Does FMP Server require a server platform ???

[shadowdoc]

I am considering a FMP server solution and need to plan for hardware. Since FMP server has it's own server functionality built in [i think], does it require a server system OS to fully function ? Can I install the server software on a workstation class machine and still serve files ? Thanks...

[Keith LaMarre]

FileMaker Pro Server 7 does not "require" a Server class machine. That being said, there are some caveats. Obviously, the faster the machine (particularly the drive I believe), the better the performance. In addition, FileMaker itself does not offer any "Server"capabilities beyond hosting filemaker files. Yo will NOT want to use this as a File, Mail, Web or Print Server.

FileMaker Server 6 has even less requirements as it only can use 40M of RAM as a cache.

[RalphL]

Your operating system should be Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition or Windows 2000 Server SP4. See http://www.filemaker.com/products/fms_requirements.html for hardward and os info.

[shadowdoc]

Looking at the link to filemaker provided by RalphL (thank you), it would appear that a server OS is required. All I need the machine to do is serve FM files. Any more thoughts :

[Wim Decorte]

I'd say FMS7 *does* require a server class machine. Read up on how the cache flush process has changed, the ability to piggy-back on the OS's multi-homing capabilities, ...

If you want to enhance th probability of a trouble-free deployment, go for a server class machine with a server class OS. That way you get all the monitoring and advance warning tools you need.

HTH

Wim

[Cortana]

What if I have a PowerMac G5? I think I won't need a server class machine if I have this one, am I wrong?

[Keith LaMarre]

For FMP7, I would personally consider a G5 a Server class machine (I hope so since I am going to be using this.)

[Vaughan]

I'd say that any computer that is NOT a consumer-grade machine (like the iMac, eMac, cheap PC box) would suffice. Good desktop computers have quality disk drives and fast internal bus speeds.

This isn't to suggest that I don't like Apple's iMac and eMac computers: I just bought an eMac myself, I love it. But I would not use it for a production server.

[gdurniak]

The best advice is to try running filemaker server ( 5, 5.5, or 7 )on a non-server OS machine. It will run.

FileMaker does recommend using a server OS, for peak performance, but it is often overkill

I run filemaker server 5 and 5.5 on mac OS 9.0.4, and windows 2000 professional SP3, both very stable

We tried filemaker server 5 on windows 2003 server OS, but it was not stable

On OS X, be sure you have at least filemaker server 5.5v4, or it will trash your files

A workstation is fine. Add a SCSI Hard drive, if you can afford it.

[Deep Thought II]

if u dont want to buy a new computer for serving the files, make a virtual machine on ur existing machine with the server OS. just an option.

[shadowdoc]

I'm still confused, but it sounds as though a server "class" machine is what's necessary, not the server OS. That's really the decision I need to make, because another minor application will need to be on the same machine, but it cannot run on a server OS paltform.

Thanks for all the info...

[mbossy]

Shadowdoc,

I'm in the same boat as you and posted a thread on the MacOSX + filemaker board.

For what its worth coming from a newbie I imagine we won't need "server" class computers for a small business solution. I'm using a dual 1.25 ghz G4 MDD which in itself might be overkill, it also happens that the architecture of my G4 is based on Xserve technology which I imagine can only help ( at some point Apple also bunded OS X server with this particular G4 so I'm pretty sure its up to the task) I think the main things to look for when choosing a consumer level machine over a server class machine include how well does the box handle heat dissipation and cooling, does it have RAID capabilities or upgrades available, space issues etc... otherwise there's not much of a difference between most server class machines and consumer level machines nowadays ( maybe a beefed up powersupply might be the exception.

If you want to look at my planned set-up look at my thread in the OSX and FMserver board.

[Wim Decorte]

so you're saying that you're willing to sacrifice the stability of your data because of a minor application??

Server OS and Server HW go together. Only a Server OS can take full advantage of Server HW.

[Wim Decorte]

More true for Apple hardware than for Windows hardware. There is very cheap Windows hardware out there that is absolutely positively not fit for a server role.

[mbossy]

That's a good point Wim Decorte. There are two separate issues here though. There are no-name brand questionable consumer hardware as well as established brand names out there (especially on the PC side if things). It is possible, however that you could end up buying a cheap no-name PC server that is outclassed by a Dell workstation of higher quality- but that usually is not the norm unless you're dealing with shady vendors.

I think it is necessary to choose hardware based on current needs as well as scalability if you plan your business to grow. It all depends upon what your needs are. It is perfectly acceptable to host a filemaker database on a workstation class computer networked peer to peer if that set-up will comfortably meet your needs. You don't necessarily need a server class machine, FM server software, or a server operating system in some instances-- filemaker pro is designed ready for use right out of the box. For mission critical data/ applications you're going to have to choose more wisely and weigh the costs versus benefits.

Case in point. I'm currently trying to decide between an external SCSI RAID solution versus an external firewire 800 raid solution to store my fm server and database files. Upon reading Filemaker's best practice solution they make a statement against using firewire or USB 2.0 for mission critical data-- they claim that it would be too easy for someone to pull out a cable in the midst of data transfers. The difference between an external firewire 800 raid solution and an external scsi raid solution is $1500+. While $1500 or $2000 might be a negligible expense for a large corporation- a smaller start-up business might find it significant.

