Hi All,
I have until recently had FMP7 application shared across 5 users on a small
PTP network with the database residing on one XP box on which the Host
logged in to open the database and the others shared it Remotely.
So far "stock standard" small installation with no problems.
Later on we installed a Win2000 File Server into the n/w and my superiors
wanted the FMP7 db to reside on this FS (for backup etc) and not residing
any more on one of the Client Machines
1. I moved the db from the client box to the Win2000 FS
2. I can host the db from any client by browsing the n/w to the server and
opening the db directly
3. Other users then connect Remotely to the listed remote address
My questions / comments are
1. All literature, comments so far say "DON'T DO THIS"
2. I have never had a stability or any other problem in this mode
3. In fact FMP7 is very accommodating in that it always provides the Remote
Connection address
4. I have crashed the hosting node to test it and then reconnected again -
no problems
5. I have no problems with Record Locking or other forms of data sharing
6. The Remote Host always keeps control and can message to all remote users
ok
7. The FS Server provides a reliable and backed up platform for the database
8. In fact the overall system seems faster by having the data reside on a
fast File Server
9. What problems am I supposed to be experiencing in doing this "frowned
upon" setup

Best Regards Ron H.

The main reason for not doing it, is that FMP has its own way to share
files that may - or even more WILL some time - enter in conflict with
the machine OS way to do it. That's why anybody will advise you to put
the files on a dedicated machine on an unshared folder in the OS sense.
Doing otherwise will one of these days lead to corrupted files, and you
will never know why.
I have for example a client with a dedicated PC Win2K Pro with FMS55
with 10 users attached to it. It has been working 24 hours a day 7 days
a week for 3 years now, with not a single failure or corruption ! It is
the way to go, whatever your IT guys say.
Remi-Noel


"Ron H." <ronald_h70 (AT) hotttmail (DOT) commm> a écrit dans le message de news:
O2mKe.78477$oJ.62901 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...

In article <O2mKe.78477$oJ.62901 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, ronald_h70
@hotttmail.commm says...
Ok. That explains the imminent crucifiction.

Yes you can.

Yes they can. So far I'm with you.

Yes it does.

**Yet**

Yes.

Its more complicated than that. It only has to fail once. The fact that
it didn't immediately horribly fail the on the first try is like arguing
that your cell phone is unbreakable because you dropped it once and it
survived. Keep doing it... sooner or later it breaks.

As expected.

As expected.

There are other ways of doing that.

This simply doesn't make sense. You asserting that the its faster to
read and write to the files over a network than it is to read and write
to the local hard drive. If *that* is true, you're local systems are in
pretty bad shape, I don't care what shiny monster you've got for a
server.

Data corruption.

One day it will simply stop acting normally, finds won't return all the
records that it should, deletions might still be there next time you
look, updates to records might not occur. Fields that have values in
them won't display them at random. The sort of spooky weird problems
that indicate something is subtely but horribly wrong.

Its worth the money to install server (just regular, not advanced) on
the dedicated server. It gives you better backup controls, and some
other improved management options. It would even be ok to install a
dedicate fm pro client on the 'server' and host it ptp with that.

Running it the way you've got it now will work... for a while, maybe
even a long while. I've even heard of people running this configuration
for years without problems. But its playing russian roulette with your
data... sooner or later the bullet will be in the chamber. And unlike my
roulette metaphor you might not even feel it...often by the time you
*notice* that something is wrong its too late to reach for the backups,
the data corruption can take months to become noticeable.

Ron H. <ronald_h70 (AT) hotttmail (DOT) commm> wrote:

Have you tried out those backups? Do they work? Don't assume that
because a backup file is created that when restored it will be a useable
FM file.

Backing up open and running FM databases WILL corrupt both the backups
and the open files. Not the first time. Maybe not the fifteenth time,
but it WILL.

If you're closing the FM files from both host and guests, then yes, any
good backup program will work. But only FM Server itself can reliably
back up open FM files.

As to the rest, you've been warned.

Enough of us here have been bitten, not just "heard about it" but
actually seen data loss, downtime, or untimely corruption caused by bad
hosting practices, that we can back up the recommendations of FMI with
real-world experience.

If you're hosting a hobby database that lets users look up recipes, go
ahead and host it as you please. If it's a mission-critical solution
that runs a business, run the numbers on what it will cost when you lose
the active files, the backups won't work, and it takes you weeks to
re-develop from scratch. In most businesses, reverting to paper
processes is either scarily expensive or not even possible. Loss of
data could mean substantial loss of business, with accompanying customer
dissatisfaction and ongoing unhappiness. In others it could mean actual
liability.

As always, the choice is yours. Choose wisely, grasshopper. Just
because the rope doesn't break the first dozen times you swing over the
cliff doesn't mean you aren't eventually going to end up in a bloody
heap at the bottom.

If you're an independent contractor, is your Errors and Omissions
insurance up to date? If you're an employee, are the photos of your
immediate boss at last year's Xmas party in a safe place?

Lynn Allen
--
Allen & Allen Semiotics www.semiotics.com
FSA Associate Filemaker Design & Consulting

Thankyou all,
I understand all of the the point(s) you are making and I will persuade "the
powers that be" that need to spend extra money on FMS etc
Best Regards Ron H.

"Ron H." <ronald_h70 (AT) hotttmail (DOT) commm> wrote