T1 Question

[Dave Bud]

Hey everybody, I've got a relational database of about 12 files installed on a network and everybody loves it. Only problem is, now they want to use it over a T1 connection with partial bandwidth to remote offices but it takes forever to work.

Is FileMaker not designed for this kind of networking? Is this happening because of the relational nature of the DB? Is there an obvious fix to this problem?

Thanks a bunch,

Dave

[LiveOak]

No. What everyone forgets is that a full T1 line is only like a 1.5BasedT network. With everyone used to 100BasedT, this is pretty slow for about $1000 per month!

Options are:

1) User browser access with very limited functionality.

2) Access a local machine using Timbuktu (Mac) or PC Anywhere (PC)

3) Step up to the high end remote session solution and set up Citrix at about $10,000.

-bd

[Dave Bud]

Great, thank you for the response. May I ask some clarifying points on the options?

1) "User Browser" Do you mean using the DB as it would be published on the web?

2) I'm not sure I understand. If you mean that someone could use Timbuktu / PC Anywhere cross-country to a machine that is local to the server how could the data-transfer rate be better than accessing the server directly through the T1?

Since Option 3 is out of the budget, it seems to me that the only real option is to go through the synchronization circus.

Oy, I was really hoping to avoid that....

[Kurt Knippel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Bud:

Great, thank you for the response. May I ask some clarifying points on the options?

1) "User Browser" Do you mean using the DB as it would be published on the web?

---

He meant "use browser", as in web enable the DB and use a web browser to access it.

quote:

---

2) I'm not sure I understand. If you mean that someone could use Timbuktu / PC Anywhere cross-country to a machine that is local to the server how could the data-transfer rate be better than accessing the server directly through the T1?

---

With normal access via networking you are actually transfering lots of data between the client and server machines. This is pretty acceptable over a 10/100baseT network, but pretty slow over even a T1 connection.

Timbuktu only transmits screen changes as you are actually controlling a pc which is on the LAN. This makes it very fast even at modem speed connections.

quote:

---

Since Option 3 is out of the budget, it seems to me that the only real option is to go through the synchronization circus.

---

Do not do this unless you actually have a better reason than it is the cheapest option. The cheapest option seldom ever is.

I highly recommend the Timbuktu option, until you get to about 10 remote users, then the Citrix option starts to get less expensive per user.

------------------

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Kurt Knippel

Consultant

Database Resources

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.database-resources.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[Dave Bud]

Thanks, I'll have them try Timbuktu.

Out of curiosity, have you an idea of relative operating speeds? Citrix vs. Timbuktu vs. straight FileMaker over a T1?

[LiveOak]

Over the same speed line:

1) Citrix is the fastest

2) Timbuktu is next fastest, 2-5 times slower

3) FileMaker to FileMaker is the slowest, probably 10 or more times slower (depending upon the operation).

-bd

[Dave Bud]

Gracias Se

[Dave Bud]

Never mind. I've got it figured out.

Thanks,

--DB