Questions about serving database

On Jul 9, 2:03 pm, David Averbach wrote:
> I've only every really set up FM Server 7 on a closed intranet, and
> not from a public IP address. In any case, I'm exploring different
> options for a client who has a small home office with a staff that
> works remotely out of their homes, and I want to know as much as I can
> before making recommendations. All this would be the latest version
> FileMaker 9, although I only have Filemaker Advanced 8.5 right now.
>
> 1) I know the computer that serves the database can be anything, but a
> few years ago, FM recommended a dedicated computer and actually
> recommended a PC over a Mac. What would people recommend as minimum
> specs for a computer, and if my client environment is almost all mac,
> should I really get a PC? Any negative experiences on a mac or pc
> because it wasn't a good enough computer?
>
> 2) What about services like POINT IN SPACE? $60 seems like a lot to
> serve two files. I know they have a free trial, but would access be
> all that much faster than say, upgrading cable internet to a static IP
> address and a fairly cheap PC?
>
> 3) I've set up my database with a data file, and a shell file. I might
> want to add a few users that just need access to a tiny bit of the
> information. Instead of dealing with complex permission and users and
> groups, is there any problem with just creating an additional shell
> database that will only access the parts of the database that I tell
> it to and not the rest? In other words, is there any problem with
> having two different shell databases accessing the same data file? I
> don't think so, but I'm just checking
>
> 4) Has anyone had experience dealing with photos served remotely (i.e.
> not on a local network). I tried this on our intranet and local was
> fine, but across country was too slow. But that was a few years ago
> with FM7. How about now access a host over an internet connection?
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> David Averbach

1) I think the dedicated server idea is a good one, but haven't heard
that PCs are preferred over Macs. Do you have a reference? I have
several clients set up on Mac Minis. Works great.

2) Point in Space is perhaps the most well-known server, but there are
others that are less expensive. I use MacUSA and find the customer
service excellent, though their administrative tools lack a little.
But even at $60/month, that's compared to $500 for a Mini, $900 for
Server 9, plus maintenence free server environment? If most of the
users will be connecting over the Internet, rather than an intranet, I
think a 3d party dedicated hosting service is hands down the winner.

3) The only real security in Filemaker is Access Privileges. But if
it's psuedo-security, aka more convenience than protection, then a
separate interface file is fine. And there's no issue I know of for
having different interface files.

4) Haven't had experience there so I can't help you.

Good luck,
G

In article
,
Grip wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2:03 pm, David Averbach wrote:
> > I've only every really set up FM Server 7 on a closed intranet, and
> > not from a public IP address. In any case, I'm exploring different
> > options for a client who has a small home office with a staff that
> > works remotely out of their homes, and I want to know as much as I can
> > before making recommendations. All this would be the latest version
> > FileMaker 9, although I only have Filemaker Advanced 8.5 right now.
> >
> > 1) I know the computer that serves the database can be anything, but a
> > few years ago, FM recommended a dedicated computer and actually
> > recommended a PC over a Mac. What would people recommend as minimum
> > specs for a computer, and if my client environment is almost all mac,
> > should I really get a PC? Any negative experiences on a mac or pc
> > because it wasn't a good enough computer?
> >
> > 2) What about services like POINT IN SPACE? $60 seems like a lot to
> > serve two files. I know they have a free trial, but would access be
> > all that much faster than say, upgrading cable internet to a static IP
> > address and a fairly cheap PC?
> >
> > 3) I've set up my database with a data file, and a shell file. I might
> > want to add a few users that just need access to a tiny bit of the
> > information. Instead of dealing with complex permission and users and
> > groups, is there any problem with just creating an additional shell
> > database that will only access the parts of the database that I tell
> > it to and not the rest? In other words, is there any problem with
> > having two different shell databases accessing the same data file? I
> > don't think so, but I'm just checking
> >
> > 4) Has anyone had experience dealing with photos served remotely (i.e.
> > not on a local network). I tried this on our intranet and local was
> > fine, but across country was too slow. But that was a few years ago
> > with FM7. How about now access a host over an internet connection?
> >
> > Thanks so much.
> >
> > David Averbach
>
> 1) I think the dedicated server idea is a good one, but haven't heard
> that PCs are preferred over Macs. Do you have a reference? I have
> several clients set up on Mac Minis. Works great.

A Mac Mini is what I would have also gone with for a small Mac-based
organisation I do work for. Unfortunately they decided to go to another
(incompetent) person for their server needs and got conned into a
PowerMac and a whole pile of extras and an expensive "maintenance"
contract ... and the system still doesn't work properly nearly six
months later. They didn't even really need a "server system" at all
since they had a couple of spare iMacs that could have done the job
just as well.



Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:03:32 -0700 (PDT), David Averbach
wrote:

>4) Has anyone had experience dealing with photos served remotely (i.e.
>not on a local network). I tried this on our intranet and local was
>fine, but across country was too slow. But that was a few years ago
>with FM7. How about now access a host over an internet connection?

FMP is probably not the reason for the slow transfer. Like any
Internet data transfer, you're limited by the slowest link in the
route. For an end user this is typically the last hop, the one from
his ISP down to his terminal. So it can vary widely depending on
where that end user is. It could also be the first hop, from your
image server up. Try making the image file sizes as small as
possible. Try debugging your connection protocol -- maybe the images
transfer quickly but your image server takes a long time to log FMP on
first. Check to see if FMP has to authenticate every time it needs an
image, or just once per session.

hope this helps

--
FW


FileMaker Pro 8.5 Advanced on Windows XP Pro SP2
FileMaker Server 8.0 on Windows 2003 Server R2

A few important things to think about as we have been hosting for many
years and have over 400 clients hosting with us.

A. When you host yourself you are responsible for hardware, software,
and maintenance. You are also responsible for monitoring the server
24/7 and what happens when your cable goes out, or your power goes
out? Do you have back-up generators?
B. A typical cable or DSL home connection is 10x slower then the
speeds you get at a data center, specifically the upload side of the
connection - which is vital to having fast database access times.
FMGateway servers are exceptionally fast with a constant 10MBit-20MBit
with bursts up to 50MBit.

C. Using a Mac mini for a hosting environment is not recommended,
unless you only expect a small amount of traffic.

** Reasons why I would recommend a company like FMGateway.com for
hosting **

A. Cost - FMGateway is extremely inexpensive, offers 24/7 monitoring
and performs 3 back-ups daily to another computer. All back-ups are
secure and encrypted. No other company offers that.
B. FMGateway is run by developers that are actually FileMaker web
experts. They all have extensive knowledge of web programming
languages, server technology and are all published authors. FMGateway
is made up of a team of established professionals.
C. FMGateway has written browser based software to enable you to
manage your databases without having to use FTP. The database manager
simply allows you to open your browser and then - open, close, back-
up, up-load your databases without having to touch FTP.
D. FMGateway also allows XML, PHP and Remote Hosting on their
servers.

Costs $29.99 for a basic hosting account - 1 Database 24/7 monitoring
Cost $45.99 for 4 databases - 24/7 monitoring

If you would like to read a detailed paper explaining FileMaker
Hosting in general - http://www.fmgateway.com/filemaker_hosting.php

I hope this is helpful!

In Kindness
Stephen Knight

In article
<7f7b851b-9139-41a4-9967-5b2239233735@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
FMWebschool wrote:

> A few important things to think about as we have been hosting for many
> years and have over 400 clients hosting with us.
>
> A. When you host yourself you are responsible for hardware, software,
> and maintenance. You are also responsible for monitoring the server
> 24/7 and what happens when your cable goes out, or your power goes
> out? Do you have back-up generators?
> B. A typical cable or DSL home connection is 10x slower then the
> speeds you get at a data center, specifically the upload side of the
> connection - which is vital to having fast database access times.
> FMGateway servers are exceptionally fast with a constant 10MBit-20MBit
> with bursts up to 50MBit.
>
> C. Using a Mac mini for a hosting environment is not recommended,
> unless you only expect a small amount of traffic.
>
> ** Reasons why I would recommend a company like FMGateway.com for
> hosting **
>
> A. Cost - FMGateway is extremely inexpensive, offers 24/7 monitoring
> and performs 3 back-ups daily to another computer. All back-ups are
> secure and encrypted. No other company offers that.
> B. FMGateway is run by developers that are actually FileMaker web
> experts. They all have extensive knowledge of web programming
> languages, server technology and are all published authors. FMGateway
> is made up of a team of established professionals.
> C. FMGateway has written browser based software to enable you to
> manage your databases without having to use FTP. The database manager
> simply allows you to open your browser and then - open, close, back-
> up, up-load your databases without having to touch FTP.
> D. FMGateway also allows XML, PHP and Remote Hosting on their
> servers.
>
> Costs $29.99 for a basic hosting account - 1 Database 24/7 monitoring
> Cost $45.99 for 4 databases - 24/7 monitoring
>
> If you would like to read a detailed paper explaining FileMaker
> Hosting in general - http://www.fmgateway.com/filemaker_hosting.php
>
> I hope this is helpful!
>
> In Kindness
> Stephen Knight

I'm guessing those prices are per month, in which case they are not
really "extremely inexpensive" at all, but can be be more cost
effective than some people trying to have their own host / server.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to news@netfront.net --

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:03:29 -0700 (PDT), FMWebschool
wrote:

