Filemaker Server - buying a new machine

[ProBenefits]

O.K. I realize this has been covered multiple times in this forum, I guess I want confirmation.

I host approximately 30 FM files in a small user (10 or so) environment running FMPro Server 5.5.

After reading these boards for a long time, I've finally decided to split FM Server off our main W2K server running SBS. I'm going to purchase a dedicated box to server FM. I'm really doing this to increase performance, so I hope it works. (You've worn me down to where I feel like it makes sense!)

Couple of Questions:

1) Everyone seems to agree that for a Windows Platform to use W2K client (not server). I'm cool with this, but I'm curious as to why the FM best server practices guide that is frequently listed here as a reference specifically says "Do not use an operating system not designed to be a server, such as Windows NT Workstation or Windows 2K Professional." It then states how those OS are geared towards applications, etc.. (I know you can tell 2K to maximize background svcs, but just curious why it appears to go contrary to this board.)

2) The machine I'm considering buying is one of Dell's lower end server machines. I have a choice between IDE HD and SCSI. My inclination is to spend the extra bucks and do a SCSI. I have a choice between a 10K RPM SCSI and a 15K RPM SCSI. Am I likely to see any difference in FM performance between these?

3) Is 2.4GHz w/ 256MB enough machine. Will extra RAM help, extra processor? I want to buy the correct machine, not necessarily the cheapest. What is "ideal"?

Many questions that I'm sure have been answered before, but just curious to get a new consensus.

[LiveOak]

FileMaker Server is not a high demand program for a server. I like SCSI drives for their reliability (they have a 5 year guarantee for a reason). Either SCSI drive will be fine for your environment. A 2.4 GHz machine is plenty of machine for your application. I don't think FM will take advantage of the extra processor.

-bd

[stanley]

We use Macs for our FM Server machines, but the practice is the same. I can't answer the client vs. server question re windows, but it is the same on Mac OS X - the server version of the os is designed for something other than what FM Server does.

Which brings me to your #2. What FM Server does, more than anything else, is supply info from the disc drives. Therefore, the faster your drive, the faster FM Server will work. More specifically the faster your CONTROLLER, the faster FM Server. So, SCSI over IDE. Spend the extra bucks.

As far as #3 goes, again we use Macs, but FM Server is not very RAM/processer intensive, and I don't think you need to be concerned. I have clients with epic, pushing-the-limits databases hosted on old 233MHz Power Mac G3 machines with 256MB of RAM, and they crank just fine, mainly due to the databases being hosted on ultra-wide SCSI RAID systems.

That's my five cents worth.

-Stanley

[Anatoli]

SCSI or SCSI RAID. SCSI or SCSI RAID. SCSI or SCSI RAID. SCSI or SCSI RAID.

IDE doesn't do any checksums while writing to disks. So good data from memory can be wrongly written to disks and nobody knows.

Your machine looks OK to me.

1. The fastest FM server posted here designed by myself and build by MonsterboxPC has W2000 CLIENT.

2. Both SCSI will be OK. I guess 15k RPM are a bit noisier.

3. Until FMS 7 -- maybe -- 2 processors are not used. And extra RAM also not.

DO NOT GO FOR CELERON! If possible go for XEON or P4 with 512k cache.

[BuddySystems]

Ok first of all - anyone who says that FM Server on Windows or Mac boxes of any sort are faster than Linux - in any configuration - hasn't done their homework. Of course if you don't know Linux, don't even worry about it because the administration cost / time will overshadow any performance gains. But pound for pound you can spend $500 on a linux box and outperform almost any Windows box, and certainly any Mac one. Example: a 400mhz Pentium II running Linux with 128mb of RAM and IDE drives, with a 20 user heavily relational solution used by 12 employees, kicks the pants off of a P4 top of the line Dell server.

I'm NOT advocating LINUX here, just speaking the facts as my testing has shown.

