mac FileMaker Pro Client and FileMaker Server on same machine

[Ralph Schwegler]

Hello

 

Can I run a client accessing a server (both v. 11) on the same machine?

 

Thank you for your comments, have a nice day!

[Wim Decorte]

No.  The server should be dedicated to its task and left alone.

 

It's ok to *install* FMP on the FMS machine so that you have it to work on the files *AFTER* you close them in FMS, for some light maintenance work etc.  But you should not let a user work with FMP on the FMS machine

[Ralph Schwegler]

actually the reason is that a customer doesn't want me to connect to the whole network but finds it's ok to connect to the server. the only task would be to do some maintenance on the filemaker solution

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Read what Wim said again.  Close the files on the Server. Stop the FIleMaker Server service. Then you can safely work on the files. The whole purpose of this is specifically to avoid and to prevent precisely what it is you say you want to do.

 

Steven

[bruceR]

Since you don't yet know what Ralph means by maintenance your advice seems premature. And in any case debatable and lacking in sufficient detail to provide meaningful guidance. As long as the Pro client is connecting by open remote, many actions are completely uncontroversial: script mods, record creation, deletion, etc.

[IdealData]

I run multiple servers with exactly this arrangement.

 

I never close the files on FMS and always run 'Open Remote'. IMO this is far safer than running FMP as direct host because FMS is much more stable and if FMP crashes whilst connected to FMS HOSTED files then you shouldn't corrupt them.

 

For purists then the server SHOULD only be run with FMS, in practise it's never failed for me - but I keep my activities confined to maintenance routines which involve long data export and update procedures.

[Wim Decorte]

What Bruce and IdealData are saying is totally fine, BUT it assumes a lot.  The whole "don't do it" is based on risk mitigation.  Sure you can do it by using "open remote" but having FMP on the server opens up the possibility of using "open" by locating the files directly from the file system which is a verified reason for corrupting files.  As soon as you give someone access to the server to open files in FMP you significantly increase the risk of that person not using "open remote" but just "open" and toasting the files.

 

So I'm turning the argument right back around; don't knock the advice without providing all the details.

 

Best practices are always "rules of thumb" and by virtue of that always generalizations, but they are very much the end result of a lot of distilled knowledge.

 

The whole point is that I could have referred more explicitly to "best practices" in my response.  But you can not refute best practices with anecdotal testimonials of "but it works for me"

 

As I mentioned before "best practices" are all about reducing the risk of things going wrong.  You can opt to ignore them and choose your own mitigation path and that is fine.  But it does assume that you know exactly what the risks are.  Even if you have never experienced them.

 

Ignoring best practices because the implied risk has never materialized for you is the same as removing the air bag from your car and not wearing seat belts because you never had an accident.