Asking too much of version 4 client?

[trusttom]

I have a setup where I am serving 11 databases using a copy of FP4.0v3 to about eight users.

Two issues tend to arise.

First, Filemaker will often but up a dialog on the host machine stating something along the lines of the disk containing the database cannot be updated; try moving the database to another disk, and providing the buttons 'quit' and 'continue.' If I click 'continue' everything proceeds as usual. Occasionally, the dialog returns repeatedly, but continued clicking of the 'continue' button solves the problem.

I have found where this issue is mentioned on other forums, but I have never seen an authoritative response.

Second, one of the databases is about 200MB with about 38000 records. This database occasionally becomes damaged if the host crashes or sometimes when a user performs a find on a quoted string.

I have recovered the file, and I have imported the records into a clone of the database to fix this file.

Has anyone else experienced these problems? Am I asking too much of the Filemaker client? Would upgrading to version 5 client solve these issues? Would upgrading to Filemaker Pro Server?

I would appreciate any additional suggestions.

Regards, Tom

[trusttom]

Thanks for your response, Kurt!

>You are definately pushing the limits of Filemaker CLIENT software for

>hosting databases. It was not designed to act as both a client and

>server/host software.

In my defense, I do have FMP Client set up on a dedicated machine. So, while I am using FMP Client to host and serve many databases no one is using this machine as a client machine.

While I don't debate the accuracy of your response I need to be able to justify the expense of purchasing Server and upgrading all of our Clients to match the version of Server. Where can I find the evidence that Server is the solution to our problems? The marketing material at filemaker.com isn't much more than happy-speak.

Our large database contains several years of email. In theory we could archive the older records, but is it necessary? Is 200MB and nearly 40000 records too big for a Filemaker file? Obviously, it is easier not to remove and archive aging records, and if we do its a drag when one wants to find a record that is now in the archive.

Regards, Tom

[Kurt Knippel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trusttom:

In my defense, I do have FMP Client set up on a dedicated machine. So, while I am using FMP Client to host and serve many databases no one is using this machine as a client machine.

---

This is not really any better than when someone is using the application or the computer for something else. The load on that machine is not the issue, the design and purpose of Filemaker client is the issue, or rather your choice not to use Filemaker server.

quote:

---

While I don't debate the accuracy of your response I need to be able to justify the expense of purchasing Server and upgrading all of our Clients to match the version of Server. Where can I find the evidence that Server is the solution to our problems? The marketing material at filemaker.com isn't much more than happy-speak.

---

I am not sure that I can point you to the definative printed answer that you seek, not something that you or your superiors will understand at least.

No competant consultant or database administrator will advise you to set things up like this. My many years of experience in these matters have taught me many, many reason why I would always advise against this course of action.

I am not speaking strictly of Filemaker here, I am talking more generally about sharing databases in a peer-to-peer environment, without using a dedicated database server machine and application.

For some specifics, Filemaker is single-threaded, this means that everyone who is attached to the database is sharing a single processor thread and thier functions are all performed one after the other. This is both leading to poor performance and unreliability.

Filemaker Server on the other hand is multi-threaded, giving each guest thier own set of threads for server processing. This greatly speeds up the processing and improves stability, since any single thread crashing will not hang the system.

Also since Filemaker Server is designed for many guests to be accessing many database simultaneously it is optimized to provide performance and stability in this regard.

Filemaker can also be scripted to provide automatic backups on whatever interval you want, something that client cannot do without much effort.

It is NOT necessary to upgrade all of your clients, if you can find a copy of Filemaker Server v3 (there was not a v4 version). Although this may be difficult as it has been out of production for more than 1.5 years now.

If you choose to buy Filemaker Server v5, then you will need to upgrade all of you client licenses as well.

quote:

---

Our large database contains several years of email. In theory we could archive the older records, but is it necessary? Is 200MB and nearly 40000 records too big for a Filemaker file? Obviously, it is easier not to remove and archive aging records, and if we do its a drag when one wants to find a record that is now in the archive.

---

Neither 200MB, nor 40,000 records are too much for Filemaker when properly configured. However 200MB and 40,000 records spread across 11 databases, hosted on a copy of Filemaker Pro client, and accessed peer-to-peer by up to 8 guests, is about as far from "properly configured" as one could get.

This is leading to your problems.

Can you solve your problems more cheaply than the server solution? Of course you can, but it has been my experience that the cheapest solution never is. You will pay much more dearly in the long run.

Good luck to you!

Kurt

[Kurt Knippel]

You are definately pushing the limits of Filemaker CLIENT software for hosting databases. It was not designed to act as both a client and server/host software.

You would be much happier using Filemaker Server software on a dedicated server machine, then you will eliminate all of these issues.

The version of Filemaker client really has no bearing on this situation, you need Filemaker Server.

[Arin]

Yeah, that's what I was going to say check ebay for FMP Server v3, I know I paid $999 for it several (maybe 3 or 4) years ago, but I bet you could get it for half of that on ebay now. That way you can see the improvment without having to go through the hassel of upgrading every client...

**Oh and just to help with some of the shock, if you get it FMP Server v3, the whole thing comes on one floppy disk...

[trusttom]

Kurt and Arin, thank you both for your responses. You've been very helpful.

Perhaps it is time to take advantage of FMI's limited-time offer of ten 5.5 seats and one 5.5 Server seat for $1999. It's cheaper than upgrading our existing Client licenses.

Regards, Tom Peterson