Mac Hardware/Software

[roblef]

Hello!

I'm looking at upgrading the machine we use to serve FMPro Server Advanced 8.5. I'd like to use a Mac, but wonder what kinds of machines are in use out there, and what OS version you are using (OSX or OSX Server)

Thanks in advance!

[Steven H. Blackwell]

The best Mac OS machine for FIleMaker Server purposes is an Intel x_serve with SAS drives, not SATA drives.

If you want to use a tower machine, they'll work too. Just swap out the SATA drives for SCSI ones.

OS X Server is the recommended OS for these machines. Most will require a minimum of 2 GB RAM for optimal use, more RAM if you are running Isntant Web Publishing sessions.

HTH

Steven

[John May - Point In Space]

Based on our tests, SATA (and even IDE) drives are perfectly fine for most FileMaker Server deployment applications. Just be sure they're at least 7200 RPM.

- John

[Reed]

It really depends on your level of traffic. I was running on a 533 MHz G4 tower with ATA drives for quite a while with no performance problems. (But I only have <10 concurrent FMP clients and a few IWP connections at a time)

Now I'm using FMSA v8 on a Dual 1.8 GHz G5 with OS 10.4.8 (not server) with pretty much the same results. IWP pages might seem a bit snappier, but not much different than before.

[John May - Point In Space]

Yeap - and any added performance probably came from the processor speed increase. FMSA definitely seems to have a limit at which throwing more hardware at it doesn't make a difference.

- John

[Fitch]

Steven's specs are for the "ideal" server, but it's above and beyond what FileMaker recommends. I don't advise you to skimp, but the traffic of your server might not warrant the highest of high-end machines.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

The FileMaker SE's and the Apple SE's are now recommending the SAS drives for the x-Serves. They note that the SATA and IDE's have a high rate of failure.

In the past 10 years I have never had a failure of a drive in a FileMaker Server CPU. I have also only used SCSI drives.

Steven

[xochi]

I'll throw in my "think different" pitch -- consider using a mac mini (with either an upgraded internal drive, or boot from an external firewire drive). True, the minis don't have the performance of an xserve, but they are fairly fast, inexpensive, quiet, and use very little power...

[Ender]

Why would you spend the least amount of money on the most important piece of hardware? For mission-critical applications, spend the money! IMO, even a good G4 or G5 tower would be better than a mini.

[xochi]

Total cost, performance/cost, performance/watt, downtime issues, etc.

Assume for the sake of argument that the original poster has a fixed budget. For the same price as a single XServe, you could easily outfit 3 or 4 mac minis. Maybe you'd set up one as a server, another one as a "hot backup" machine, another one to run automated scripts using FM client, and the 4th just sitting on the shelf as a spare. Though certainly not as fast, the mac minis would have much lower electricity use, which translates into increased runtime on UPS (which can be a very important data integrity issue) and of course lower cost in the long run.

There are times when smaller/cheaper wins. Look to Google and Yahoo and others who are using the RAIC model for their datacenters.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Guest

[xochi]

Ender -- I'm with you in general that it's not a good idea to go cheap on critical hardware or software. People are penny-wise pound-foolish far too often. My point is, however, that sometimes having a larger # of cheaper machines can be better than a single tricked out machine. Of course, it's highly dependent on the situation.

[Ender]

If someone's gonna go cheap, they're not gonna be thinking about redundancy (that's not what you were originally suggesting anyway).

I don't want people to have the impression that it's fine to use a low-end computer as a FileMaker server. If they can afford workstations for their employees, they can spring for a decent server.

[xochi]

Under what metric could a G4 tower be better than a Mini as a filemaker server? In most situations, the mini will be easily 5x as fast as the G4, it will be currently under warranty with readily available replacement parts, and use much less electricity and cost much less.

I think the PHB-types would probably have a hard time with a mini, simply because it's so cheap & cute. But they'd also have a hard time buying a used G4 tower also. But I thought it was our job (as FM Developers) to not let the PHBs reign... ???

[roblef]

Thanks for all the great advice, folks. I appreciate it!

I've been told that a Windows server is much more recommended for FMP Server Advanced 8.5 Any thoughts on that matter?

Edited January 28, 2007 by Guest

[Ender]

Under what metric could a G4 tower be better than a Mini as a filemaker server?

A Power Mac allows for faster drives to be installed, including those with faster buses, like SCSI.

Now, I don't really like the idea of using an old computer for a FileMaker Server either, but I really don't like the drive options for the Mini.

I don't know what a PHB is, but it looks like if you got one, you probably won't have a problem getting a better machine than a Mini.

