FMP9 or FM Server 9?

[blissland]

I am trying to determine whether I need to use FMP9 or FM Server 9. I have an FMP9 db file that is shared on a local fileserver amongst 4 or 5 people using OSX Leopard and Windows XP. The file is not shared thru FMP or FM Server--its just a straight file sitting on the fileserver. We're not using Open Remote. Just open. We do not have FMP on the fileserver.

When we open the file simultaneously and edit the file, person A's changes don't immediately show up on Person B's side, or vice versa. we can both edit records, but only one of our sets of updates ultimately shows up later.

Can this work with this setup or do we need to install FMP or FM Server on our fileserver?

Should choose 'open' or 'open without sharing' in this scenerio?

[mr_vodka]

You are running into the common issues of running Peer to Peer. If you must run peer to peer, always open up ALL the files that are shared with the same computer every day. This one must open them up first...

Of course, the better recommendation is to get FM Server with a dedicated machine. Although getting server for 4 or 5 people may seem like an overkill, it always comes down to... How much is your data worth?

You will not need FM9 Server Advanced if you do not plan on using IWP or ODBC/JDBD connection to FileMaker.

[blissland]

I only have this one file, sitting on the server, being accessed by people on a handful of machines at the same time. So even if the same person on the same machine always opened the file first, it seems like anyone else using it wouldn't really be able to add to it. maybe they could if they were in different records? when we tested it we were entering different records into the same portal of one record, so maybe that was the issue, and completely separate records would have been ok?

[mr_vodka]

IF you are in any of the fields within a portal, it will lock the PARENT record until you are out of the child record in the portal.

So if one of your users are on lets say a parent record of ABC company and User 2 goes to the same record for ABC Company, User 2 will not be able to modify anything in that record until User 1 has commited the record and/or out of the child portal record.

The second User should be getting a message stating that User 1 has locked the record.

[blissland]

I see. What does it take to commit or lock the record? SInce one doesn't 'save' changes in FMP...they happen while typing....at what point is it 'committed'? Neither of us ever saw the 'locked' message you mentioned, and we tried entering and exiting the record and the file in different sequences.

[mr_vodka]

Clicking out of the enterable fields will commit the active record as well as a script step of Commit Record []. You should be able to find in the FM User Guide on how a record gets committed.

[mr_vodka]

As for your problem that you first stated...

As I said earlier, have one person open the file first and the rest should open remote to the file. I still believe that investing in a dedicated server is the best route to go.

[blissland]

i have no doubt that the dedicated server is the best route, but then it means i have to make an argument as to why my boss needs to buy it.

So, one person OPENs and everyone else OPEN REMOTE? weird. i undertand 'open remote' when its on the server but in this case i don't. where would that 'remote' location be then? what does this allow that doing a double Open not?

[mr_vodka]

Take a look at Chapter 5.

http://www.filemaker.com/downloads/pdf/fmp9_users_guide.pdf

[Steven H. Blackwell]

You know, you are headed for a disaster here. If the file is sitting on a file server you are almost certainly opening it incorrectly and in a way that will damage it. And making regular backups doesn't rectify this problem.

You need FileMaker Server and a reasonable machine to host it. Your file--and any other ones you might create in the future-- can then be safely hosted for multiple suers to access. Additionally, you can set FileMaker Server to make regularly scheduled backups safely and reliably.

Basically speaking, what are these data worth? What business processes do they support? What will be the the direct costs and the indirect costs when this present system you have fails?

Steven

[blissland]

There seems to be a uniform opinion that it should be on fm server cuz ya'll say its dangerous otherwise. but if its dangerous, then why does fm say its fine to do, up to 9 users. i've only got 3 or 4.

[jfletch]

Oooh, scary. How do you like your hosed files?

You have two options:

1. Buy and use FileMaker Server to host the files.

B. Put all your files and a copy of FileMaker Pro on the same computer. TURN OFF FILE SHARING--at the very least to the folder that your files are in. Open them all in that copy of FMP and leave them open, either all the time or at least the entire time your employees need to access them. FileMaker will serve them over the network, in a manner similar to (but not nearly as robust as) Server. Users open them as needed with the Open Remote command from within their own copies of FMP.

Doing anything other than these two options is a recipe for disaster, Ignore at your own peril, Danger Steep Cliffs Ahead, Thar be monsters, watch out for that falling piano, etc.

BACKUP: (If you are using FileMaker Server--now aren't you glad you did--use its built-in back-up functionality and then a back-up-the-backup strategy similar to what's described below)

EVERY time you get to the point that you would hate to have to rekey all that data since the last time you backed up, you need to do another backup. If that's every ten minutes, so be it. Use a script within the file that uses the Save As (compacted) command and do all your files that way. Timestamp each file or set of files and save all copies for as long as you can, reducing it to one a day, one a week, one a month as you gain more confidence that your current files have correct, uncorrupted data. So, for instance, keep every hourly backup for a week, keep every daily backup for a month, keep every weekly backup for six months, keep every monthly backup forever.

YMMV with your needs, but they are probably greater than you think.

