Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
naio

Server hardware recommendations

This topic is 1923 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Recommended Posts

We are a team of 5 working on a hosted database solution locally via FM Pro 11, we just upgraded to FMS 13 and now we need to set it up on a new server.

 

At present we run a 2009 Mac mini with 8GB and we are considering to buy a new 2.6Ghz, 8GB mini running OS X Yosemite.

 

As a second option I would get a Windows PC with a similar spec.

 

Which OS do you think it performs better with FMS 13?

 

If a Mac mini does the job, which setup should I choose: CPU, drive (hard? Fusion? flash?)

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stay away from Fusion if you go mac.

 

Choose the best performing server for the budget you have and within what you feel comfortable supporting.  If you have no experience on Windows or Mac then choosing that is a bad choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My needs are so modest (my laptop, desktop and iPad are the only clients and one at a time) that I get by with a 2011 Mac Mini with only 2gb ram. It works just fine. However I'm aware that if the demands increased, even slightly, I would need more ram at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, do you run FMS13 on your Mac mini? what OS X version?

 

What about a flash drive? would make it faster? I've heard concerns about reliability after some time of use...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

solid state drives are faster but the ones in the Mac Mini are not really server-grade and are going to fail faster than what is ideal.  If you are on a budget I would go for more processing power and more RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use Mac Mini's for a lot of server implementations. Even for rather large solutions and this has proven to be a good choice, compared to the budget.

I totally agree with Wim's general advices to get proper server grade hardware.

If you don't really need to have your own server, you could consider going to a hosting company. Then they will take care of hardware and maintenance.

In general, I would not recommend that you choose a platform, which you do not have experience with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mac Mini as a FileMaker Server Computer?

I am wondering about the FileMaker Server deployment scenarios in which the current (Late 2014) Mac Mini could be considered a plausible contender.

In the past I have used (pre-2014) Mac Minis for FileMaker Server purposes, but only in the following scenario:

1. The client is a small non-profit organization on a budget.
2. The client organization is all-Mac and does not have internal IT support.
3. The FileMaker solution is a LAN-based workgroup solution with not more that 5-10 users.
4. The solution does not require IWP (FMS12 and earlier) or WebDirect and has minimal or no iOS access/connection requirements.

I have an all-Mac, non-profit client with a mission-critical LAN-based FileMaker workgroup solution with around 15 simultaneous users. The current FileMaker server is a 7 year-old MacPro3,1 with RAID5, running FMS12. This organization has tasked a hardware and networking IT consultancy firm (they are not FileMaker developers) with upgrading their equipment - workstations and servers. This firm has recommended a high-end, Late-2014 i7 Mac Mini, with the 256GB SSD option, for FileMaker Server use. I am skeptical that this is the best solution for FileMaker Server 13 purposes in this client's FileMaker solution deployment scenario and would be inclined to recommend a Windows OS machine, with server-class SATA RAID5 and/or SSDs. Additionally, I don't believe that the new MacPro is particularly suitable or cost-effective for use as a FileMaker Server machine.

I note Wim's cautionary notes about the reliability/performance of SSDs in Apple's consumer-grade products, like the MacMini, and also about the Apple Fusion drive. Also, there is the consideration that the Core i7 processor in the current Mac Mini has 2 cores, whereas the recommend processor for FileMaker Server purposes would have 4 cores (or more, for high-end/WebDirect deployment scenarios).

Any comments or advice would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Tim Owen
Tim Owen Consulting, LLC
FileMaker FBA Member

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAID is not needed, but if you use it, employ RAID 10, not RAID 5.  And be sure to use a hardware RAID COntroller.

 

Also, I'd avoid both SSD's and SATA's.  Try SAS instead.  SSD's have issues with wear-leveling.  Two cores may not work out so well either.  Check the FMI web site for recommended specifications for server hardware.

 

Steven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the latest on picking a Mac Mini given what is actually available now?
Small shop, tight budget, modest file size, 6 users, no real need for web direct.

It seems you can't buy a Mini with an appropriate server grade SSD.

Nor can you get a 7200RPM HD.

And the available stock internal drive is only 5400 RPM.

8GB at least for RAM of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and don't forget the processing power.  The newer 2014 model has only half of the processing power in # of cores as the older model.

 

Between disk i/o and processing power those are you two most typical bottlenecks.

