GAM Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 The performace on WAN or Internet to access remote to the databases shared is too slow, FileMaker have any alternative to accelerate the trafic fmnet? **************************** There is any solution to improve the speed of Filemaker on Internet at 200%, 300% or more? **************************** Accelerate by Blue Coat(Match 5), Packeteer, Riverbed, Other? **************************** it's possible do the experience on LAN equal to the WAN(internet) to access remote? **************************** A solution based on FileMaker is designed to work best only on LAN? **************************** the performace on WAN or Internet to access remote to the databases shared is too slow, FileMaker have any alternative to accelerate the trafic fmnet? **************************** There is any solution to improve the speed of Filemaker on Internet at 200%, 300% or more? **************************** Accelerate by Blue Coat(Match 5), Packeteer, Riverbed, Other? **************************** it's possible do the experience on LAN equal to the WAN(internet) to access remote? **************************** A solution based on FileMaker is designed to work best only on LAN? **************************** Filemaker thinks to target solutions based on FileMaker Pro to work on the Internet? When 2008, 2009, 2010? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudioFreak Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) That looks almost like more than a complaint than questions. Why do you expect Filemaker accessed remotely via wireless to be as fast as LAN? Why are you posting this all over the place? Edited December 7, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 You can always attempt to design your solution, with wan'ing in mind, the separation model is pretty obvious, where only raw data and no display issues are hogging network speed ... otherwise is Citrix'ing the next level to take it to, perhaps with a few consideration paid to SyncDek: http://www.worldsync.com/syncdek/ But Filemakers prime target is not in this marked segment, so if you have made promises is it you who havn't read enough up on it. http://proofgroup.com/articles/2006/jun/filemakery_part_i --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAM Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 Filemaker (Pro & Server) so far has been designed for LANs, can be applied in WAN (Internet), but performance is very slow, if it wished to have a solution with FileMaker with remote access in different sites Geographical, ie your databases can be accessed from USA, Spain, China, so as to make this application will behave as if it were on a LAN, any idea? with FMP8.5 (Clients) and FMS8??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAM Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 More than one FMS + Synchronizer data? It is possible, but is lost management in the interface changes (Layouts), Scripts, Custom functions, Plug-ins, access accounts, and tables Overall, it becomes a big problem. any idea using an unique BD in an unique FM Server with FMP Clients remotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudioFreak Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Remote desktop is the only thig I can think of that would help make it perform as if the client was actually in the LAN. Not sure if this is actually an option for you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 More than one FMS + Synchronizer data? No! A part of the solution is running locally, namely the interface and relational structure, while the data file(s) resides on server! http://www.newcenturydata.com/downloads/separation_demo.zip --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAM Posted December 10, 2007 Author Share Posted December 10, 2007 FMP8.5 (GUI.FP7 )-->| INTERNET |-->|| My FireWall ||--> My FMS8 (DATA.FP7)? Or FMP8.5 (GUI.FP7 )-->(WAN Accelerator)-->| INTERNET |-->|| My FireWall ||-->(WAN Accelerator)--> My FMS8 (DATA.FP7)? Again, manage GUI.FP7 is very complex, security, accounts access, privileges on the records, layouts, scripts, operations to calculate or enable visibility and editing of records, apart from a free number of GUIs.FP7 throughout hand. The remote desktop connection(RDC) is not a substantial solution, and requires a new agent server RDC ($$$) and manage these accesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The first I think because there already is some sort of WAN acceleration going on in the protocol, an off the shelves compression might destroy the finer point's in the matters already going on. I could have a suspicion that such is more drive/share oriented than protocol oriented, and if it is protocol/stream oriented are the algorithms dealing with xml/html and knowns nothing about filemakers own protocol, and therefore perhaps have no influence at all on the speed, except that it occupies the operating system resources to monitor a drive where nothing actually happens or unpacking somthing which could be packed. So in the end would the setup be counter productive. I take it for granted that you never would use OS sharing for you filemaker solutions??? However do you need to understand how chatty filemaker deals with data, causing an awfull lot of roundtrips - read this: http://network.datatude.net/viewtopic.php?t=102 --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 5987 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now