Best Specs for FM12

[djlane]

FM have issued a list of minimum and recommended specs for FM12 http://www.filemaker.co.uk/products/filemaker-server/server-12-specifications.html

They show the recommended RAM and HDD space for each supported Operating System - my question is, does it make a difference which OS we use ?

ie does it make any difference if we use Windows 7, or 2003 or 2008 ? Or 32 bit vs 64 bit ? FM just says they are all supported, but does not seem to say if one is better than another.

Am I wrong in thinking that a server that is hosting databases that are larger or busier or have more users might run better on one OS vs another ? Or does it really not matter which one you use, as long as you follow the recommended RAM and HDD space for that OS?

djlane

[Wim Decorte]

They've clearly stated (in the updated white paper released last week) and here at Devcon that Windows 7 should NOT be used as a FileMaker Server production sever.

2008 would be the logical choice given that Server 2012 is around the corner which would make 2003 very close to end-of-life.

64bit is better than 32bit in general.

[djlane]

Great, thanks Wim. They need to put that info on their website as well !

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Additionally to what Wim said, be sure to have high quality disks and adequate RAM. Certainly with Windows 2008 Server, 12 GB RAM is a good starting point.

Steven

[djlane]

12 GB RAM ? OK, this is the point that I'm making Steven. FM says 8 GB is "recommended", and yet you say 12 GB is "a good starting point". So really what should be on the FM website as recommended for Windows 2008 server is "12+ GB".

[Steven H. Blackwell]

It will vary depending on the specific deployment scenario. I am more conservative than FMI is regarding a lot of this stuff. Given the new 64 bit architecture and the possibility of running IWP, CWP, server side scripting (SASE), incremental backups, etc., I am configuring Server 2008 for clients with 12 GB. Also don't forget the drives (higher quality) and the processors.

The information on the FMI web site is correct, but it may not be totally sufficient. That has pretty much always been the case.

Steven

[LaRetta]

I agree with djlane - it can be confusing and the information is contradictory ... I hope you do not mind my stepping into this thread since I have a client asking the same questions.

Also don't forget the drives (higher quality) and the processors.

Steven

Hi Steven,

I have client getting ready to purchase a new server and this is what they have so far:

CPU: Xeon E3-1220 (3.1GHz, quad-core)

RAM: 12 GB

Hard Drive: 2x500GB (will be in a RAID 1 array)

OS: Windows 2008 Standard Edition (20 client licenses)

They are a bit concerned about the speed of the hard drives and they are considering RAID 5 configuration (to get the benefits of mirroring with no speed loss, they are told). So they are considering server with three SAS (SCSI) hard drives in a RAID 5 configuration. Is this a good approach? They want a dependable, fast server to serve up version 12.

Or can you or Wim give us the specs on your dream machine?

Oh, the clients will be Mac (Lion, I believe). And they will remain on version 11 for few more months.

Edited July 24, 2012 by LaRetta

[El_Pablo]

We are using FMS 12 in a virtual environment. Actually, it has 8 GB allocated of ram which is not enough, because sometime the memory peeks at 99% and it slows down FMS. So we are upgrading the ram to 16 GB this week.

The physical server is a HP ML370 G6 with 30 GB of RAM and 900 GB made of 4 300 GB HDD on RAID-5. It also has 2 CPU Xeon which I don't remember the exact number.

So if you want to virtualize FMS 12 I would double FMI recommendation to make it efficient.

[LaRetta]

Thank you El Pablo,

I recalled a post ( post='390601') where Wim discouraged RAID 5 and here it is but I am not sure that applies in all cases.

RAID5: not ideal for a database server. Raid 1+0 is better. Not sure how the Raid 5 for the VM host will translate in performance issies for its virtual guests..

Servers are like people ... each part is important in making up the whole. You wouldn't put size 13 feet on a child; the total package should be considered. :^)

[El_Pablo]

Indeed, Raid 5 is not the fastest way to access data, but in our case the data safety, hdd space and uptime were all important. That is the main reason for our configuration.

[mr_vodka]

I will chime in and say that RAID 5 over RAID 1 definitely, but if you can get 1+0 it would be ideal.

Just running server 12GB should be more that enough IMO but if one is planning on using other FM processes than more cant hurt, especially if one is running a bunch of server side scripts or something.

[Joe King]

So many thoughts, so little time.....

FIrst thought is Windows Server 2008R2 64 bit takes less drive space than it's 32 bit counterpart, so since it's the same price/ license we see no reason not to utilize it. We use this for all of our new installations. Windows 2003 will save some drive space but everytime you change the config it wants an install CD, plus there is an increasing number of features which are missing or greatly improved Win 2008.

Most of our drives are RAID-6, as we get paid to be crazy causious; however, we've been playing with RAID-10 on our SSDs. If there was a single 'best' RAID solution, the others would just 'go away'. The fact is that we have different RAID models to fit each user's needs, level of risk, and budget; trying is argue that there is one 'best' system is like saying that all FileMaker databases should use sixth normal form/ the party method. What works well in one case, certainly does not mean that it should be used all the time.

We are always playing with server configurations and have written a Server baenchmark tool, which we plan to release as 'freeware'. One of the advantages of a 'cloud' environment is that we can spin up and spin down multiple machines and do 'real-world' testing.

If anyone would like to 'play' with different server configs, let me know and I can create some trial accounts for you....

Joe King

CEO, Worldcloud, Inc.

[email protected]

865-384-8353

[LaRetta]

Hello there John!

Thank you for the feedback. It sounds like, if we purchase this server, we should plan on 16GB and RAID 1+0.

Hi Joe!

The ability to test under different configurations is a good deal. I've used webhosting before (not yours) and it was too slow. Before we purchase, we will test on Worldcloud. If speed and dollars translate favorably, it is the logical direction. Much appreciated!

[Steven H. Blackwell]

I agree that RAID 10 is the absolute best approach. You do not need RAID for an effective FileMaker Server deployment. But if you select it, be sure to have hardware RAID controllers, not software ones.

There are pluses and minuses to SSD drives vrs. fast SCSI drives.

And, BTW, stay away from Mountain Lion OS. FileMaker Server 11 and 12 essentially do not run on the new OS. See http://thefmkb.com/11004 for additional information.

Steven

[liltbrockie]

If you can afford it get a fast PCI SSD card and put the database on that... this has been without question the best upgrade for speed I've found. (Obviously you'll want to be backing that up sensibly)