Why do you have to instances of FMS on the same machine? That is my first "warning signal". I would always have a dedicated computer for each FMS
So if I'm reading this right, you're trying to have 2 different FileMaker Servers host the same files at the same time?
If this is what you are trying, I can't see how you would ever expect that to work? No wonder the FMS's get confused...
1 of 1 people found this helpful
I have a beefy MacMini server getting setup for client.
We partitioned the disk (SSD) into three partitions - FMS15 on Sierra, FMS16 on Sierra, and a “Data” disk where we store the live db’s.
Both FMS installs point at the “Data” partition as an alternate databases location.
Where to start...
MacMinis are often marginal for one FMS, putting two of them on it??
Pretty sure there is all sorts of internal confusion about what deamon belongs to what install; FMS is not designed to have multiple instances on one OS install.
Firefox is not supported for the FMS admin console; for the same reason it is not supported for WebDirect.
I all of this could work; pointing two FMS installs to the same data drive is just asking for performance pain. You don't want to database processes slugging it out for priority over disk i/o.
Of the 4 traditional bottlenecks: memory, network throughput, disk i/o, processing power, the last to (processing and disk i/o) are usually the killers. With this setup you managed to kill both of them:
- the Mac Mini doesn't have a lot of processing power; certainly not enough for two instances of FMS
- if it would work you would make both of them fight over the available disk i/o
If you call FMI support they'll make you take off one of the FMS's before they will even continue the conversation...
Two separate boot partitions. Seemed to work. Plan to nuke it back to one and do the "right thing”. Nothing like experimentation.
"Knowledge is knowing the tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting in your fruit salad." --- Miles Kington