>A few important things to think about as we have been hosting for many
>years and have over 400 clients hosting with us.
>
>A. When you host yourself you are responsible for hardware, software,
>and maintenance. You are also responsible for monitoring the server
>24/7 and what happens when your cable goes out, or your power goes
>out? Do you have back-up generators?
>B. A typical cable or DSL home connection is 10x slower then the
>speeds you get at a data center, specifically the upload side of the
>connection - which is vital to having fast database access times.
>FMGateway servers are exceptionally fast with a constant 10MBit-20MBit
>with bursts up to 50MBit.
>
>C. Using a Mac mini for a hosting environment is not recommended,
>unless you only expect a small amount of traffic.
>
>** Reasons why I would recommend a company like FMGateway.com for
>hosting **
>
>A. Cost - FMGateway is extremely inexpensive, offers 24/7 monitoring
>and performs 3 back-ups daily to another computer. All back-ups are
>secure and encrypted. No other company offers that.
>B. FMGateway is run by developers that are actually FileMaker web
>experts. They all have extensive knowledge of web programming
>languages, server technology and are all published authors. FMGateway
>is made up of a team of established professionals.
>C. FMGateway has written browser based software to enable you to
>manage your databases without having to use FTP. The database manager
>simply allows you to open your browser and then - open, close, back-
>up, up-load your databases without having to touch FTP.
>D. FMGateway also allows XML, PHP and Remote Hosting on their
>servers.
>
>Costs $29.99 for a basic hosting account - 1 Database 24/7 monitoring
>Cost $45.99 for 4 databases - 24/7 monitoring
>
>If you would like to read a detailed paper explaining FileMaker
>Hosting in general - http://www.fmgateway.com/filemaker_hosting.php
>
>I hope this is helpful!

I know nothing about this service, I never heard of it before today,
so I can't comment on it or recommend it. However, if the foregoing is
accurate, then if one takes into account:

* the hassle of creating any kind of Web server
* what colocation costs these days
* this is a FileMaker-specific service
* the level of service offered

.... this strikes me as a lot of bang for the buck. If I were going to
host a FMP database on the Web I'd investigate this for sure.

--
FW

FileMaker Pro 8.5 Advanced on Windows XP Pro SP2
FileMaker Server 8.0 on Windows 2003 Server R2

On Jul 9, 1:03*pm, David Averbach wrote:
> I've only every really set up FM Server 7 on a closed intranet, and
> not from a public IP address. In any case, I'm exploring different
> options for a client who has a small home office with a staff that
> works remotely out of their homes, and I want to know as much as I can
> before making recommendations. All this would be the latest version
> FileMaker 9, although I only have Filemaker Advanced 8.5 right now.
>
> 1) I know the computer that serves the database can be anything, but a
> few years ago, FM recommended a dedicated computer and actually
> recommended a PC over a Mac. What would people recommend as minimum
> specs for a computer, and if my client environment is almost all mac,
> should I really get a PC? Any negative experiences on a mac or pc
> because it wasn't a good enough computer?

If your load is low, FM can be anything and it just doesn't matter. If
your load is high, then yes, throwing CPU, RAM, and faster/RAID hard
drives at it will make a big difference. As for the recommendation to
get a PC Windows appears to have a performance edge over OSX in
performance, or at least it did recently, I don't know if that's still
the case with FM9 and Leopard.

But unless your load is high or your databases very large a 2 year old
mac mini will be just fine.

> 2) What about services like POINT IN SPACE? $60 seems like a lot to
> serve two files. I know they have a free trial, but would access be
> all that much faster than say, upgrading cable internet to a static IP
> address and a fairly cheap PC?

Hard to say. If you -already- have a PC, OS, and FM Server, than yeah,
60/mo is a fair bit. If you don't though, your looking at least $1500+
maintenance, electricity, the cost of upgrading your internet to
static etc, etc. Call it an even 2200 over 3 years and that's probably
a bit a low. vs 60/mo for 3 years = $2160. So its not a bad deal, if
you figure on replacing the mac mini & staying current to the latest
version of FM -- meaning you'll probably be spending another $1500 or
so a few years down the road.

Sure if you stretch it out, don't upgrade and run the mini for 5
years, you're ahead of the game... so its not cut and dry.

> 3) I've set up my database with a data file, and a shell file. I might
> want to add a few users that just need access to a tiny bit of the
> information. Instead of dealing with complex permission and users and
> groups, is there any problem with just creating an additional shell
> database that will only access the parts of the database that I tell
> it to and not the rest? In other words, is there any problem with
> having two different shell databases accessing the same data file? I
> don't think so, but I'm just checking

No problem at all. (there are some gotchas though to watch for)

> 4) Has anyone had experience dealing with photos served remotely (i.e.
> not on a local network). I tried this on our intranet and local was
> fine, but across country was too slow. But that was a few years ago
> with FM7. How about now access a host over an internet connection?

