FileMaker Server 10 needs to be on its own server?

[Becky88]

Hi,

The company I work for are updating their server, desktops and software. We have purchased a new server and FileMaker Server 10, the OS on the server is Windows Server 2003 64-bit version.

As I was going through the set up of FileMaker Server it said that it must be installed on a dedicated database server and not on an email, print or network server. Our server will be used for these purposes but the GB and Ram is more than capable of dealing with these tasks. Is FileMaker alright to run on the main server?

Thanks

Becky

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Basically no. And the OS version you selected is not supported for FileMaker® Server 10.

See the Technical Specifications for FileMaker Server 10.

Steven

[Becky88]

Hi,

So I'm better off with the standard edition and why is FileMaker not able to run on the main server?

Thanks

Becky

[Wim Decorte]

It can run on it, but you'll be setting yourself up for a world of hurt. Performance could potentially be very bad (especially with an email server on the same box) and the risk of OS file sharing and the required Anti Virus deployment that needs to come with that increases the risk of your files being improperly touched with a factor of 1000.

To mitigate that risk, the best practices stipulate that FMS needs to be on its own server. Just like any other business critical task.

As to performance: FMS has 3 bottlenecks: disk I/O, processor and Network. Your email server will (depend on what kind it is) try to monopolize RAM and will put a burden on the disk I/O and the network interface. You don't want two tasks on one machine competing for those resources.

But in my mind it's not so much the performance that is the real killer, it's the risk of your files getting corrupted because of decisions taken for any of the other roles on the machine.

[MacUSA]

Becky,

We've been providing FileMaker hosting for 14 years now. In an ongoing effort to push technology to its limits (and rectify failures) we have many FileMaker Server Advanced Servers configured in various ways. Single and multiple servers -- some dedicated to FileMaker Server and FileMaker Server Advanced -- and others shared.

Without equivocation I can say it's best to have a dedicated server for FileMaker Server. If you really need to squeeze as much out of the server as possible you could probably use it as a light or medium duty web server with IIs. However, I urge you not to enable File Sharing, DNS, or email services on the same server as FileMaker.

It's important to know that the FileMaker databases must be closed properly on the server prior to performing a server reboot. Not doing so frequently corrupts databases. Some corruption beyond saving the database. A shared server is more prone to freeze-ups and unexpected reboots.

Best Wishes,

Dan McFalls

MacUSA.net

[Greg Hains]

Becky.

I am in the same boat as you. I have do have Windows Server 2003 which is a compatible product, but do have a very capable server to run it on and it seems a "waste" to have just FMS on it - Im trying to run my main web server alongside it.

Wim Decorte is right about the world of hurt - it can be really tricky to setup other products along side of FMS. Stick to the recommended platforms.

I havent done it yet, but the path I was going to take was to make the server a virtual server, so run it as a seperate virtual machine (I hope Im not speaking Greek to you here), that way (assuming the server has decent "grunt") you can keep them all seperate but on the same box.

Hope this helps some.

Greg