"Sync Failed: Field names pasted from MirrorSync script generation do not match the actual field names for table Sync_Inspection (3). Please re-run the MirrorSync configuration utility and re-paste the script steps."

I have re-run the configuration SEVERAL TIMES.  I keep getting the same error.  Everything else works fine.

Is there a limit on the number of fields in a table?  I have 2305 fields in the Inspection table.

There is a limit of 999 fields in a table. That is because we use the FileMaker Let() function to assign variables, and that is limited to 999 variable assignments.

What can I do?  Can I split the fields over multiple layouts from the same table?  If not, any suggestions?

No, that won't work. All I can think about is changing your data model.

How about multiple MirrorSync configurations, each with a different subset of fields to be sync'd?

Does Mirrorsync only count the fields on the Sync layout, or does it count ALL fields in the table.

That won't work. Since they are based on the same underlying table, they will share a modification timestamp, and you will end up in an endless cycle of updates.

For now, can I just select a subset of fields for 1 configuration.  Will Mirrorsync only count the fields on the sync layout, or does it count ALL the fields in the table regardless of what's on the layout.

It only counts the fields on the sync layout, so it should be possible to set up a subset of fields to sync. Also, MirrorSync will ignore calc fields, summaries, globals, and related fields - they don't count towards the 999 limit.

OK, thanks.  Can you please check and make sure there is absolutely no way for me to deal with more than 999 data fields in a single table.  Changing the data model is certainly doable but a HUGE PAIN.  I have about 300 different inspection layouts based on the INSPECTION table.  Splitting these into 2 or more tables means I have to change the TO's on a lot of fields.

Thanks for all your help.  I really like what you've done with MirrorSync.

Hi pedrof - there are no plans either in the short term or medium term to switch away from using the Let() statement for assigning fields in FileMaker, so the only way I could see this 999 limit increasing is if FileMaker Inc. changed that in a future version of FileMaker, and I have no reason to think they will do that. Sorry... it does sound like a huge pain. Please be sure to do plenty of testing first to make sure that MirrorSync will do what you need before switching, I would hate for you to do all that work and then run into some other problem.