Jump to content

FileMaker Server 15 VM settings

Recommended Posts

Any suggestions/limitations to hosting FMS 15 in a virtualized environment?  Currently, we host a 30-40 user, 10 gig FM db on a physical server, however, p to v is being suggested by others in our organization (They're also inclined to config pooled versus static resource settings which would seem to affect the manner FMS functions) 

Elaborating on specific VM configurations in a Windows environment would be greatly appreciated!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no difference in the resource specs for a VM vs. a physical server.  With one caveat: you have to make sure that the host machine is not constrained for resources by the other virtual instances that it runs.

Go by your current FMS stats.log numbers (you do have the 'usage statistics' log toggled in the FMS admin console hopefully, on the 'logging' tab).

What's is the 'pooled' vs. 'static' about?  How do they see this happening?  What would not be configured statically?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Pooled" meaning that the FM server would use resources "as needed" (depending on server workload) versus a static configuration which would "lock-in" resources regardless of server workload. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a minimum assignment to the machine?  I don't think I would be happy with a pooled setup for a database server (of any kind).  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Processor cores are usually assigned on-demand, but RAM should definitely be statically (not dynamically) assigned.  Dyanmically assigned RAM is a bad idea no matter what you're running on a VM server.

- John

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from experience migrating to MS Hyper-V, I agree with John in stating that having the RAM statically assigned is a very wise idea.  Especially in the way FMServer uses RAM cache.  Having personal remote desktops be dynamically managed is OK, but not a VM running FMServer.  

For what it's worth, I've found that the typical bottleneck in a VM environment is the disk(s) read/write speeds.  Make sure to not only set aside a good portion of budget for fast drives/interface, but that whomever is setting this environment up knows what they are doing.  If you don't have experience, then paying for a consultant might make the difference in a system that migrates smoothly and a failed project.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By dataclip
      We have a couple of servers running on AWS. As of the middle of last week we suddenly are having connection problems. The server logs mostly lists error 10, sometimes error 51. These customers have poor internet connection, so we have set up a server and a client in the cloud. The users connects to the client through an RDP session. It is a Windows enviroment with one customer using Windows server 12 and FMS 14, the other Windows server 16 and FMS15. We use a seperate AD server to control the RDP access and accounts to the FMP server, clients have no acces to the FMS server.
      I have read previous posts on this issue. I do not think there can be any hardware issue, since the server is hosted with Amazon and both server and client are on an internal network. To be sure I have filed a support request with Amazon as well.
      The strange thing is that the error message sometimes occurs within a minute and then FMP freezes on the user while they are still working in the FM app. It is my understanding that error 10 occurs if the client does not respond to the server ping for 2 pings, so time out for this error should be 125 seconds. 

      These servers have been running without this issue for a long time now. Any idea why this has suddenly changed and why the error message errors while tghe users is using the FM app?
    • By slywilcox
      So our IT group migrated a Filemaker 14 server with a business application that I support.  Since the migration, the system response has been horrible.  Screens that took about a second to render before are now taking 15 seconds.  I have monitored the server and the most significant statistic seems to be network latency.  Most of the other statistics seem fine, but latency has gone from 20-30 milliseconds to 800 milliseconds at times.  Does anyone have experience with the Scale HC3 architecture running Filemaker solutions?  What has your experience been? Are there words of wisdom to make this better?
    • By mr_mike
      I'm looking for both guidance and software to assist in FileMaker Change Control.  With over a 100 deployed solutions across multiple servers the process change management from dev > test > production is very labor intensive.  BaseElements helps a lot but it is only one part of the puzzle.  Porting the data from production > test across these solutions and then doing UAT and QA is again, labor intensive.
      How are others handling this?  Is there some software or process documents I'm missing?  I'd welcome any input to this topic.
    • By theusualsuspect
      I'm wrapping my head around the Standby Server feature, and there's only one aspect that I can't figure out. I use Webdirect, so I'm forwarding port 80 to the internal ip address assigned to my primary server. If that were to go down, my standby server would take over - but it's assigned a different ip address - so my router's port forwarding rules will still be pointing to the ip address of the primary server. Is this accurate? If so, is there a way around this?
    • By cbum
      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...
  • Who Viewed the Topic

    4 members have viewed this topic:
    Terrible Toll  D Rai  scain101  JerrySalem 
  • Create New...

Important Information

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