Hi,

has anybody ever tried setting up more at least two servers and using FM EasySync to keep the data synchronized on them? As far as I understand this would require some kind of separate sync worker machine to keep some kind of master DB.

Regards

Franz

Actually, Tim tried to do server - to - server sync and gave up (which says quite a bit).

http://timdietrich.me/blog/serversync-pulling-the-plug/

What's the purpose of the sever-to-server sync?  To have the 2nd server as a standby or would users actively hit both servers?

On 2.4.2017 at 0:27 AM, Wim Decorte said:

What's the purpose of the sever-to-server sync?  To have the 2nd server as a standby or would users actively hit both servers?

Users would actively hit both servers while they are up and connected to the internet.

So while everything is fine you got double the bandwidth. And one could even stop one of the Servers for maintenance without disrupting service.

4 hours ago, fwk said:

Users would actively hit both servers while they are up and connected to the internet.

So while everything is fine you got double the bandwidth. 

 

If you're thinking 'bandwidth' as in network throughput then that is rarely a bottleneck.  Processing power is.  Or in the network realm: latency.  Having filemaker servers that are more local to the users makes sense from that perspective but not from a pure bandwidth perspective.

server-to-server syncs can be done but it is a ton of work and requires an extremely stable and monitored deployment; so do it only for the right reasons and start by monitoring your current bottlenecks so that you don't try to solve a problem that doesn't need solving.

The go-to product for this kind of server-to-server sync has been SyncDek; now rebranded to http://www.syncserverpro.com/

I do believe that MirrorSync also offers server-to-server sync.

I definitely would not use FMEasySync since it is an abandoned product; for this kind of thing you need something that offers support.