Do you have enough RAM on the hosting?
Would you mind sharing who the host is?
WebDirect shouldn't be offered in a shared hosting environment, due to the hardware requirements. See here:
This is why we require a virtual dedicated server to host WebDirect on our servers, and our customers using such are having success with it.
And in addition, as FileMaker Inc recently (and in my view, not a day to early) announced, shared hosting is not recommended at all, whether you use WebDirect or not:
"FileMaker strongly recommends that hosting companies do not support multiple customers at a time using a single license of FileMaker Server. In future versions released after FileMaker Server 14, the FileMaker Server End User License Agreement (EULA) will require commercial hosting providers to acquire a dedicated license for each customer"
What's the reason for that? If the server's resources aren't being maxed out, and the files being hosted are adequately screened for glaring security holes, then why restrict the hosting providers so much? I've got a load of clients who just need their file hosted in the cloud, which only gets accessed by a couple of people, under very little load. It's excessive to make them pay for the full server license.
Obviously as your users and requirements grow, then the argument can be made to go to a dedicated box, but for smaller users, it just makes filemaker an overly expensive option, which doesn't do me any favours as a developer for these clients.
If you haven't done so already, make sure you turn the webdirect compatability filter on and check your scripts. If it's not webdirect compatible, disable the script step.
I agree with Lynda about checking your scripts for WebDirect compatibility (View menu: Compatibility: FileMaker WebDirect).
If a step is incompatible with WebDirect, but you want the step available on the desktop, you can test to see if a user is using WebDirect, and if so, you can modify the script so the incompatibility won't cause problems. For instance:
If ( Get ( SystemPlatform ) ≠ 4 )
You can also have some control over what happens with script steps that come AFTER an incompatible step.
With Allow User Abort ON, unsupported script steps stop the script.
With Allow User Abort Off (default), unsupported script steps are skipped over and the script continues to execute. This can cause real problems if you're not careful.
I know not everyone will agree here, and I can certainly understand that this may causing issues for some developers (not to mention hosting providers).
FileMaker Inc will have their reasons, and I won't make their argument for them.
As far as my own business reasons to like this, I've recommended clients to stay away from shared hosting since I started running my own business - even in cases where performance per se isn't an issue.
With the kind of clients I target, if an organization can't afford the additional expense for an annual license of FileMaker Server, they're most likely not a client I'm going to want to take on (unless I'm doing the odd pro-bono for a worthy cause).
Secondly, even if the performance "should" and can be fine with shared hosting, just the uncertainty of having to rely on hope rather be able to control this is in my view worth the annual license cost.
Further, virtually all my clients tend to end up needing some kind of "special configuration" server-side - ODBC drivers, server-side schedules, plugins, or what not - and that then ends up being a pain to maintain if you have shared hosting.
Lastly, there are serious security issues with shared hosting, in particular if plugins are allowed on the server.
My hope is actually that there will be better offers for dedicated hosting, and that at least some of my clients may be moving in that direction, which in the end hopefully will save them money in terms of less money spent on hardware and general IT support.