 

I'd stay away from those new Mac Minis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you can't get there from here. That is, suitable machines, if going Mini, are hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 1923 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By jjjjp
      After upgrading to FM Server 16, I am seeing that the automatic daily script executed from the server side is no longer doing so without error. The script sends email reminders to workshop presenters scheduled within 4 days. The error code, which I record in a log, is 119. However, that code isn't listed among the error codes listed in the online help:
      https://fmhelp.filemaker.com/help/16/fmp/en/#page/FMP_Help%2Ferror-codes.html%23
      Knowing the meaning of the error may provide useful information that will help me reconfigure the email account settings for the command Send Via SMTP Server.
      Thanks.
       
    • By "... you mean these fans?"
      Mr. Ignoramus
      We have a solution in Canada where we moved the db from a hosting company to a LAN ( customers building ) They are using a Mac OS machine running FileMaker 16 server.
      We access the FM 16 server via apple's remote access, having trouble locating where we would put the index.html and php files for our web form that we used when we were hosting on an outside hosting company.  The hosting company put the html/php file in the folder that designated our account number. 
      My question is this ... where would we put the two web files; index.html (form) and the .php (create record in FM) file on the FM 16 server.  I can not seem to locate the instruction via the documentation FM is providing.  Have done several internet search ...
      I am gathering information to pass to the individual helping us with the FM server at location.
      Anybody able to provide a link or guidance I would be grateful.
      Thank you.
       
    • By jduncan
      Hello,
      We recently upgraded from FMS 14 to FMS16 and one of our databases won't open via WebDirect due to the way it's named:  the database title has an ampersand ("&") in it.  This worked just fine for FMS14, but not for FMS16.  The easiest solution seems to be to change the database title.  I'm a little hesitant to jump into this because of a large number of externally held containers.  How would one safely go about changing the database name (I'd like to change the "&" to "and") without losing the linked containers? 
      In case anyone's wondering, I didn't name the database; I inherited it.
    • By ShelCOYS
      Hi, I have fm 14 server running on a mac mini. I have recently upgraded to FM16 running Mojave on 2 x local macs. We started with one license, where only one of us could use FM at a time (as we knew), I have since bought another copy and and reinstalled FM16 on the local mac with the new serial number but the server still seems to think we are using the same copy?? and we are getting the attached error. I have completely uninstalled FM locally but still does not work. I have asked my FM guy, as well as 2 or 3 other people but everyone seems to be stumped?? Is there any way of clearer the cache which may be holding this old information? Any help would be much appreciated.

    • By Gaohan
      Dear all,
      I'm new here so forgive me if not posted in the correct location. We have the following situation for which we do not know how to continue:
      We have Filemaker server running on a windows server. The server is accessed through its local ip address (in the 10.10.10.x block). For an internal application I would like to extract information from a FileMaker database for usage in another application. Initially, I used the xmlresultset grammar. It works for when requesting the databases hosted on the server (i.e. : http//10.10.10.x/fmi/xml/fmresultset.xml?-dbnames returns the expected result). However, when I attempt to retrieve a list of layouts that are available I keep getting an empty body result:
      http://10.10.10.x/fmi/xml/fmresultset.xml?-db=Test&-layoutnames Returns the following contents (Note the content-length = 0):
      [Chrome section: General] Request URL: http://10.10.10.x/fmi/xml/fmresultset.xml?-db=Test&-layoutnames Request Method: GET Status Code: 200 OK Remote Address: 10.10.10.x:80 Referrer Policy: no-referrer-when-downgrade [Chrome section: Response header] Content-Length: 0 Content-Type: text/xml;charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:01:06 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/10.0 X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN X-Powered-By: ARR/3.0 X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block [Chrome section: Request headers] Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/webp,image/apng,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.9,nl;q=0.8 Authorization: Basic XXXXXXXXXXXXX Cache-Control: max-age=0 Connection: keep-alive Cookie: JSESSIONID=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.jwpc1 DNT: 1 Host: 10.10.10.x Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36 I specifically made a layout that should return content as a table view of the records.
      I have verified with PHP, and it shows the same problem.
      I have read on some forum that layouts should be made available through web-publishing as well. How to do this? I cannot find it in the documentation.
      What else am I missing?
      Hoping for an answer!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.