I think there are best practices for the small business user and best practices for large corporations and it all involves a cost versus benefits analysis. For me buying a raid scsi solution for an additional $1500 over a $500 firewire 800 mirror raid solution does not appear cost effective, especially when you consider the fact that data/network security goes much deeper than just hard drive reliability. I know that SCSI is faster, tends to be more heat tolerant, and has an overall better reliability than your run of the mill ide drives. But there are differences in quality between IDE drives and you have to choose carefully. Also the entire purpose of buying a mirror raid set-up is to plan for possible drive failure. So when you consider the increased cost of replacing a SCSI drive over an IDE drive it becomes even less cost effective over the long run. I think the real differences between firewire over scsi raid solutions comes down to the quality of the enclosures and monitoring capabilities, when you look at the quality firewire mirror raid products put out by Miglia and Firewire Direct think the gap between scsi versus ide narrows further. When you really break it down you realize that with the $1500-2000 saved you could buy a professional server cabinet (and then some) to protect your server and storage subsystem. No use in blowing your wad of cash on a $2000 scsi raid system if you leave it exposed to the office "elements".

So bottom line, when it comes to choosing equipment it all involves using your head and making wise decisions. I also find it somewhat hilarious that Filemaker put's out a best practices paper for Filemaker Server 5.5 users when all they had to really say was don't use any version other than version 4. That's the best practice for you right there.

[LiveOak]

If you can go internal raid, small Atlas 10k III and IV can be had for very cheap on ebay. Small here is 40GB. For the big server world, these are of little interest. Even used, these drives maintain their 5 year warrant, the status of which you can check on a website. Ultra 160 interface cards (Adaptec 29160's x 2 or 39160) are still a little pricey, but if you shop ebay, you can find deals. Using this approach, you should be able to get two drives and two 160 cards for under $500. 40GB is usually adequate for all but the most media intensive FM solutions.

In OS X Server use we find internal SCSI drives a LOT less problematic than external Firewire drives.

-bd

[mbossy]

Thanks for the reply LiveOak.

I've given internal raid alot of thought and initially was looking at the Acard 688X solution with ide drives. Quite inexpensive for an under $200 dollar raid solution. I use Acard ide controllers in my client "frankenmac" 7300 G4's but I found the cards finicky with certain brands of drives and will only work reliably with ATA 100 IDE cables for some reason or another. When I purchased the G4 MDD this past June I knew I was making some sacrifices in using it as my filemaker server box. To me one of its weaknesses appears to be an inadequate cooling system to actually handle its 4 drive capabilities. The G4 form factor is not much different save a few more holes punched out in the back since the blue and white G3 days. There have been reports of these boxes overheating when filled with drives especially 10,000 rpm drives, so I already felt that in terms of long term reliability an external drive subsystem was probably the safest way to go for my needs. I've already looked at internal scsi raid solutions before and I felt I would have to make too many cooling modifications for it to be worth my while though it is closer to within my price range.

So an external raid 1 hard drive subsystem was the way I felt I had to go. I first looked at scsi raid 1-5 solutions but they appear to be out of my budget especially for a small business. Then I started investigating these recently introduced (within the last year) firewire 800 raid 1 solutions by Firewire Direct and Miglia (MediaBank HSR). They are new technology and for that reason alone one should probably be cautious, but at their price range and feature set-- for the small business owner with lesser needs on the surface they appear to be the perfect solution.

Now, in the past I used to also view Firewire drives with a healthy dose of suspicion, this after experiencing several incidents of corrupted data some drives. But through further testing I found out that the problems I was having with them had more to do with incompatibility problems I was having with the add-on PCI firewire adapters on legacy macs rather than the firewire drives themselves. I don't recommend using firewire on legacy macs which originally did not support firewire 400 or 800, they're too unreliable with add-on firewire cards. But recently I have been gaining more and more appreciation for what firewire has to offer when these drives are attached to macs built with onboard firewire ports. More than once firewire has saved my butt. ( For those interested, I've found out that you can recover corrupted or apparently unbootable ide drives by mounting them within a firewire enclosure. In fact my firewire enclosures have a perfect record of recovering all my ide drives which I thought were hopelessly corrupted or defunct. Just take the dysfunctional drive, screw it into a firewire enclosure plug it in to your mac, power it up and it should mount, then just run discwarrior or disc first aid from utilities and everything is usually fixed).

But getting back to firewire. For heavy use it is recommended that you use a pci raid controller that is powered up from the main powersupply and not the PCI bus. This in itself can be a source for many people's problems. I think the Miglia alchemy firewire card is one of the few firewire raid controllers that offers this feature through a molex connection on the card itself. If I go with firewire raid drive subsystem this definitely is the type of card I'm going to look for,

LiveOak, what specific kinds of problems did you find with your external firewire drives and OS X Server? Were they the more recent raid solutions? Also, I read a few of your posts and I was thinking about running my FM server off MacOS 9, but I'm wondering if you still recommend that given the FM server 5.5 version 4 release. Has this release solved most of your clients problems?

Looking forward to your response, and many thanks again for your input.