Running FileMaker Pro 11 and Pro 12 at once

[Richard Fincher]

I'm looking to run FM Pro 11 and FM Pro 12 on the same mac, with each hosting on a different IP address. However, so far I've not found a way to do this, as it seems that each program picks up *both* IP addresses.

[Wim Decorte]

What's the business case for trying to do peer-to-peer sharing with two versions of FMP from one machine?   Peer-to-peer sharing is bad enough as it is but trying to combine two hosts on one machine, it'll make for terrible performance and double the problems: no live backups on either set for one.

[Richard Fincher]

My client doesn't want to update his four copies of FileMaker Pro 11 at this time. We may soon be asked to host FM 12 databases also. Right now, things are at an early stage, and I'm naturally looking to move to FileMaker Server 12 at some point ( though not sure I can run that alongside FM Pro 11 either). On the topic of live backups, I understand the theory is that it's inadvisable to take a snapshot of an open database file which may be missing unwritten cached updates, but actually I do this all the time using rsync between two locations, one running FileMaker Pro Client with local database files, and the other running FileMaker Pro Client accessing the first over the net. I think FM Pro must flush all changes to disk periodically, because I haven't lost any data this way for over 10 years. I seem to remember losing data through improperly closed files back in the days of FM Pro 3/4, but that was on Mac OS 9 which crashed a lot.

[Wim Decorte]

I understand the theory is that it's in advisable to take a snapshot of an open database file which may be missing unwritten cached updates, but actually I do this all the time using rsync between two locations, one running FileMaker Pro Client with local database files, and the other running FileMaker Pro Client accessing the first over the net. I think FM Pro must flush all changes to disk periodically, because I haven't lost data this way for 10 years. I seem to remember losing data through improperly closed files back in the days of FM Pro 3/4, but that was on Mac OS 9 which crashed a lot.

 

You are playing with fire.  Big time.  This is not theory at all.  You have been very lucky so far, but chances are you are heading for a catastrophic event that will leave you without any good backups to fall back on.

I make a living out of rectifying bad deployments and what you are doing falls squarely into that.  Typically what you will see is that everything looks good on the surface but under the hood, every rsync backup is in a dirty state (FM has no chance to pause the files properly, which is what the live backup mechanism does).  Each backup increases the risk of corruption creeping in.  And usually it does.  When the catastrophic event happens, none of your backups will be good: If you were to restore from one of your rsync backups you will notice that FM runs the files through a consistency/verification check.  That's because it picks up on the fact that the files were copied with the internal dirty flag set.

[Richard Fincher]

I do backup using time machine also, although I suspect the same caveat applies to this. Am familiar with the consistency check procedure, and as I've said, years ago when this was prompted by the dirty flag being set, you'd typically have a less than 50/50 chance of a clean result, and sometimes even had to create a fresh .fp3 file and reimport what was left of your data from the beleaguered original file (and lost layouts), so I've definitely seen the full on potential consequences of this. My rsync backup to a different location is really just a protection against those occasions where the Internet is down and the master copy of the databases cannot be opened remotely. I just use the rsynced one more or less as read-only, until the Internet connection comes back, whereupon I resume using the remotely hosted ones. Also, this was mainly an aside from my main question, and anyway I only use rsync with my own data not with paying clients' data. I have noticed that they've progressively moved more and more functionality OUT of the Pro product into the server product. For instance with FileMaker Pro 5, they ceased to allow unlimited peer to peer clients to connect, and they've now obsoleted Instant Web Publishing in 13 so that this now requires Server as well. Let's not forget that before Server came along, everyone was having to do their backups either by cloning live open files, or by taking the whole system off line or a combination of the two, as that's all there was.

Am still interested in the answer to my IP binding question, if anyone knows.

[Richard Fincher]

Actually, thinking about it, there is a wider discussion here about implementing less than ideal setups, or lower-than-best practice setups for SME clients. School of thought 1 is to tell them they're nuts, or their budget is too low, and have them go elsewhere. When they learn their lesson, they *might* come back, but usually not, I find. School 2 is you explain that, for example, running FileMaker 11 Client as a host may not be good for them, but if they're prepared to listen why, accept the shortcomings, and proceed anyway, that you stand a better chance of preserving the relationship, including after they see the light about "doing it properly". School 3 is you just say "the customer is always right" and do what they ask for without questions or explanations, and then lose them to some who'll "do a proper job" when they run into the aforementioned snags.

[bruceR]

What level of data loss do you explicitly explain to them?

[Wim Decorte]

School of thought 1 is to tell them they're nuts, or their budget is too low, and have them go elsewhere.

 

Your assumption here is that school-of thought 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.  They are not.  Translating the best practices into a solid deployment does not need to cost money.  But it requires the developer/deployer to understand the best practices and comprehend the risks in deviating from them.  Once the risks are understood (and ideally documented - for the client's sake and for the future developer's sake) then any remediation can be put in place.

 

It's fairly simple to set up something akin to live backups in a peer-to-peer environment (see modularfilemaker.org), but rsync on live files is not one of those approaches.

 

There is no substitute to doing the right thing.  It does not mean you have to fight the client for it.  You just do it.  

But at this point I don't think you fully comprehend the risk that the deployment is in.

[Rick Whitelaw]

As far as I can tell, nobody is giving you an "ear bashing". The two people who've had the courtesy of replying to your post are top level FM experts. Should either one of them respond to a post of mine, and they have, my feeling would be more like gratitude.

