I forgot to say I have a number of clients who have been running peer
to peer on a number of computers for many years without any disasters.
However, none have used the separate machine host as a 'server' concept.
I also have a couple running filemaker server and I appreciate the
'benefits' of using the server software, however its just not cost
affective for such a small office.
Lee
On 11/09/10 11:51 AM, Lee wrote:
Sorry,
Filemaker version is 8.5 v2. The full server software is way too
expensive for this office in that only a maximum of 3 access machines
will be required. The peer to peer option using a separate computer as
the server seemed an option. Although I don't know any real advantage
other than the machine will be on all the time whereas at the moment
the host machine is only switched on each morning allowing the other 2
machines to access the solution. The solution is currently backed up
on closing to the host hard drive with two backups one each to the
other two machines.
In this situation, I think the only real advantage is that the
solution is running all the time on the 'server' without having to
start up the current host each morning. Sometimes the user of one of
the other two machines has to open the primary host before they can
start work. Having the solution running all the time on the 'server'
would save this need.
I guess its no different to running 4 computers peer to peer but never
turning the host off.
Lee
On 11/09/10 10:57 AM, Lee wrote:
Hi,
We have 3 computers in our office all running a filemaker solution
using one computer as the host. It has been suggested that we get a
server and if we do, can we use the server as the 'host' machine for
the other 3 to use our filemaker solution. I keep thinking that while
it may sound logical there is probably a reason not to do it.
Any thoughts ?
--
--
