OS9 server, X.2.3 clients using DSL

[balooka]

hi,

a client needs access to a database using an OSX and a Windows Box. Can (s)he connect to the host DB (on OS9) without any hassle? Will the name pop-up in the hostlist and will she be able to use the db?

I wish i could test this myself... but i can't...

Thanks in advance

JP

[Guest]

JP There is no reason that FMP should not work over the Internet over TCP/IP if the server has a registered IP address. If the data is sensitive, you might want to rethink this strategy. Sending data "in the clear" over the Internet is questionable. A public IP address is also open to a password attack. For sensitive data, i would look into a more secure solution such as IP "tunneling". Search under "VPN", virtual private networks.

[LiveOak]

Most of the answer here depends upon how your client is connecting. I'm guessing that you mean remotely, over the internet. How exactly you do this and the performance that results will depend upon what type of internet connections you each have. First, you need permanent internet connection with a static IP address, typically DSL for business. The next step depends upon whether or not you are using a router, if your machine use DHCP or static IP addresses. On you local ethernet segment, clicking the hosts button will show you the databases to be opened. Over the internet, you must specify the internet address of either your server, if you are directly connected to the internet or the address of your router, if your LAN is on the backside of a router. Your FM Server must have a static IP address, either a real one or an internal address. If you have a router, you must enable Port 5003 through the router and map it to the internal IP address of your server.

Having done all this, your performance will still be much slower than on you LAN, unless both you and your client have connections via some very high end connection such as a T3 or such. The alternative is to use Timbuktu, and let you client control an local machine on you LAN. Performance will be much faster as only KVM (Keyboard, Video, Mouse) information must travel over the internet.

-bd

[balooka]

hi,

thanks for the reply. At the moment we have a fmserver running on a G4 Mac, over a 2 Mbit DSL (up/downstream), with a ratio of 1:2. The -remote- client uses a 1 Mbit down and 512 upstream DSL connection. The fmserver is behind a cisco router and has it's own IP (we have a 25 # block).

We have an option for a 1:1 ratio VPN connection using 2Mbit up/down on both ends, but it is not enabled yet, nor do we know if this will serve our needs.

What we'll be using it for is a remote bookingsystem for ads and such in a weekly publication for a major publisher. They wish to use our image-database (including their own images aswell) remotely so all parties involved in the publication have access to the images (being it lowres thumbs or hres drumscans). I could do it all in cdml but that would be a challenge since there will be alot of portal invlved. Allowing 'direct' access in the DB would bypass the hassle.

All images however will be served over another 2mbit line using regular html (linked by a fm-field), so filemaker shouldnt have to send out alot (I think).

As for timbuktu: I have it running to monitor some db's on several servers, but I have to say that the speed of it isn't all that, even when I use my 1Mbit homeconnection. That could be a flaw in my system setup (OSX), not sure on that.

LiveOak, based on the above, do you still recommend using something like Timbuktu or go for the current available lines/VPN?

Thanks alot

JP