Any risk of corruption greater than zero is not good. A corrupted file can become completely unusable and file corruption can be latent (not noticeable) for an extended period of time until something happens to make the problem obvious and then you find that all your back up copies are also damaged as they are also back ups of your damaged file.
You need to open the db on the server with FileMaker Pro or Filemaker Server and then users should use Open Remote from within Filemaker to access the hosted database.
I also would not set up a separate database for each project. It generally works much better to keep all your data from all your projects in the same database, but with a value in a field that identifies the project so that you can work with different projects by pulling up different groups of records rather than having to open a different database.
Many Thanks Phil,
I'm still getting my head around Filemaker. I take your point about having one big database. Would it therefore be better to host this database using Filemaker Server?
Server is a better option than using FileMaker Pro, but it's also much more expensive. Some people then choose to contract with a FileMaker hosting service--which also lessens the the IT issues involved in installing and configuring server.
So you'll have to weigh the cost vs the benefits. The biggest limitation to the less expensive Filemaker Pro host is that it can only support up to 5 simultaneous connections and that counts a person sitting at and using the host machine as one of the 5.