Your upload speed is fairly limited, even on cable, which will make
serving photos fairly slow. You might want to consider a hybrid
solution... dump a copy of the photos on a fast dirt cheap internet
host while hosting the database yourself, serving up links to the
external photos.

-cheers,
Dave

"Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would
permit us to be pirates."
-Twain

Yes its really basic math when you look at the cost this way -

If you set up your own server - (Basics)

* Cost of purchasing a server $800 + depending on what you use
* High Speed Internet - not even connected to a major hub $60 month
* FileMaker Server Software $999 - $1500.00
* Server Software and Spam Protection software $250+
* Monitoring Software with alerts - $15 a month

Total - for 12 months = $2500 - $3000

*** Plus you will want to keep current too with new revisions of
FileMaker Server so you have upgrade costs ***

FMGateway.com Costs

* We purchase the server - no cost to you
* We pay for extremely fast internet connection through a constant
10MBit-20MBit with bursts up to 50MBit through major data centers
* We buy the FileMaker Server software and we update and test the new
FileMaker Server Software as it is released (FMGateway is a part of
the FileMaker Beta Testing team giving us an opportunity to test pre-
release software)
* We pay for Server monitoring services that notify us by SMS \Text
message and email. A team of no less than 3 people are informed
within 5 seconds of the Web Publishing Engine or Server going down.
* We pay for all server protection software and provide another
hosted server where all of the database are backed up three times a
day.

* Your total cost a month is $24.99 - $44.99 a month. I think that
the prices for what you receive are extremely reasonable.


So, even if you just purchased FileMaker server yourself for $999.99
and had no other cost, it would still take you over 3 years of hosting
with FMGateway to equal the cost of what you would pay for FileMaker
Server alone. Also by that time, FileMaker would have released a
couple more versions of server, so you would be stuck having to buy
the upgrades. FMGateway assumes all of those costs so you don't have
to.

I hope this explains things a little more thoroughly.

http://www.fmgateway.com
FileMaker hosting made easy

On Jul 12, 7:59*am, FMWebschool wrote:
> Yes its really basic math when you look at the cost this way -
>
> If you set up your own server - (Basics)
>
> * *Cost of purchasing a server $800 + depending on what you use
> * *High Speed Internet - not even connected to a major hub $60 month
> * *FileMaker Server Software $999 - $1500.00
> * *Server Software and Spam Protection software $250+
> * *Monitoring Software with alerts - $15 a month
>
> Total - for 12 months = $2500 - $3000

I'd argue that is a somewhat unrealistic situation.

Seriously that would only construct an accurate picture if you had
nothing, and replaced -everything- every 12 months, which is unlikely.
That is why I based it over 3 years. And made a number of other more
reasonable assumptions.

Suppose they are your typical small business, that need to publish a
light load database realistically expecting to peak at 3-5
simultaneous remote users, hitting it, at peak, in the '10s of page
loads per -minute-, (minute not second.).

They don't need fancy hardware.
They already have a Filemaker Pro workgroup on the LAN with 5-10
clients and a Server. (Thus they are already on a filemaker
maintenance contract paying for upgrades etc...)
They already have a broadband internet connection.
They don't need 'server software' or 'antispam' for their filemaker
host. The OS that comes with their PC / Mac is more than adequate, and
I'm not sure why you brought up spam in the first place.
Server monitoring and alerts, if you really need it, can be had for $5/
mo.

In that scenario, it just doesn't make sense to contract with a host
unless you need 5/9s uptime and want a team of ninjas to spring into
action the moment its down, or if my initial assumption about
bandwidth is altered... ie if you your database load is going to
exceed the bandwidth you can readily bring into your office then
hosting of some sort rapidly makes more sense.

I'd also argue that of the businesses that want to host a filemaker
database to the internet, most fit into my initial scenario, they are
already using filemaker internally. And they are using filemaker for
more than a couple users; they are likely already running their own
workgroup LAN and are already paying for hardware and software
maintenance.

So the whole 'we pay for the hardware, we pay for the internet, we pay
for the filemaker server licenses' sales pitch completely fails to
recognize that on their LAN, they -already- have server hardware, a
filemaker server, and internet access. And if they choose to host the
file, they'll still have to keep maintaining their internal
infrastructure.

And in that scenario the incremental cost of publishing a database to
the internet when you -already- have a filemaker server servicing your
LAN is pretty minimal. -as- long as you don't need more bandwidth
than you can get cheaply, and you don't need the aforementioned team
of ninjas.

Now, if you -don't- have any internal filemaker infrastructure, or you
do need a lot of bandwidth for a high load server, or it must have
5/9s uptime, then definitely going with a hosting company can be good
value...even very good value on the scale you propose.

-cheers,
Dave