[LaRetta]

And if you use a box with FM pro on it as your server (which you should if you won't use FM Server) then go a step further and make that box a server-quality system with Windows 2003 (or whatever is latest/recommended now). Do NOT NOT NOT use a regular desktop system. And do NOT NOT use Windows XP or XP Pro.

But many of us have been your route ... you open saying you have 4-5 Users then you say you have 3-4. Why quibble with a few numbers? Because if you grow at all (and I would hope you plan to), you'll need server very soon anyway. And FileMaker wants to grab a market of people who cannot (or won't) put out the money properly for FM Server - they are biased. What we are saying is from developers who USE this puppy all the time!! Trust who you will ... do what you will.

As said, cliff ahead. Back up often and get it OFF your regular server because you will toast it.

UPDATE: Oh, and practice data retrieval techniques and restoring from backups because you'll be doing it quite a bit. Keep in mind we have NO financial gain from what we tell you. We've been there - done it; many of us the hard way.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Guest
Added update

[blissland]

OK, so, i'm with ya. get the server. As a Windows-hating individual, i'd much prefer to run it off a macmini since they are cheap and not windows. any reason not to? all the primary users are running fmp on leopard.

[LaRetta]

"to run it off a macmini since they are cheap and not windows"

Again, how much is your data worth? And how much is your time worth when you repeatedly have to reconstruct trashed files? I am no hardware expert (and particularly on Macs) but I've read that Mac minis are not meant to host (although some have had luck with them). So I won't say one way or the other. But I ask you this question, "Is a Mac mini server quality hardware?" It is my understanding that the answer would be resounding NO.

UPDATE: I'm not saying to use Windows! That was my experience running 5-6 users without Server so I mentioned it. We started with desktop XP system and paid a terrible price for it.

Macs make very good servers as well - just be sure it's SERVER QUALITY GOOD-NOT-CHEAP system.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Guest
Added update

[blissland]

if i knew the answer to that, i wouldn't be asking. but i generally think all things apple are of higher quality than all things windows. i mean, they're faster than anything anyone had 5 years ago, and people were fine with what they had 10 years ago, weren't they? and its unix! so in my mind, no windows option could be better than a macmini, but i've never served files before so i have to ask you guys.

[jfletch]

Hardware is mostly your call. FMI says the latest Tiger or Leopard, G5 or Intel. An Intel mini qualifies, but you will find many in The Family who will shout that one down. Why not find a cheap(er) G5 tower on eBay and mirror a couple of NEW (5-year warranty) internal drives to give you a boatload of reliability.

[LaRetta]

If you knew that you wouldn't be asking? Your opening words were, "I am trying to determine whether I need to use FMP9 or FM Server 9." You didn't mention hardware anywhere!

Now that you are feeling good about HOW to host, what you use (as said) is your choice. There are many threads about hardware considerations in the Serving It Up forums here. And hopefully, others will give their opinions as well. All I know about hardware is what I've read repeatedly and what I've experienced personally. And cheap :notequal: reliability.

I wish you well in moving your solution onward and upward. It's an exciting process! :wink2:

[blissland]

when i began the thread i didn't know it would migrate to hardware. i'm used to just serving solutions on lasso servers so this is all new to me learning how to serve files. thanks!

[mr_vodka]

Basically it always comes down to that equation of how much is your data worth as you have heard a few times by now...

Its basically like if you were to buy a car... You could buy an new or old car and it will get you to where you need to go. It could be reliable as a Toyota or as unreliable as a Yugo. A newer car has a much better possiblity of reliablity than an older car as well. You also could buy a car with a weak engine or one with a more powerful engine as you can with servers as well.

You could buy the top notch server out there regardless of Windows or Mac or you could chance it on an older Mac or Mac Mini. It's all about minimizing risk.

So for every company, they would have to assess their own situation. For example, if I was just running a contact database that had no business implecations, then I wouldnt mind running peer to peer since it doesnt matter than much to me. However, if I was running financial info through there such as invoicing, customer info, etc... I would want to protect my data as best as it could be done and fork out the loot. In the end it is cliche-ish but really how much is the data worth to your boss?

[blissland]

I'm not having trouble grasping the 'what is your data worth piece.'

We're not wearing suits and ties here. convincing my boss to spend a $1000 on the server will not be easy when it was already a stretch to convince him to pay me to make an fmp db, rather than just use an excel spreadsheet. I know absolutely nothing about this topic, and wish someone else was dealing with it so i could just program, but I do know that macs are superior to pcs due to the unix base, among many other reasons....seems like an 'old macpro tower on ebay' would be slower and more likely to die than a new macmini, but i can change subforums here and ask somewhere else. i got scolded before for doing that so i'm not sure whether to discuss hardware here or jump elsewhere.

[Fitch]

The tech specs are here:

http://www.filemaker.com/products/fms/tech_specs.html

For FMS9 the minimum Mac recommended is a G5.

The downside of the Mini everyone talks about is the hard drive. But you know, those 2.5" drives have improved over the years. They're actually quite reliable these days, or so I've heard. The stock drive may be a little slower than you'd want - but it might not be all that noticeable, it depends on your application. FileMaker does rely heavily on the hard drive, so keep it in mind.