FM Server 5 on windows 2000 professional

[naveen]

Can i have FM server 5 on windows 2000 professional. Will it be stable.

I dont see any updates also on the website. I have installed but it is not running properly.

ANy suggestions are really appreciated.

thanks,

naveen.

[complete-db]

Filemaker Server runs as a service. It will run on Win2k Pro however it is not supported by FMI. I would recommend investing in Win2k Pro Server.

Thanks,

PSC

[EddyB]

"I would recommend investing in Win2k Pro Server"

Sorry but you would be throwing money away doing this. FM Server will run on Win2K server or even NT Server, but it is certainly not required. I have even heard that it is not recommended...

I have FM Server running on Win2K and Win NT4 machines and have done for quite some time, problem free.

Regards

Ed

[Steven H. Blackwell]

You heard wrong. The preferred and best OS for FIleMaker Server (formerly FileMaker Server 5.5) on the Windows side is Windows 2000 Server--not Windows 2003 Server or Window NT 4 Server---and certianly not a workstation OS.

See:

http://www.filemaker.com/downloads/pdf/fms_best_practices.pdf

http://www.fmp-power.com/Optimal_Server.pdf

Steven

[EddyB]

Sorry, when I said recommended I meant by developers, not FMI. I still believe that putting FM Server on Win2K Server is a waste of money. As long as you set background tasks to maximum, it runs excellently.

I think it was late in 2003 that Anatoli ran some tests on server performance and 2k came out very well.

My best server runs on Win2K Pro, so much so in fact that I decided to switch over another FMServer from Windows Server to Pro and it improved performance! So if you want to spend the difference on Windows Server that is up to you, but I wouldn't bother.

The only FileMaker product I run on Windows Server is Unlimited...

Just talking from personal experience though.

Ed

[Wim Decorte]

Well, to reinforce Steven's message. There are a whole slew of issues that come with installing FileMaker Server on a workstation OS. While it is technically workable, in my mind it is foolish to recommend it.

This is an old discussion but let me say one thing: I make a good deal of money migrating people away from running Server on workstation OSs and onto real server hardware with a server OS. So by all means, do continue to recommend it.

:

Wim.

[EddyB]

Hi Wim,

Would you mind telling me what these "whole slew of issues" are as since 2K has been available I and many others have been running Server on it, totally problem free, and as I said with better performance than on Windows Server.

Ed

BTW - I am not saying this is the case with v7, I do not know enough about v7 to comment on this, in fact I don't know much about v7 at all! :

[EddyB]

Sorry, just re-read my post and it reads as though I am being arrogant, I am not. I really would like to know what these issues are :

Cheers

Ed

[Anatoli]

FMS is not using any special functions available on Windows server. It is NOT using FileSharing, nor IIS or FTP. The only functions, which are used, are disk access TCP/IP and nothing else. The TCP/IP output from FMS is going straight to TCP network. So even the W2k workstation software cannot accommodate more than (I believe) 10 guests for filesharing, the FMS will happily supply data to 250 connected users. One can disable most services on W2k and get extra bit of speed. If someone wants to waste money on idle Windows Server just do it. That is fine with me :

[Mariano Peterson]

I think Windows Server has increased optimization for network I/O, which FileMaker is highly dependent upon.

[J]

Windows server gives you access to more power (ram, cpu's, clusters, etc.), more stability, and hopefully use it exclusively as a data server.

I am sure it would run fine on a win2k machine as well.

Jason