FileMaker Server on XServe and Mac OS X Server

[HazMatt]

First let me proclaim that I am NOT an IT guy in the traditional sense. All I know is that I hate working with our NT Server whenever I am forced to use the command line to open up a new database or whatever. The NT Server box is a noisy annoying beige box to me. (We were also unsuccessful at installing FileMaker Server 5.0 on it, meaning the console doesn't seem to work properly

[Kurt Knippel]

I work exclusively with Filemaker Server on MacOS. I would NEVER recommend it to be run on WinNT. I work for a company with 5 Filemaker Servers running on MacOS 9.04 on G4 Cubes. The only time I ever need to touch them is to open or close databases and this is pretty rare. I use 512MB to 1GB of RAM and run Filemaker Server and all of the database files out of a RAM disk. The performance is phenominal! We then backup to a seperate physical disk drive 3 times per day, backing that drive to tape once a night. Even this is overkill as we rarely ever restore anything from tape.

The Filemaker Server on MacOS is fantastic. Personally I feel that the XServe is overkill as far as Filemaker is concearned and that going with a much less expensive G4 system is all that is needed, but you can make that decision on your own.

[GusCoombes]

It's an old post now I see, but anyways - for those considering the options, my experience is that FileMaker Pro Server 5.0 and therefore probably 5.5 works absolutely fine on an older G3 or G4 Mac.

You don't need an XServer or any Mac Server software to run FMPro Server - in fact, I think FM recommends against using Pro Server on a Server machine.

The most important thing is to have a dedicated machine running your FMPro Server. You will get better stability and less hassles running FMPro Server on an old G3 than running it in combination with OS X Server on the latest greatest Server box.

Just install the minimum system necessary and _nothing_ else, and observe the notes made in the best practise technote from FM. This BTW, is not v. technical _at all_, so don't hesitate to browse through it. It's full of common sense tips, and will help you get the best out of your setup.

[cperez]

Hi,

We are a startup company involved in registration and marketing for medical meetings. We have used FMP and Server in previous positions and are getting ready to deploy it again.

We'll have 3-5 users at any given time, and our current network is wireless (802.11b, but not an Airport Base Station). We're an all-Mac office (OS X, 10.1.5) Questions:

1. What is the minimum reasonable hardware setup for running FM Server in a workgroup of this size? We'd like to start off with an inexpensive iMac or eMac dedicated to the server role (and nothing else), then as staffing and revenue picks up, transition that machine into a workstation role and replace it with a G4 tower or equivalent. I have read the "server white paper" provided by Filemaker and understand the *optimum* specs for a server, but wanted to get some real world input on this. Are we going to be miserable hosting a dozen DB files to 3-5 users from an iMac? How about from a 500 mHZ G4 with 512 RAM? We probably won't be getting an ultrawide SCSI hard drive for this machine. My Mac vendor has some good deals on discontinued models that I'm considering.

2. Our plan is to hook this server up to our wireless router and access the FM server in this way. Any thoughts on the performance we can expect from this setup? The only other device on the wireless hub/router is a Snap server which gets very limited use as a file server.

Thanks in advance for any input. We need to get this system set up in the next week or so, but don't want to spend on more server hardware than we need, and certainly don't want to run cabling unless absolutely necessary. I also read the bit about not needing OSX Server software when running FM Server. Thanks!

Chris Perez

[Kurt Knippel]

An iMac or eMac is OK, but they really are made inxepensively and tend to suffer in performance.

We have found that those old Cube make FANTASTIC Filemaker servers. We have 5 running for more than 2 years now and very little maintenance is required. We have between 10 and 25 simultaneous users.

Tons of RAM will not really help unless you plan on running Filemaker Server in a RAM disk. This is something that I highly recommend, using RAMBunctious from Clarkwood Software. This will make up for the inherantly poorer performance and longivity of the IDE harddrives in non-server systems such as the Cube.

Hooking up a wireless network is like 11mbs vs 100mbs for your typical wired LAN, so your performance will suffer by a factor of 10, but you may or may not notice it, especially since you really have nothing to compare it with.

And with 3-5 users you should be fine.

[Anatoli]

RE: I would NEVER recommend it to be run on WinNT.

I am watching ya

[cperez]

<<We have found that those old Cube make FANTASTIC Filemaker servers.

I saw your note about that in an earlier post and was intrigued. Are they so good at it that you would recommend scouring eBay for a Cube? (seriously) Weren't there some issues with overheating in the Cubes?

Related question: Does it make sense for us to host the files on a server that is running OS X, if all of the workstations run that OS? Or can we run OS 9 and use the latest version of FM Server? I know that it's possible to have two different OS generations running in this way, but is there a downside? Upside? For instance, i know that I can create a RAM disk on an OS 9 machine, but not sure if that option exists on an OS X machine.

Based on your input, I'm at least going to steer clear of the lower end Macs for this job. Sounds like even an older G4 tower is much preferred. Thanks.

Chris.

[LiveOak]

I believe Clarkwood now has RAMBunctious for OS X. If you a going to run OS 9, I'd also use Peek-a-Boo from Clarkwood. It allows you to allocate processor time explicitly to avoid the slowdown when Finder is clicked into the foreground. Cubes are nice because they are small, we can pack 4 on a server shelf. It's probably not worth looking for them specifically. Older G4 towers 400 MHz and up will work fine for FM Server. I have a client running 20+ files and 25 users on a G4 350 with iMac clients, works just fine.

Probably the only downside to OS X at this time is that we are more familiar with all the tweaks for OS 9. You might also make sure UPS shutdown software is available for whichever OS you choose. Otherwise, it's a wash.

-bd

[Kurt Knippel]

RE: I would NEVER recommend it to be run on WinNT.

I am watching ya

In this case it was an ALL Mac shop, which is why I said the above. In an all Windows shop, running it in NT is OK. Although my personal preference is to avoid NT if at all possible. I'd run OS X or Linux every time.

[Kurt Knippel]

To deal with the heat issue that some Cube have, just set a small fan set atop each Cube to draw air through it.

Actually LiveOak was good enough to build a custom shelf with fans on the bottom, which blows air through 4 of our 6 Cube servers.

[Anatoli]

Just a joke

I don't really care so much. I will also advise to stick with platform, which is known.

To rely on outside expensive help and save 10-20% on price or have 10% more or less power also doesn't have impact.

[bbaliner]

I've never had a problem running a FMS on a NT workstation. 0 maintanance and no downtime at all.

Question: what are the benefits of the "RAM disk". Is it like giving an application more cache?

How much does that matter, are the queries processed on the server or locally?

[LiveOak]

RAM disk is faster than the hard drive (1,000,000:1 natively) and it doesn't suffer fragmentation. The CALTRANS (California Dept. of Transportation) people who first suggested this approach would fragment their drives to unusability every two days and wear out high quality SCSI drives every three months from intense usage. RAM disk is immune to both of these problems.

-bd

[Anatoli]

Just from curiosity -- what are the FM server statistics for machine with RAM disk?

Where are the bottlenecks shifted?

Especially -- what is the number of transactions? Whatever that term represents in FMI World