To Serve or not to Serve

[flowe]

Hiya People,

I have a dilemma about a project I am doing for a client. The client is using filemaker pro 5.5 client (non server) throughout their organization. I have been asked to redesign a database system to work best in a software workgroup. Currently, they have about 60 files in this workgroup and very likely sharing more than 10 files amongst 6 computers/users at once which is causing the expected instability. My delimma is whether to suggest they go to the Server Version which I expect would solve all their problems or keep with the Client version and merge the databases as they are suggesting and remained employed longer.

Can someone give me a run down on the pros and cons of each and give some insight on why they would be convinced the client version is right for them or cost effective?

I am thinking about costs. I assume the money it costs for a Server version and implementing it in this scenerio would be far less than paying me to merge 60 the files/layouts into one database(1hr vs 200hrs). Can you install the server and open the fp5 files and go on your way?

I have not worked with FileMaker Server to know the advantages other than sharing more files and knowing the general networking functions a server performs.

Thanks for help,

-flowe

[LiveOak]

The advantages of server are:

1) Scalability and stability. FM Server can handle 125 files and 250 users. A normal copy of FM can handle about 8 files and 25 users or 16 files and maybe 15 users. FM Server is MUCH more stable than files hosted on client machines for two reasons: a) Server is a one trick pony, it hosts. It doesn't have a standard FM user interface. : You dedicate a machine to FM Server (no if's and's or but's). The machine is stripped of as many goodies as possible. The machine is secured away from casual contact. The machine is protected by a UPS. The machine is backed up on a regular basis.

2) Multi-threading. A normal copy of FM is single threaded. If one user pauses in a script, everyone else hangs waiting for the continue. Server is multi-threaded, many scripts can run independently of each other.

3) Server is faster than a client copy as a host.

If the data in use is entirely worthless and it's loss is unimportant, peer to peer hosting is fine. If not, server is essential for a workgroup of the size you have described. What would the loss of a portion of the data cost? So many business never stop to think about how much of their operation's record keeping has transitioned to databases, how critical the data is, and how vulnerable it is to loss.

-bd