mcyrulik Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 If this is posted in the wrong area, please feel free to move it where it needs to be. We are looking at deploying a pretty large system to our three office locations. We are using the separation model, and will be placing an interface file at each of these locations that connects to a centrally located set of files that will store all the data for all three locations. My question revolves around the bandwidth necessary between the three locations to accomplish this without slowing the entire system down to an unusable speed. There are between 50 and 70 users at each location. Is there some resource that I can reference that would help in determining how much bandwidth we need between these locations, or is this something that we should not even be bothering with? Thanks, ~Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdealData Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The separation model might save a little bandwidth at start up, but FM will cache as much remote info as possible when it can, so diminishing the effect of the separation model. Not that I think this will be your real problem. If you try to centralise at one of your locations then you are unlikely to be able to provide realistic bandwidth to the remote 100-140 users, albeit you do not say what your comms options are. I don't think ADSL, even channel bonded, would deliver the necessary Mbps for upload. Certainly you are looking at remote hosting, preferably a dedicated server, or even co-location of your own - simply to get your databases on the Internet backbone where it will deliver speeds above 100Mbps. Your 3 locations should get the fastest ADSL service available (or better), and possibly channel bonded. Or multiple ADSL lines to distribute the load. Another factor to bear in mind is when users are creating new data, or updating existing data, then they will be pushing that data to the remote server, so as much upload speed as possible too. There a number of FM hosting sites around - you'll see their adverts on this site or just google "filemaker hosting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcyrulik Posted November 3, 2009 Author Share Posted November 3, 2009 Thanks for the input. Not sure that Hosting our FM server even on a dedicated server with a host like FMGateway would fly with the higher-ups. Not that I wont try. Right now between our three locations we have p2p T1 lines, but we have reasons(including FM) to jack that up as high as possible. We are right now working with our ISP to get more bandwidth(15Mbps or more) between the locations. So I was curious if any one had a ballpark as to what a good number was, or if there were resources I could look to for that info. ~Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdealData Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) I doubt anyone can give accurate numbers as each solution is unique. The data delivery demands will depend on lots of factors, how much data is on each layout, graphics in containers etc. Can you put your FM Server behind a throttle controlled switch/router? That way you can experiment with network speeds to find a suitable/acceptable performance level. With 15Mpbs, even SDSL, is unlikely to be enough bandwidth. Edited November 4, 2009 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H. Blackwell Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 We are using the separation model, and will be placing an interface file at each of these locations that connects to a centrally located set of files that will store all the data for all three locations. This really is not the Separation Model. Given the number of users and their far-flunbg locations, your best bet here is probably going to be a Citrix deployment connecting to a centrally located FIleMaker Server. Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aholtzapfel Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I agree, I would not personally trust any wide area network depoyment (I have seen too many problems even on the best networks that will eventually cause a problem.) I maintian a large solution that is used by offices in 4 states and we use a Terminal Server enviroment to run FM Clients for all users that work out of state. This has proven to be a stable way to deploy. Citrix (although no direct exp with it) would be an even more user friendly way to deploy and still leave the client in close proximity to your server. (making your soulution much more stable.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdealData Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Consider also Aqua Connect if using Mac as a terminal server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcyrulik Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share Posted November 5, 2009 aholtzapfel: How are the speeds with Terminal Services, and how fast is you connection to achieve that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aholtzapfel Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 when using terminal server (or citrix) the entire client is on a server somewhere close to your filemaker server. This makes filemaker run well. The only info that gets sent to users over the network, is screen shots of the application and alot less bandwidth is needed for this to run well.(even old, slow machines that could not normally run filemaker can run a terminal server client, citrix makes the process of logging onto a remote workstation obsolete by tying the login to the application being shared and makes a better user experiance.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaughan Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Citrix doesn't make FileMaker "run well" as such, it minimises the amount of "network" between the FMS and the FMP client. The idea is to have a big fat wire between the FMS and the Citrix box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Consider also Aqua Connect if using Mac as a terminal server. Interesting tip, but remind me please - what kind of filemaker license is required - if I open the same ordinary license in Virtualbox simultaniously with the mac will it give me a warning of two copies with the same license key.... etc. There are BTW alternatives: http://www.testplant.com/multidesktop.html --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcyrulik Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share Posted November 6, 2009 Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Are there any alternatives to a Citrix/Terminal Services type setup that are worth looking at? Not that these are bad options, but if I need to sell this up the chain, I need to have few options laid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Are there any alternatives to a Citrix/Terminal Services type setup that are worth looking at? Are we talking budgetting here? --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcyrulik Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 Well, yes and no. I'm trying to find out what it would take to get this working - if that is even possible. Trying to see all the options regardless of cost(at this point) to figure out what the best approach would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaughan Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 There are web-based solutions like Copilot that allow remote control of computers. Some may be free, others a small charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdealData Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I think your heading into big $numbers with any form of VPN/Terminal services. Even if you hosted at the primary site you still need a c. 150 user license and beefed up hardware to accommodate the terminal sessions. Probably around 10 machines assuming you could run 16 sessions per machine. Aqua Connect may be a suitable alternative to Citrix. Did you see my posting regarding a throttled switch for testing?? You could simulate quite easily with a wireless bridge as these can also be throttled more easily to simulate what the experience would be like if you hosted externally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 5281 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now