Second - again based on experience - spend the money on the fastest processor you can, and forgo any fancy schmancy drives. Get the fastest IDE drive you can with the fastest backplane you can afford. Unless you are killing the server, RAID, will not improve your performance, and will only improve your reliability if you have a drive lying around if the other one dies. INSTEAD - make sure you have a good backup system and schedule FM Server for 1 or more daily backups during the day.

[Anatoli]

While I do agree with the most of the above, "Get the fastest IDE drive" is absolutely *RUBISH*!

IDE doesn't do any checksums while writing to disks. So good data from memory can be wrongly written to disks and nobody even knows that! Backups will get the same corrupted data over period of time and there is no mechanism to find out. That is NOT the case with SCSI subsystems!

How much is your data worth?

FM server is not taxing processor on Windows OS. It is running at 1-2%. Some peaks where noticed, but it never goes above 40-50%.

And it is probably correct, that Linux on the same HW will be faster by 50-100% that second fastest system -- Windows NT/2000. But so far nobody posted fastest FMS peaks from Linux world, than my results from W2000 -- but that is not real issue. It can be beaten.

[Mark Appleby]

If linux is so good look at new millenium boxes. But I have recently tried out a box which is experimental with P4 10,000rpm Serail ATA disks. This performed very well although I must admit that my testing was very basic. sorting 100,000 records. I didn't time it but it certainly seemed to do so far faster than I had experienced so far. I would agree that Monsterbox PC are a very easy company to do business with although I have no direct experience of using them, they were very proactive and honest in what they were recomending. I might yet use them.

Mark

[Kurt Knippel]

We (FM Forums) recently got one of the Toshiba Linux boxes from New Millenium. Once we have a chance to check it out we will report back on how it worked.

[ProBenefits]

Thanks for all the feedback.

I ordered the machine yesterday:

Dell PowerEdge

2.4Ghz Xeon Processor

512MB Ram

18GB 15K SCSI

GB Ethernet

$986.54 w/ $100 rebate = 886.54 incl. shipping,tax, etc.

I'm anxious to get it and have a standalone FM server.

[Anatoli]

Excellent Price! FMS will fly on that baby!

[Mark Appleby]

Further to the comments on this forum. I have some questions. Why is SCSI so much better than IDE/Serail drives where some of them are now giving us 10,000 RPM disks. When you install the SCSI drives you also have to put in controllers etc which brings up the price substantially. In fact if you put in mirroring RAID serail drives you can bring the price down massively, compared to a similar situation with SCSI.

What is this checksum that SCSI does? How does it make a difference? I have never had a problem with FM writing the wron information to disk. At least I never noticed it with IDE drives.

I am really looking forward to hearing more about the New Millenium Box. I understand that they are also looking at something bigger as well. If what I have heard so far is true, this could get very interesting, I must say though I am a little suspicious of the Celeron processor. I would not think of them as reliable as a P4.

My own thoughts are that RAID while not for everyone, is necessary in many areas where if the servers' disk goes down, the entire network will not be affected.

[Anatoli]

RE: I have never had a problem with FM writing the wron information to disk. At least I never noticed it with IDE drives.

I didn't lost any data, but I am still doing backups

Serial ATA has potential and it is also doing more write checking, than standard ATA. Right now serial ATA is not (much) faster than ATA.

SCSI is much faster, than any ATA and because it works as subsystem, it is not using main CPU for anything. That is not the case with ATA. That SCSI difference is more expensive but faster and more reliable. Only after all that come RPM into play.

When I was doing Video editing, SCSI pushed sustained 17MB through old Quadra 840 from 7200 RPM drives. That was 8 years ago. Since that time everything evolved, but ATA will have just barely matched that performance with much modern computers.

I believe Celeron will be the same as full P4 with one exemption -- size of cache and maybe FSB speed. Because of that I will never use them in server.

And there is RAID and RAID. Insist on live test -- unplug one drive and see what will happen.