Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jeff G

Filemaker 6 Unlimited and Filemaker 5 Server

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By puterco
      I have published my database using CDML pages and I want each web address field to act as a link witch goes directly to the address contained in the field. Example of the HTML code on the search results page:
      [FMP-FIELD: email] *how can I link this field to act as "mailto://(value in the field)"

      [FMP-FIELD:web-address] *how can I link this to act as "http://(value in the field)"
      Any help will be highly appreciated the dead line for these pages were yesterday and I need to get these features online as soon as possible. Thanks...
    • By kwatson
      Does anyone know how to allow users to input graphics into a database posted on the web? Home Page tells me container fields won't work.
    • By Randy Abulon
      Has anyone tried the connector on Windows 2000 and had some success with it? The company I work for just got FMPro5 Unlimited, but we mostly a Win2K shop; including the intranet server... How do I make it work?
    • By OSXS
      Dear all:
      I am facing the following problem: I am setting up a www-interface using CDML for the first time. I get the behavior I want, and everything works fine.
      But there's one big question: In the CDML reference, I cannot find any tags that allow authentication of users using the FM-database built-in access privileges.
      Any ideas?
      Cheers,
      Ron
    • By pem
      Does portals work i www mode?
      I have a field in a portal that works in filemaker but not in www mode. In filemaker it
  • Who Viewed the Topic

    1 member has viewed this topic:
    SRBENET 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.