Erik,
How would a machine that no one is using be more likely to shut down
than a computer that someone was using?
Best practices dictate that _if_ you _must_ settle for P2P FileMaker
sharing then you put it on a machine that no one uses and _treat_ it
like a server: UPS, backups, locked in a closet, etc. Only do not turn
on OS file sharing--FileMaker hosting only!
You're right about the corruption issue with crashed and/or improperly
shut-down files. You absolutely must avoid that. But it still can
happen, and without a robust server like FileMaker Server, more
likely. The absolutely most scary problem with P2P FMP sharing is that
a client crashing can take down the hosted file. A crashed client file
will almost _never_ hose a FM Server hosted file.
Also, depending on how much data you want to re-enter, you might
consider more frequent backups. Remember, though that you cannot
backup a live FMP file with any backup utility known to man. A server-
scripted backup (or a client-scripted Save As Compacted) with a time-
stamped file name several times a day is highly recommended. Then
backup those files to somewhere(s) else.
Then there are developers that would advocate a healthy dose of server-
level hardware as the only solution they would consider. But the rules
are always: (1) get the best you can afford, and (2) you can always
afford more than you think.
Or, rather, you can't afford _not_ to.
Evaluate how much it will cost for your business (or <gasp!> your
client's business) to lose a bunch of the data it relies on every day
and you will find that it's _way_ cheaper to invest in the right stuff.
1. Dedicated computer
2. Copy of FM Server.
3. Backup, backup, backup
4. Backup, backup, disaster recovery plan, backup
It's not that FileMaker files are all that fragile, but that the cost
of even a minor problem is too high.
j.
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Lee wrote:
Erik,
I read an article on the web about Filemaker networking that said it
shouldn't be held in a file on a server to run as the host. The
primary reason was that if the server failed and closed filemaker
inappropriately, like a power shutdown, you will have an
unrecoverable filemaker file. a disaster you would agree. It was
recommended to stay on one of the workstations as the host. I do
this, but have it backup to a file on the server each evening when
the host machine is closed.
Erik Wegweiser wrote:
Lee:
Absolutely! If FM Server is out of the question (though it
shouldn't be),
you should dedicate a host machine, server or otherwise, that is not
a daily / multi-use workstation as your FileMaker Peer-to-peer host.
You haven't run into all the classic complications -- some
hazardous -- that can occur when
a person's workstation is the host?
As for remote access, if you have port 5003 open on the firewall/
router
and forwarded to the host machine, everyone can log in from outside
the office,
using FileMaker Pro. Otherwise, you can use the remote desktop
application
of your choice for users to use their own desktop machine and the
copy of
FileMaker Pro already there.
HTH
-- Erik
Hi,
I have a client who has a small office running one of my
solutions. Currently they run the solution off one computer while
the other 3 use it peer to peer. It works very well and I have it
backing up to their server when they close the program each night.
The question was asked would it be better to have it running on
their server and the 4 machines that use it all work peer to peer
from the server. Its not worth them buying the server version for
only the 4 machines that may use it. They're using Mac's running
10.4.7 and FM 8.5 One person did ask could they use it at home.
Currently, I access it using Timbuktu to make updates. Could
anyone enlighten me if there is a better way to improve this set up.
--
Lee Mills
--
--
Jonathan Fletcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project Foreman
NewMedia Construction Co.
