM people tell me (except they haven't specified FV2 vs FV1, to me at least), so why won't they confirm that that is happening with FV2 as well? Tech support refused to be specific on that point. And if that IS the case, why not update the knowledge base section to state that, so I can show that to my IT sec people? I do not find it intuitive that there are FV2 processes interfering with FMS if it only does anything on boot up and shutdown (that is exactly how the apple tech guy represented it). If there is an interaction at those 2 times, then first of all, JUST SAY SO, and second, there is already a setting in FMS that prevents the server to start at boot - I use it because some of my disks are external and take time to spin up, so that should be easy to mitigate. There was an entire session at DevCon about how to help make FMS more easily accepted in institutional environments - "Just use the FM option" without rational explanation is not helping to be responsive to IT sec requiring FV on macs.
  14. FileVault 2 and FMServer

    Josh, a simple statement that their recommendation is based on FV2 rather than FV1 would be a good start. As described above, the current info in the knowledge base article strongly suggests it is not relevant to the current version of FV ("FileVault is a feature that performs on the fly encryption", which is clearly wrong), which has been out for over 5 years, and FM tech support is unwilling to explain the current entry or indicate that it relates to FV2. As it is, I'm getting NO information. We can't go off what info we have, since there is none.
  15. FileVault 2 and FMServer

    Wim, Apple, as the OS provider, is 1st party for them, and they have vetted and accepted FV as offered by the OS a option for their security requirements. (It's already a win that they even consider Mac as a useful platform, believe me). For them, FM is simply a SW vendor for that platform, and they don't want to check every other option out there, I assume. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to want to know what the strong antipathy to using FV with FMS is based on, and particularly if this even applies to the current version available since 2011, and I can't get any useful response from FM. I'm hoping someone can fill in the blanks. There is no "FM position" as you suggest that I can find beyond the quote I included above, which I hope you agree, does not amount to much and sounds like it is out of date and not applicable to the current FV2.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.