Don't want to share, but use a file server

[mf]

Hello,

Here is the situation: we do have FM server where the database is hosted and where data maintenance is done. Some of our locations have poor bandwidth so access is terrible. They are getting a copy of the database everynight and they are accessing the data from their local file server (a day late, but this application does not need to be real-time).

Now, comes the issue of accessing the files on the file server. Even if we have: set error capture ON and set Multi-User OFF, we still get a pop-up message asking if we want to open without sharing, open or cancel.

I have read the other postings that say that the files should be on the FM PC. Why should it matter if the files are not shared?

The worksations get turned off everynight, not the file server, that is how it can receive the updated database. Is the only solution making yet another copy of the database to the PC?

We have had this "access file server" setup for years using FM5-6 and have never encountered corruption problems... just lucky?

Aside from providing better communication lines (and have everyone on FM server, certainly a better solution, but not yet in the cards), do you have another approach to suggest?

I am curious about the thoughts of Old Avanced Man and Ender, as they hav been "vocal" against this remote volume access approach. And of course, any others that can give a different view on this are also welcome...

Thanks!

[Ender]

We have had this "access file server" setup for years using FM5-6 and have never encountered corruption problems... just lucky?

I think so. FileMaker databases should not be opened or hosted from a shared volume on a file server. Apparently you've seen our posts on this, so it's good you're looking for a better way.

Maybe you can tell us how fast the WAN actually is at your locations. Actual performance for any given solution depends not only on the WAN speeds, but the types of operations being executed on the remote machines, the server configuration, the version of FileMaker (yes, FM 7 and later are faster on the WAN), the complexity of the graphics and layouts, and the design and structure of the solution. Often performance can be improved by optimizing the solution for efficiency.

Another option is to use Citrix or Terminal Services to run the solution on a local machine with control and screen changes being run to the remote workstations. I haven't got into this, but I think there's a forum here that's dedicated to this.

A third option is to treat this as a syncronization problem. Mark the records with a modification date/time, and have the remote database syncronize its records with the main server. This is a pretty complex operation and requires very careful scripting and error trapping. To simplify things, there's a syncronization tool called SyncDeK that handles most of the tricky stuff for you.

[mf]

Thanks for your thoughts:

Yes the application has a complex structure and what these folks are doing remotely is creating reports that calls many calculated fields.

Currently I have something that works and there is certainly room for optimization.

I need to understand better Terminal Services as a potential solution.

The good news is that the application is in constant evolution (thanks in part to FM) and I can eventually implement better ideas as they come along.