Filemaker 6 Unlimited and Filemaker 5 Server

[Jeff G]

I am currently running Filemaker 5 Server and Filemaker 6 Unlimited on an Mac OS X machine. I have them both on the same machine. The Filemaker 6 Unlimited was set to open up a file hosted on the 5 Server. But, for some reason the file was getting corrupt. I think I have narrowed it down to Unlimited was corrupting the file when somebody accessed it via the web. Is it possible to run both of those programs on the same machine? Am I asking for trouble? If I move the Unlimited to a different machine, but continue to access files hosted on the Server machine via Unlimited for web access will I be okay?

[Ender]

It is NOT possible to run FM Server and Unlimited (or Client) on the same machine at the same time, for the reason that you have discovered. It corrupts the databases.

Unlimited should be running on a separate computer, accessing Server's databases via Hosts. Then have your web connections go to the IP address of the computer running Unlimited.

[Jeff G]

Thank you for the info. I will move Unlimited over to another machine and see how it works out.

Jeff

[magsuk]

I, like Jeff, have been running FM6 Unlimited and FM 5.5 Server on the same Mac OS X machine for nearly 3 years. However, FMU is used to publish databases on the web, FM Server is used to serve other (non-web) databases to staff. We have encountered some intermitent corruption issues over this time, but more so just recently. Having read the advice here, we will look into moving one service to another machine.

[xochi]

I've been running FMServer 5.5 and FM6 Unlimited on the same machine for over a year now. Mac OS X 10.3.x. Absolutely rock solid (once I updated to the latest versions of both FMServer and FMUnlimited).

One thing that is hard to do is make absolutely sure that FM6U is only opening the files via network (the "Open Remote" command as served by FM Server) -- do NOT open the files that are being served directly from the disk. If i remember correctly, i had to go through all files & relationships and make sure that "store relative pathname" was checked in all file references to make sure it wasn't ever opening a file directly from disk.

Caveat: My use is fairly light, so I can't vouch for stability under a heavy load.

[xochi]

I've been running FMServer 5.5 and FM6 Unlimited on the same machine for over a year now. Mac OS X 10.3.x. Absolutely rock solid (once I updated to the latest versions of both FMServer and FMUnlimited).

One thing that is hard to do is make absolutely sure that FM6U is only opening the files via network (the "Open Remote" command as served by FM Server) -- do NOT open the files that are being served directly from the disk. If i remember correctly, i had to go through all files & relationships and make sure that "store relative pathname" was checked in all file references to make sure it wasn't ever opening a file directly from disk.

Caveat: My use is fairly light, so I can't vouch for stability under a heavy load.

[xochi]

I've been running FMServer 5.5 and FM6 Unlimited on the same machine for over a year now. Mac OS X 10.3.x. Absolutely rock solid (once I updated to the latest versions of both FMServer and FMUnlimited).

One thing that is hard to do is make absolutely sure that FM6U is only opening the files via network (the "Open Remote" command as served by FM Server) -- do NOT open the files that are being served directly from the disk. If i remember correctly, i had to go through all files & relationships and make sure that "store relative pathname" was checked in all file references to make sure it wasn't ever opening a file directly from disk.

Caveat: My use is fairly light, so I can't vouch for stability under a heavy load.

[Vaughan]

Running FMS and FMPU on the same box is *not* a recommended practice.

[Vaughan]

Running FMS and FMPU on the same box is *not* a recommended practice.

[Vaughan]

Running FMS and FMPU on the same box is *not* a recommended practice.

[xochi]

Why? I know that many people say this is the case, but I've never heard a cogent reason why -- it seems to me that as long as you avoid the file-reference issue (opening a file locally when you meant to open it via remote) it works just fine. Given the fact that it can save a ton of money (the price of a 2nd server, electricity, etc.) it seems to me a reasonable choice, if you know what you are doing.

I'm not claiming that FM Incorporated endorses it, but just pointing out that (at least for one setup) it seems to work just fine.

[xochi]

Why? I know that many people say this is the case, but I've never heard a cogent reason why -- it seems to me that as long as you avoid the file-reference issue (opening a file locally when you meant to open it via remote) it works just fine. Given the fact that it can save a ton of money (the price of a 2nd server, electricity, etc.) it seems to me a reasonable choice, if you know what you are doing.

I'm not claiming that FM Incorporated endorses it, but just pointing out that (at least for one setup) it seems to work just fine.

[xochi]

Why? I know that many people say this is the case, but I've never heard a cogent reason why -- it seems to me that as long as you avoid the file-reference issue (opening a file locally when you meant to open it via remote) it works just fine. Given the fact that it can save a ton of money (the price of a 2nd server, electricity, etc.) it seems to me a reasonable choice, if you know what you are doing.

I'm not claiming that FM Incorporated endorses it, but just pointing out that (at least for one setup) it seems to work just fine.

[xochi]

Just to throw some more gasoline on the issue...consider this:

What about using Mac OS X's fast user switching capability? You could then run FM5.5 Server as one user, and run FM6 Unlimited as another. Set up correctly, this could absolutely prevent the local vs. network file open problem (since one user can't even see another user's files). Since under Mac OS X, running two separate users on one machine is, in many ways, equivalent to running one user on two separate machines.

I've not tried this setup myself, but I could see it having some advantages for security, etc.

[xochi]

Just to throw some more gasoline on the issue...consider this:

What about using Mac OS X's fast user switching capability? You could then run FM5.5 Server as one user, and run FM6 Unlimited as another. Set up correctly, this could absolutely prevent the local vs. network file open problem (since one user can't even see another user's files). Since under Mac OS X, running two separate users on one machine is, in many ways, equivalent to running one user on two separate machines.

I've not tried this setup myself, but I could see it having some advantages for security, etc.

[xochi]

Just to throw some more gasoline on the issue...consider this:

What about using Mac OS X's fast user switching capability? You could then run FM5.5 Server as one user, and run FM6 Unlimited as another. Set up correctly, this could absolutely prevent the local vs. network file open problem (since one user can't even see another user's files). Since under Mac OS X, running two separate users on one machine is, in many ways, equivalent to running one user on two separate machines.

I've not tried this setup myself, but I could see it having some advantages for security, etc.

[Vaughan]

One of the issues is that it's sub-optimal: two process on the same box are competing for the same resources (hard disk and network). Both are going to be getting in each other's way.

[Vaughan]

One of the issues is that it's sub-optimal: two process on the same box are competing for the same resources (hard disk and network). Both are going to be getting in each other's way.

[Vaughan]

One of the issues is that it's sub-optimal: two process on the same box are competing for the same resources (hard disk and network). Both are going to be getting in each other's way.

[danabase]

I found this thread, and want to clarify what most people are saying here to see if I understand. I have a set of files that are hosted on-site as well as through remote access using FMP Server 5.5. I want to connect those same files to the web using FMP 6 Unlimited. To do that I should have the following setup:

1.) My server, server A, that already exists hosting the files on FMP Server 5.5.

2.) A second server, server B, running FMP 6 Unlimited.

3.) Web access using the IP of server B.

Then, my question is, if the files are on server A, and the IP goes to server B, how does the URL call the Hosts function to access the files on server A?

Or am I misunderstanding what is described here? Any help would be appreciated - thx!