Server Synchronization

[levonk]

I am developing an application for a medical institution that will be used in several health centers across 3rd world countries. Each center will have their own server (2003), and there will be a main server located at the HQ of the institution. I was told by the IT manager of the institution that the connection between the health centers and the HQ may not always be active because of different reasons. That is why each center will have their own server, which should be sufficient. The job of the HQ server will be mainly to synchronize the other servers when possible.

My question is, can I use FM Server in this situation? I am thinking of having the server installed in each health center and the HQ. The HQ server only needs to sync the data from the other servers.

[IdealData]

The good news is that FMS 10 now allows the import/export records step to be executed as a SERVER script - previously this would only be possible using a scripted event from FM client.

The exact nature of the sync is dependent on the system requirements. For example do the records have to sync BOTH ways.

You will need to establish some rules to prevent multiple changes in single records being removed when yo have imported the same record from different sources.

Your system design may have to take into account the disparate nature of the installations - but at least you have a chance with FMS 10.

[bcooney]

Also, check out SyncDek.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

See SyncDek from WorldSync.

Steven

[levonk]

Usually the change will be in one Health Center only. Each Health Center will be responsible for the people of the area it operates in, so, the info of those people will be input/modified only in that Center. Unless someone moves or is in need of treatment in another area, each Health Center could be self sufficient.

The HQ needs all the Data for reporting purposes. Health Centers may need data from other Centers only if a person registered in another center comes in.

Synchronization should be done on demand to the HQ server, and two way sync after working hours.

[levonk]

I checked SynkDek. It will do the job. But the price does not justify the need. The starter kit is 3500, and each server after that is an extra 1000.

Will FMS 10 do the job?

[Steven H. Blackwell]

I checked SynkDek. It will do the job. But the price does not justify the need. The starter kit is 3500, and each server after that is an extra 1000.

Will FMS 10 do the job?

FileMaker Server does not perform native synchronization. That's what SyncDek does.

Steven

[levonk]

My requirements are very simple.

1. No record will be edited/modified on more than one server.

2. Records from all the servers need to be gathered and put on all the servers. This can be done after hours, at night.

3. The HQ server will need all the records whenever a report is required.

To pay thousands of dollars for this simple task would be an overkill.

[mr_vodka]

This task may seem simple, but it is not. If you design a tight system, it may be possible to create a routine that writes / updates all the data to a "master" list (your HQ). Then the routine will have to go to each dependent server and add, update, & remove records as per the MASTER. However, this will not be an easy task and if you have not built a system like such before, I would strongly recommend an experienced consultant if you do not want to go with an external product.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

I agree with John. This setup is rather complex. If you don't want to follow the recommendations and use the proven process, the perhaps FileMaker Pro and FileMaker Server are not the right tools for your job.

Comparatively speaking, the amounts being discussed here are minimal. We have given you our best and most proven recommendations for a synchronization process that works.

Steven

[The Software Man]

From what I've discovered, in a similar project, is that FileMaker will not let one Server talk to another Server directly. You can write some kind of [export->file->copy->file->import] routine but it ends up being ugly in the end. If the network is unreliable, which it always is, the routine breaks down without extra engineering.

You can use SyncDek, but not without a substantial outlay of cash for software for each server, including at HQ, and as well as as a entirely separate SyncDek server. Icky and it ends up costing more than FileMaker itself.

In my desperate attempt to finish MY project, I'm tempting to setup what FileMaker guys call a "robot" computer. This is a FileMaker client at HQ that runs a [server->server] pull/push of data using the "SetField" script step.

Does anyone else in this forum think this will work? An error check during execution would check for network status and error out if the network is down. Each record would need to have a "CopiedToServerSuccessfully" flag/field so that unsent records could be retried.

I still find it disappointing that FileMaker Inc. have left such a glaring omission, like [server->Server] communication. Even more disappointing is that in previous version of FileMaker this type of communication was commonplace.

Get on the ball FileMaker. Your product is fantastic. Give us the tools we developers need to compete.