Speccing out new Xserve

[HazMatt]

I am going to propose a new Xserve purchase for our small business and I'm interested in a couple things...

1) How well does a single quad-core processor multi-task? Am I right in thinking that FMS 9 will share these cores with other processor-intensive applications nicely?

2) Our current Xserve (single G5, 1 GB RAM, FMS 8) seems to be using RAM a lot more than processor power, and from what I've read, FMS 9 will take and use whatever you give it on the server side. Specifically I'm wondering if 2 GB total is sufficient for about 1 GB worth of FileMaker files.

The specific uses for this server will be:

• FileMaker Server (with future IWP plans using FMSA)

• Security video server (processor intensive, will save footage to a 1 TB drive on Xserve)

• iTunes on-hold music jukebox

• General file sharing

Thanks for any tips!

[Ocean West]

It is highly recommended that your FileMaker server be running on it's own dedicated box.

Another gotcha is that with the new Xserve and Leopard you do not want to allow TimeMachine to backup live databases - or ever rely on them for any purpose.

You said your upgrading your old G5 xserve could be repurposed solely for FMP pushing the remaining services on your new XServe.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

specific uses for this server will be:

• FileMaker Server (with future IWP plans using FMSA)

• Security video server (processor intensive, will save footage to a 1 TB drive on Xserve)

• iTunes on-hold music jukebox

• General file sharing

[color:red]This is so far out of spec and best practice as to be virtually not workable.

First, take a look at the Server Tech Brief from the FMI web site or at the FileMaker Server Video Tutorials for some basic information about FileMaker Server.

Second, be sure to use the SAS drive option with the x-Serve, not the default SATA drives. I like to have three separate physical drives, one for the OS and FMS; the second for the databases; and, the third, for local abckups and logs.

Third, 2 GB is the minimum amount of RAM you should use. For best results, especially with IWP, use 4 GB RAM. Do not use more than 4 GB; FIleMaker Server cannot utilize it.

Fourth, pay attention to Dr. Dolenski's comments about dedicated hardware and the Time Machine.

Additionally, I recommend you use OS X Server (10.4.10 or 10.5.1) as your OS on this box. The specific version of the x_Serve may mandate Leopard. IIRC, you cannot run this machine with anything other than the Server OS.

Steven

[HazMatt]

In my experience with our current hardware, I feel as though our G5 Xserve has been under-utilized, and an upgrade to a quad-core Xserve with twice the amount of RAM we currently have would be a good step. I did review some of the information you linked to Steven, and now think that it would be appropriate to bump up the RAM, especially for longer-term plans for IWP.

As for a dedicated FileMaker Server, that is not an option. I have other plans for the G5 Xserve. I do understand the advantages to using dedicated hardwares, but the disadvantages I see are A) multiple management interfaces and higher cost (which sometimes trumps other factors).

I will probably arrange the 3 internal drives like so:

Bay 1: 73 GB SAS 15,000 RRPM (OS and Applications + FMS files)

Bay 2: 80 GB SATA 7,200 RPM (Backup drive for Bay 1)

Bay 3: 1 TB SATA 7,200 RPM (Dump drive for security video)

I wasn't planning on using Time Machine for any server backup purposes, but I'm thankful for the advice on the subject.

As for my original question regarding the processor sharing, it still remains unanswered. It appears to me that FileMaker Server is not a processor-hog, but more of a memory-hog. On the other hand, I have a video footage app that is very much a processor-hog and not a memory-hog. Both are universal apps, and with the new quad-core processor, I'm wondering if they will cooperate.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

As for a dedicated FileMaker Server, that is not an option.

Don't fly in the face of recommended Best Practices here.

As for quad vrs, dual, dual processor is about the most FMS can handle. And there are a number of cases where the second processor has required disabling because it was crashing FMS.

Steven

[FestiveEmbalmer]

I can back up those best practices with personal experience.

I inherited a setup with filesharing and filemaker on the same server. Seriously: Filemaker + filesharing = critical data corruption. Until I get our new server up and running, resurrecting files is routine maintenance.

here thar be dragons,

matt

[HazMatt]

Don't fly in the face of recommended Best Practices here.

I'm not trying to be belligerent... I'm informing you that we do not have an unlimited budget where we can simply buy a dedicated tricked-out server, even if it makes sense.

I can back up those best practices with personal experience.

I inherited a setup with filesharing and filemaker on the same server. Seriously: Filemaker + filesharing = critical data corruption. Until I get our new server up and running, resurrecting files is routine maintenance.

here thar be dragons,

matt

I'm curious why (technically) File Sharing and FMS don't get along? Are your FileMaker files being shared and actually opened via file sharing, thereby causing corruption, or is there some other less-obvious reason for this corruption?

From my personal experience, it's been a non-issue to have Mac OS X Server 10.3.9 Sharing enabled through the Workgroup Manager. In fact, the typical "File Sharing" option in System Preferences > Sharing is actually nowhere to be found on Mac OS X Server (at least in 10.3.9). Most importantly, I don't grant file sharing access to the actual .fp7 files and never have.

Here's what FileMaker's FMS Best Practices has to say about File Sharing (under the "Tuning" section)

Turn off file sharing and other unused services. File sharing is the ability to access files on a remote network device. What FileMaker Server does is not file sharing; it is data sharing. File sharing uses a good deal of I/O resources, the same that FileMaker Server is reliant upon. Therefore, any type of file sharing will reduce performance of the FileMaker Server. Making the database files available via file sharing is not only a performance issue, but a security issue. If there is a way for a user to directly access the FileMaker (.fp5) files on the shared file directory, then that user can make separate copies of the files for use offline, allowing them to probe and potentially crack into the files, and access data to which they should not have access. For more sensitive data, this could be viewed as a security breach.

File sharing introduces other complications when a database file hosted by FileMaker Server is opened from a shared file system. For example, if the file is opened by a FileMaker Pro user ahead

of FileMaker Server, the FileMaker Pro user effectively becomes the host, blocking FileMaker Server from opening and hosting the file. Additionally, if someone is able to access the files directly while FileMaker Server is hosting the files, the files themselves could become corrupted through inappropriate access. Once this happens, an administrator must revert to a backup (see the Backups section below). One of the easiest ways to lessen this threat is to be sure that users can only access the data through FileMaker Server, by opening the database by navigating the “Open Remote Database”or “Hosts”dialog.

It sounds to me as though the only downside (once you eliminate the possibility of direct file sharing access to the .fp7 files) is performance degradation. If this is the only downside, I am more than happy to turn on File Sharing on my server alongside FMS.

[FestiveEmbalmer]

It would seem I might have confused the two issues. I do not know if merely having filesharing turned on can corrupt FM files being shared via FMServer - all I know is that my org has both issues, and files shared in either method have been corrupted.

I would love to have all those legacy files shared via FMServer but unfortunately, there are 1500 of them. Woe is I. A-developing-I-do-go-go.

may your files stay nubile and pristine,

matthew

[HazMatt]

I would love to have all those legacy files shared via FMServer but unfortunately, there are 1500 of them. Woe is I. A-developing-I-do-go-go.

Oof! You probably already know that FMS can only host 125 files and that each .fp7 file can hold up to 1 million tables (the equivalent of 1 .fp5 file, which I'm assuming your 1500 files are). Good luck with your conversion... sounds like it is sorely needed!