FM Server or Peer-to-Peer?

[obdata]

Hello,

We are a small company currently running an FM database, with just one user. We want to be able to have more users at times, as many as 5 - 7. We are thinking of setting up a dedicated Mac Mini to host the file, but I'm not sure if we should be using FM Server or Peer-to-Peer. The Peer to Peer sharing speed has drastically improved in the recent versions of FM, so that isn't a hinderance now.

The main reason for us having FM Server would be the automatic backups, but I'm wondering if I couldn't just use Peer to Peer, and setup a timed script on the host that would Save A Copy every night. I could even have another script run before the backup script that would check if this is a client, and if so, close the file.

Thanks for any recommendations

-Jason

[Vaughan]

FMS, no question about it.

Don't just look at hosting speed: administration, backup and recovery and more important for mission critical systems.

FMP *cannot* run the Save a Copy as step if the file is open with more than one user (including the host). So each time you want to backup you'll have to get everybody else to quit the database.

Most of my systems now backup every hour and FMS timestamps the copies automatically. Try doing that with FMP.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Guest

[Fitch]

Is your data worth more than the cost of FileMaker Server?

[David McQueen]

I have clients who have been running peer to peer and backing up manually since FMP 5.0 days. Data integrity and performance have never been the issues. It is rather the human condition that someone actually has to make sure the files are closed and that they copy them over to another media.

It is a system that works very well in a low tech, no support, small office setting if people are diligent.

All that being said, server is there for a reason and you have to realisticly look at what your data is worth in terms of business performance.

An alternate is to use one of the remote hosting companies (eg: Point in Space etc). Prices are quite reasonable and you have serving from a professional facility and profession equipment but no headaches. Access is slower over a WAN, but I have clients who think that this is a great compromise.

Take a good hard look at what you real needs are and a good hard look at the "Human Condition" inside your operation.

It strikes me that right now, if you did go peer to peer, nothing would change much in that you have to back up manually anyway.So if you are backing up religiously now, that would continue. If you are not... Well.....that's just another form of Russian Roulette.

[obdata]

Thanks for all the advice so far.

Save a Copy does work with hosted files, but only on the host. I did a test with the file open on the main computer, with sharing on, and opened it on another computer on the LAN. I saved a copy from the host, and it worked fine. Of course, if a record is open (modified) on the client (or the host) it doesn't save the uncommited changes, which isn't really a big deal.

But I'm not sure about the data integrity with this method.

-Jason

[John May - Point In Space]

You may want to consider a professional FileMaker hosting provider, such as ourselves:

http://www.pointinspace.com/

We provide the server hardware, software (FileMaker Server Advanced), upgrades, maintenance and monitoring, etc. so you don't have to. Feel free to let me know if you have any additional questions either here or off-list to jmay(at)pointinspace.com. Thanks!

- John