[Ender]

I've been told that a Windows server is much more recommended for FMP Server Advanced 8.5 Any thoughts on that matter?

Our Mac servers have server us well over the years.

I'd recommend going with whatever you know how to support. If you're most comfortable with setup and troubleshooting the Mac, stick with that.

[John May - Point In Space]

Yeah, our Xserves here work great. And we've seen a lot more Windows-specific bugs in FMSA occur than Mac-specific ones (I only know of one Mac-specific one that has been resolved in 8.0v4).

- John

[xochi]

PHB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy_Haired_Boss

[xochi]

Another vote in favor of using Mac Minis (with better internal drives) as servers: http://www.networkjack.info/blog/2007/03/29/intel-macminis-the-os-x-blade-server/

They find the minis are 3 to 5x as fast as a G5 in raw cpu speed...

[Steven H. Blackwell]

A mini Mac is not a good idea for a server.

Steven

[xochi]

There is no such thing as a "mini mac" so you are probably right -- not a good server machine.

However, a Mac Mini may be of interest for you if

- you value low power usage

- you value low heat generation

- you like long UPS runtimes

- you think RAIC is a smart idea (Google, Yahoo, etc.)

- you like high performance / low cost hardware

- you pay your electric bill or care about environmental consequences

- etc...

[Genx]

RAIC -- Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers?... Maybe, but how many FMSA licenses do you have and how do you keep them synced up?

[xochi]

I don't think you can do RAIC easily with FM, so in this case I'm thinking more of the "hot backup" idea -- since the minis are so cheap ($600) you can have a spare just sitting on the shelf ready to go in case the first one fails. Automatic rollover might be hard, though. But I think that if you are using a mac mini, you are probably not the type of user that needs 100% uptime anyway?

The Mac XServes take a different approach -- they offer service contracts with same day service, and offer spare parts kits, and redundant power supplies, etc, but it's all a lot more expensive and sounds like more trouble (to me).

As always, there is no "right" answer -- what makes sense in one case may be stupid in another.

[Ender]

xochi, xochi, xochi, what have I told you about listening to weirdo's on the Internet? :

Another vote in favor of using Mac Minis (with better internal drives) as servers...

This article is about using Minis in a RAIC for web serving, not as a FileMaker server. And since the author apparently sells such systems, it's not an unbiased vote anyway. Apparently, even you aren't advocating using a RAIC for a FileMaker server, so I'm not sure how this article helps your case.

It's one thing to compare real-world performance and reliability from box to box, "Apples to Apples" if you will, but I don't think it's very useful to use this stuff about Mini RAICs to support your claim.

If you've got Mini deployments that have served you well, then tell us about them! Don't be shy. How many simultaneous clients? FM clients, IWP, or CWP? What's the configuration? How do you get around the hard drive limitations?

[Steven H. Blackwell]

However, a Mac Mini may be of interest for you if

- you value low power usage

- you value low heat generation

- you like long UPS runtimes

- you think RAIC is a smart idea (Google, Yahoo, etc.)

- you like high performance / low cost hardware

- you pay your electric bill or care about environmental consequences

- etc...

I do pay the electric bill, but I don't really care about this other stuff.

What I do care about is a robust server with high physical integrity of the drives and sufficient power to do what is needed in each client's specific situation.

Steven

[xochi]

Ender -- yes, i've described it elsewhere. Short answer: intel core duo mac mini with 2 gigs of ram, booting and storing data on external 2.5" drives via firewire 400. Performance is good enough for the project's needs, and the price/performance and watt/performance ratios are superb.

I think if I were to build this today, I'd put the OS and data on an upgraded SATA internal drive (such as the new 7200 RPM Seagate), and use the external FW drives for backups only.

Steven - I think your answer could be paraphrased as "my needs are A B and C, but I don't care about X Y and Z", which is basically my point -- the "right" machine for the job is completely dependent on the task parameters.

I think I mainly object to your frequent pronouncements that Mac Minis are "not appropriate" as FM servers, as if there is a single answer that suits everyone.

I assume most of us are FM advocates in one way or another? If so, if one only recommends $5000+ "server class" hardware, you might scare off some folks from using FM at all, when in reality $1000 hardware might work just fine.

[Ender]

Ender -- yes, i've described it elsewhere.

What I see when I look back on your posts is your problems with server delays when backups run. This is probably from the drive speed, but could also related to the SATA bus. Both are limitations of the mini.

You mentioned a while back that you had 5 client machines connecting to your server. You didn't answer the question this time, but if you still only have five connecting clients, then it would be understandable that the mini would appear to perform "good enough" as a server. Most user's actions aren't all that taxing. It's when you get into running complex reports and/or lots of users that performance is put to the test.

