TonyWhite

Optimum number of partitions in a single drive FileMaker Server deployment?

Discussion created by TonyWhite on Dec 20, 2016
Latest reply on Dec 23, 2016 by krheinlander

FileMaker, Inc. has traditionally recommended 3 partitions for setting up a FileMaker server machine (this was before the Progressive Backup feature was introduced...more below):
p1. OS+FMS install
p2. Databases
p3. Backups

Having the OS and FMS on a separate partition gives you the ability to clone the partition or to redo the OS+FMS more easily.
If you are running on a machine with multiple disks you have the possibility of having different parts of the deployment running on different disks and therefore bringing more I/O (and therefore more speed) to the deployment.

When FileMaker 12 shipped, Progressive Backups were introduced...which made me think that perhaps 4 partitions might the correct number.

As developers, we often find ourselves deploying FileMaker Server to machines that have less than ideal hardware, and where the only decision that is up for discussion is how to make the most of what we have. More hardware is not an option in this case.

We are working on a project where the client will be using a Mac mini with a 1 TB drive, 2 external drives (for more local backups and emergency boot clones) plus CrashPlan for off-site.

The database files are relatively small and are not expected to grow.

The hard drive was set up with 2 partitions with the thinking of 1 partition for the OS+FMS and one for the rest...since parts 2, 3, and 4 were all on the same physical disk there was no (disk failure related) advantage to partitioning. Perhaps this is true? You might even make the case that 2 partitions is better then 4, as it is more flexible in terms of the size of the elements ( Databases, Backups, Progressive Backups) that are on the 2nd partition.

Within the parameters of the setup described above, what do we think is better 2 partitions, 3 partitions or 4?

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Tony White

Outcomes