[Wim Decorte]

We're obviously talking at crossed purposes, and you are making multiple incorrect assumptions about my situation

 

How about you tell me where and then I'll pick up from there.

 

Check my record, I'm here to help.  Have been for the last 12 years on this forum.

Or my other credentials if you need to: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/wim-decorte/5/88a/484/

 

Remember that this is a low-bandwidth medium and one that leads to easy misunderstandings.  I have not attacked you in any way.  I am telling you that the deployment you have described is way outside of the best practices and that - in my experience - that deployment runs much higher risk of corrupting the hosted files than a deployment that follows best practices.  In fact I can almost guarantee that it does, based on deployments that I have fixed over the years.

 

You may not like being told so, nothing I can do about that.

[IdealData]

Think outside the box.

 

Run a VirtualBox!

[Richard Fincher]

Hi, I have been perusing other answers on the forums this evening before I came back to this thread, and I see what you mean about your record. I also came across some of your YouTube videos. The client is moving from a FileMaker Pro 11 Peer-to-Peer sharing arrangement without a Datacentre, to a FileMaker Pro 11 peer-to-peer sharing arrangement in a Datacentre, so whilst peer-to-peer sharing may indeed be lacking in spec, it seems unlikely to be a step backwards, especially given that he only has two users and the data is largely used as read-only having been regularly re-imported from another (non-FM) source. The server is at present dedicated to FM Pro 11, and it seemed a shame not to be able to use it for FM Pro 12 also, using a simultaneously running licensed copy of FM Pro 12. In our Linux server farm, we routinely run multiple copies of the same daemon (eg BIND, Apache etc...) on the same OS and it works fine provided different IP numbers are used. But if this is inadvisable, I can accept that, just wanted to know if it was possible.

Actually, virtualisation had occurred to me already. We use several types of Virtualisation for our Linux hosting, but although we use Parallels Desktop a lot, it's only used for testing in our organisation thusfar. We could easily setup multiple windows VMs in the Datacentre to run different FileMakers, but Mac/Linux has been our history for 16 years so sticking with what we know seemed wiser (particularly in terms if security). So we could put one FileMaker (or both) in a Parallels VM, but I think that VM platform isn't suited for running multiple VMs simultaneously, or for running a single VM where that VM has to fight with an application on the host OS for resources. I've heard of VirtualBox, but isn't that just for Windows?

I've been rather wary of FileMaker Server's reliance on Java ever since I first tried it years ago. I'm forced to use Java to manage the KVM-over-IP interfaces of my server motherboards, and it's a nightmare to keep it working. Constant updates on the OS break things, but now they prevent you from continuing past certain security warnings, and I've had to flash the BIOS on the server motherboards at least twice (something which must be done in the small hours, and which risks bricking the servers if it fails) just to keep this peculiar runtime environment from ceasing to function. How many times a year do you find that a java update breaks Filemaker Server? Is it as reliant on java now, as when it first came out? What if you decline to install java updates once you've reached a stable configuration? Also, Java doesn't work in iPad, which I now use for much of my sysadmin.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

I will add to what Wim said by noting that it really is a very bad idea to snapshot open files.  Secondly, I strong recommend using FileMaker Server rather than peer to peer configuration.

 

Steven

[Richard Fincher]

Ok. One idea put to me recently, was a scripted "save a copy as..." function?

[Wim Decorte]

http://www.modularfilemaker.org/2013/05/local-backup/

 

Not as fast / robust / efficient as a server-side backup schedule but it can work.

[Fitch]

Peer-to-peer in a Datacentre, that's not something you see every day. Have you considered a FileMaker hosting company? Also, if you want to test FileMaker Server, you can get a 3-user license for $99/year from FileMaker Technet.

[Richard Fincher]

Hi. I haven't considered a FileMaker hosting company, because I am a FileMaker hosting company (albeit a small one thusfar!). What we're doing right now, is really a stepping stone to larger things. We tend to grow such operations cautiously and organically. We started hosting Apache web server in 1999 with a single 486SX-66 MHz on a 256k leased line in a office, and now spend about $20,000 a year on our Datacentre infrastructure. We've had it in the back of our minds to do this for some years, but the timing was right this month. We're anticipating a small number of bespoke FileMaker hosting clients, rather than anything more substantial, and we're currently thinking that we will have to offer both 11 and 12/13 versions for our intended SME markets.

What's "FileMaker Technet", is it like MSDN for FileMaker techies?

[Fitch]

"The FileMaker Technical Network is the free-to-join community where you can boost your FileMaker expertise, build better solutions and solve your technical challenges."

 

http://www.filemaker.com/technet/

 

What is "MSDN" ?

[Richard Fincher]

Microsoft Developers Network

[Richard Fincher]

Thanks for the tip!

[Fitch]

I was just kidding. I have heard of Microsoft.

[Richard Fincher]

In case anyone else is interested, the official FileMaker Inc answer is no, you can't run two networked copies of FileMaker Pro on the same OS, other than by employing a virtualised environment ( which obviously has speed penalties ).

[Richard Fincher]

Got it working using Parallels Desktop. Thanks for the input everyone.

[Fitch]

Thanks for posting a followup, some future viewer will appreciate it.

[Richard Fincher]

Have slightly morphed into running FileMaker Server 13v2 on the main OS, and FileMaker Pro 11 in the virtual machine. The latter is just for one customer, so hopefully shouldn't tax CPU etc.... too much.