Hi,

we plan to migrate from FM 5.5 (Client & Server) to FM 9 (Server Advanced & Client). The main change should be the use of web publishing, as we do have about 600 students, which only should have read/print/search-only access to the databases.

There are just a few users allowed to change the data (they will have FM Pro 9) and somtimes we have temporary staff, which should be able to change the data by webaccess.

The "server" is an Mac OS X 10.5.2, Dual 1.25GHz G4, 2 GB RAM. FM Server is installed on the local HD, the databases are saved on a second independent Raid 5.

For the test, I've uploaded the contact database which has the most records (aprox. 7.000 ;-)); you see: we dont have realy big databases in use ...

A second database contains names and addresses from companies (about 6.000). There is one relatin between the companie-name-field in the adress DB and the companie-name-field in the compamie DB.

The field in the adress DB is a drop-down-list.

Now, opening the Adress DB and editing a record in FM Pro 9 takes about one - two seconds.

The same takes about 20-30 seconds by IWP.

May be the DB isn't well designed and can be optimized; the same for the server. But I think, IWP is doing something very slow ... (generating the drop down list for the companie name?)

Any ideas or recommendation?

Thanks and best regards

Götz Reinicke

I don't think your server is within spec. And it almost certainly doesn't have adequate RAM.

Take a look at Tech Info# 6428 that you can access here on the FMI web site.

Steven

Hallo and thanks for the info, but I do think, my spec are o.k. My HD is bigger and faster than the requieremnts, I do have 2 GB of RAM and two G4 cpus. The req. is G5, but that should not be such a problem I think.

For a Test I installed FM Server 9 on a 2* 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xenon Mac pro with 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM with 250 GB sata drives (without raid).

OS 10.5.2 is installed. Thats a difference to the spec, but if this is the problem...

This makes no difference; opening a record of my address DB with FM Pro takes 1 - 3 sec. the same on IWP takes about 30 sec.

Regards.

Götz

Edited April 8, 200817 yr by Guest

i tested a contact db with 395.000 and i get only few problem.

don't use dropdown list, if the list is long then you can get a problem, also don't use container field in a portal, this could be a problem also.

if the script contain few command that are nor iwp compatible use a conditional to jump them.

by

franco

but I do think, my spec are o.k.

Not if you're running a G4.

Take a look at cache allocation on Server and on client. On Server set it to the maximum amount. On FMP client set it to 12 MB instead of the default 8 MB.

Steven

Hi,

I thought that the drop down list could be a problem. As this delay only occures in IWP, I think building the list takes so mutch time.

What could be an other solution ? With the drop down list, I can ensure that the company names are entered accurate and not like in the past "ARRI", "Arri Inc.", "A.R.R.I." ...

Thanks for ony hint and suggestion.

Götz

Hi,

thats rigt a G4 is not a G5, but is one singel G5 that mutch faster than two 1.25GHz G4? And as I wrote; I tested the same DB and softwareversions on a Dual Xenon Mac Pro 2.66GHz with 4GB RAM and the IWP was slow too.

Regards

Götz

Has little to do with speed. G4 is not a supported CPU. Again, check cache settings and RAM. IWP is going to want 4 GB RAM for anything more than just a very few sessions.

Steven

Hi Steve,

thanks for your answer.

I have checked the cache: on the server side it is 480 MB. What dose the clientside FM Pro Cach has to do with the IWP if I open the database in a webbrowser?

Concerning the CPU: As I wrote, IWP is horrible slow too with the same DBs/Versions on a new Mac Pro 4 GB RAM with two dualcore 2.66 GHz xenon CPUs.

Regards

Götz

Set server side cache to the maximum of 800 MB (assuming you have 4 GB RAM installed) for use with IWP. FMP client side cache has nothing to do with IWP of course. But it should be set to 12MB insteadof the default 8 MB.

It's beginning to sound as if there might be some architectural issues with the files. Also check network set up.

Steven