Do I Need FM Server?

[Peter Fenner]

I have 6 users (on iMacs) and 1 host computer (also an iMac). FM5.0.

Database comprises about 30 files and is 200MB in size. Will I notice remarkable speed improvements if I invest in FM Server? Approx. how much faster? Are there other advantages? Should I consider a PC as host or a Mac G4 as host?

Peter

[LiveOak]

The biggest advantages of server are:

1) Stability. Crashing clients seldom does anything to FM Server hosted files.

2) Automatic scheduling of backups. Backups are possible with users connected. Every is just "coffee cupped" while backup occurs. You can script backups in your existing configuration, but all users must be logged off.

3) Multithreading. If one user in your current "non-FM Server" configuration is paused at a dialog, it hangs everyone. You can also force everyone off for shutdown.

4) Much greater capability, 125 files, 250 users. You are currently close to the limit of users/files for you configuration. We had a client copy hosted system with 9 files which would work for 20 users, but 18 files wouldn't.

I'll generate some disagreement, but IMHO I'd go with a Mac G4 (or your existing iMac!) running OS 9, RAMBunctious ram disk and Peek-a-Boo. I'd stay away from FM Server on OS X for now. The fact FM Server is an application gives a much better user interface than running as a service under NT, W2000 or XP. Staying a Mac makes sense if you are currently an all Mac shop. You will hear some claims of PC speed advantages, but I've not seen it. Make sure you use a good UPS on the machine running FM Server.

-bd

[Peter Fenner]

Thanks LiveOak

I am very happy if I can stay away from PC's as well as OSX. And now I have an excuse to get myself a new G4 and my old G4 can be the host. Superb!

[LiveOak]

You're correct about OS X, I was just reading ANOTHER post horror story of FM Server under OS X. I think we'll get there, but right now administrators running server facilities should be conservative and stay off the "bleeding edge. We administer a facility for a client (9 machines - 5 FM Server, 2 ASIP, 2 TBT) and plan to do a lot of testing of FMS and OS X before we go to primetime.

OBTW, the RAMBunctious & Peek-a-Boo configuration for FM Server gives us about a 2:1 performance improvement. We have about 10 server years of experience with this configuration and like it a lot. Also, strip OS 9 down to the bare minimum of extensions. We are also big fans of using and AppleScript to automatically backup to CD-R once a day. If you need specific info about setup, you can email me ([email protected]) or call (760-728-7046).

-bd

[Anatoli]

RE: You will hear some claims of PC speed advantages, but I've not seen it.

If you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

FM server for Windows is far the best product from FMI kitchen. It is properly written for Windows NT based systems. With all multitasking and multithreading capabilities, far surpass any MacOS applications, running in single or couple of threads.

[Guest]

FWIW, we are now five months running FMS 5.5 on OSX 10.2 without a reboot. The only caveat is that all development is done offline in single user mode after performing a backup.

[LiveOak]

It just make me a little nervous to transition large server facilities to OS X when Filemaker, Inc. warns of file corruption problems with this product. It depends upon how much you like excitement and dealing with screaming customers.

-bd

[Guest]

I am in full agreement with your caution.

In our case, I moved the database server and all clients from OS8.1 to OSX 10.2! For any lurkers, here is the FMP technical note on corruption during shutdown:

http://www.filemaker.com/ti/108428.html

I have seen corruption when editing database layouts in multi user mode. None since I move development off line. I have not noted corruption on shutdown because I have not shut down the system for 5 months? Basically I just encrypt the fmp on the fly backups (T,W,Th,F,S) and burn them to CD.