So I think it would help in the future if you qualify your recommendations with the size of the deployment; don't let people assume that what worked for you will scale to their needs.

I assume most of us are FM advocates in one way or another?

Ya, sure!

If so, if one only recommends $5000+ "server class" hardware, you might scare off some folks from using FM at all, when in reality $1000 hardware might work just fine.

On the contrary, I think it's important for people who are looking into server deployments of FileMaker to take it seriously. Too many people think they can host their databases from the cheapest piece of junk they can find. When you look at the big picture of hardware, software, and development, the hardware investment isn't that big a deal. Especially when you weigh it against the cost to the business should the hardware fail to perform well.

[xochi]

Ender -- hmm, it kinda seems like you are misquoting me. I've never claimed the mac mini performs or scales better than a macpro or xserve. One would hope not, as those machines are 3x the price or more. Nor am I really worried about people buying the wrong box. Presumption of adults here with cognitive faculties intact, caveat lector, etc.

What I have said is that there is some "conventional wisdom" regarding filemaker performance, which in some cases is just plain wrong these days, and can be understood if you apply basic computer engineering principles. A little reading will show you that a Mac Mini has nearly the same memory/cpu/network bandwidth as it's more expensive brethren. What this means is that if you can keep all the computations in RAM, the little guy can perform as good as the bigger ones. This is not actually very surprising when you think about it -- same chip, same ram, etc.

Back in the old days (FM5.5) hard disk speed was the limiting factor -- these days it's often #4 (behind CPU speed, RAM size, and network speed).

Your last point I agree with, more or less. People should spend money on good equipment. All I'm saying is that you should consider the cost/benefit analysis. A server that costs twice as much is sure nice, but may be a mistake if you then skimp on other safety features (such as redundant drives, offsite backups, etc.)

An analogy -- some folks are saying "Buy the 20lb sledge hammer -- it's what the manufacturer says to do!" I'm saying "Buy the 10lb one, and use the money you saved to get a vise and some steel toed shoes and a fire extinguisher" -)

The fact is that the mac mini is a ******* fast machine for the price. That is not disputable. My opinion is that in certain situations, that fact may be used to one's benefit.

[Ender]

I'm pretty sure I haven't misquoted you. And I don't think I've misinterpreted your assertions.

Nor am I really worried about people buying the wrong box. Presumption of adults here with cognitive faculties intact, caveat lector, etc.

I do worry about people buying the wrong box. I worry that people listening to your advice will think that the Mini will be suitable hardware for their deployments. You seem to think that hard drive speed is not that important, but it is. And since the Mini has limited hard drive options, I don't think it's a suitable machine for a FileMaker server.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Ender is correct and provides good advice. And thre is also no assurance whatsoever that any future version of any FileMaker Server product would run on such machine. If someone wants to run FileMaker Server or FileMaker Server Advanced on the Macintosh platform, I would recommend OS X Server running either on an Intel X_Serve with SAS drives or on a tower Macintosh with SCSI drives.

Steven

[xochi]

You seem to think that hard drive speed is not that important, but it is

This seems to be at the core of our disagreement. Back when I was making the transition from FM6 to 7, I did some benchmarking and found that disk speed was much less important in 7, since it allowed vastly bigger RAM Cache. I didn't do a very thorough test, however, so it's possible I'm wrong completely, or my benchmark results were only applicable to my needs.

This seems like a fairly easy question to answer though. One of these days I'll post a new thread addressing this specific question... :

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Both my own experience with numerous installations plus the official guidance from the FMI System Engineers indicate that the hard drive subsystem remains the single most important component of a FileMaker Server server machine. Processor quality and speed is more important than it used to be because of server-side processing. But the hard drive subsystem remains the number one component.

FMI will, I believe, shortly be issuing a new White Paper on Server configuration. I expect this to be addressed therein.

Also, I will be commenting more on this general topic in coming days on the blog:

FMCollective

Steven

[MorFologist]

FMI will ... be issuing a new White Paper on Server configuration.

Not soon enough for me! I have to set up a Windoze box ASAP. I look forward you your blog! :smile2:

[Steven H. Blackwell]

It is far easier to set up and to configure FileMaker Server 8 and particularly FileMaker Server 8 Advanced on Windows Server 2003 than it is on OS X Server.

If you have specific questions or problems, please advise.

Steven

[John May - Point In Space]

I don't understand the basis for this comment at all. FMS(A) is VERY easy to set up and configure on OS X Server.

In fact, FMS(A) has had a tendency to have more bugs on Windows and, based on a lot of others' experiences I have read, requires faster/more hardware specs for the same performance (RAM and disk speed, for example).

- John