IWP Performance

[scarletJake]

Our company is finally going to upgrade the server and our development software from v5.5 to v9.0. One option we are looking at is utilizing IWP rather than using the client FM pro for the users. We currently have about 100 5.5 licenses and are looking to minimize cost while maintaining current user functionality.

We are excited to use IWP but we are concerned about speed, performance, and security issues going this route. We have approximately 70 databases hosted on the v5.5 Server. The network is planned to be on a closed intranet system to minimize security issues. The platform is windows 2003. Most of the workstations have windows 2000 but there are some with windows XP. Some databases are relatively big with 100,000s of records, most are related to other databases, and there are complex calculations and scripts. Not sure how successful the migration to v9.0 will be let alone viewing them through IWP.

We plan on performing tests prior to upgrading. We are looking for data and sound opinions on this subject to help us with the decision. I have searched the web the last few days and haven't found information that really helps our decision. Does anyone have experience with this or can direct me to sites or articles pertaining to this?

Thanks in advance.

Ahh crud. Sorry. I meant to put this in the Filemaker Server Advanced section.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Guest

[Steven H. Blackwell]

This does not sound like a scenario suitable for IWP. Especially if you have reports to print.

Check with FMI about a VLA.

Steven

[scarletJake]

Thanks Steve for moving this thread. I hate to sound so ignorant as I am revisiting Filemaker and databases in general after being away for a considerable amount of time. What do you mean by FMI and VLA?

[Steven H. Blackwell]

The error is mine for using jargonese.

FMI= FileMaker, Inc.

VLA=Volume License Agreement, also = better price for licenses.

Steven

[scarletJake]

Actually as soon as I left work yesterday it came to me. I had Filemaker/database calculations, etc. on the mind and wasn't thinking straight. We are looking at the VLA with FMI.

Thinking about our situation and IWP and after researching more I do see that IWP will probably not work the way I had hoped. I am thinking that we might be able to use an IWP and FM Pro combo system. Employees who just need to view data with minor amount of data input would use IWP at selected workstations. Employees who rely on FM as part of their work (accounting, shipping/receiving , etc) would have FM Pro on loaded on their workstations.

Is this something that is doable? Or am I missing something major that could cause us problems down the road?

[Steven H. Blackwell]

The second scenario you pose here is a far more reasoanble one than the intial one. It also has a far higher likelihood of success.

When examing costs, remember you're looking at total costs of deployment, not just license costs. If you save $5000 on licenses by ordering fewer seats of FMP and relying more heavily on IWP, you could easily eat up that savings in added programming costs because of using browsers instead of clients.

At the volume you initially described, viz. 100 seats, you get a very good per seat price and a significant discount on FIleMaker Server 9 Advanced. Plus you get a year of maintenance. And a year from now you can renew that at a deep discount.

Do talk to your FMI Business Account Manager or Inside Sales Rep. If you don't know who these people are or how to contact then, contact me, and I'll get you in touch with them.

Steven