Mirroring

[Ian Quinn]

We host 60 databases on FM server. There are about 40 users in one location (in Ireland.) We are now setting up another plant in Livermore, CA. We want the users there to have the same Filemaker access to the same databases. The problem is that Internet access bandwidth is very limited in Livermore. 144k is the limit now. Over this connection, native filemaker reports are too slow. We could use HTML but it is limited to 3 step scripts. We use a lot of sophisticated scripts.

We have the VPN, firewalls etc in place.

If we could have a mirrored server at each plant with very frequent incremental synchronisation it seems that it might work well.

Is FM Server capable? What are the issues?

[Kurt Knippel]

How many users in the Livermore location? Do you use Macintosh or Windows?

I ask because database synchronization is VERY TRICKY and I would not even explore it unless it was the only possible solution.

A remote control solution is probable best, something like Timbuktu or Citrix or Terminal Services. This way you only need to maintain one set of databases.

Though these kinds of configurations could be costly to setup, the long term costs are negligable compared to synchronization.

[Ian Quinn]

We are running 4 PCs at present. We anticipate that this will become 20. In Ireland we are running a mixture of Macs and PCs

We are running Terminal Services as a temporary measure at present. It works but there are printing problems. We will investigate Timbuktu and Citrix.

We are prepared to make the appropriate investment in software and hardware to make this work properly and you comments about long term costs are understood.

[Kurt Knippel]

With the potential of 20 users, Citrix or the Microsoft Terminal Services solution is probably the best. Timbuktu is actually a better solution for fewer users, but starts to get more expensive per user once you reach about 10 users.

[Anatoli]

IMHO best way is to use just Unlimited (possible RAIC) and HTML Custom Interface. It will be fast and much cheaper.

The only serious costs are in developing the interface and CDML/HTML authoring.

I am seriously rethinking all FileMaker facilities and it seems to be logical way of progressing further, especially these days, when companies need good Internal (Intranet) system and External (Web) as well.

Today I can program faster and better interface in HTML/CDML, than in native FM. And to be honest, that is the area (visual aspect), where FileMaker fails to deliver. We have version 5.5, which cannot do much more, than version 1.