4 Replies Latest reply on Apr 11, 2012 6:00 AM by taylorsharpe

    perfect performance, small business scenario FMS 11 hardware

    cateringtraveller

      Hi everyone,

       

      for weeks I spent a fair bit of optimizing some 10 files that are based on the separation model

      and that I progressively worked on for four years in order to tweak their performance.

       

      Now I would like to tweak the hardware side and would appreciate your opinion of the optimal hardware setup:

       

      current setup:

      10 files solution

      accessed by <10 clients on LAN (Gigabit)

      maximum 4 clients loggin in from a fast internet connection ( 50.000 Kbit up and 5000 Kbit down) without VPN

      all clients on macs

      all on FM11

      FMS11 currently on Windows 2003 server Dual Core 1,8GHz 4GB Ram (but the server also used for filesharing)

      4Mbit SDSL line

       

      My idea was to move to a current

      - Mac Mini server Lion and 8 GB Ram

      - move internet to 80.000 Kbit up 6000 Kbit down

       

      Would this turn into a considerable speed increase (especially for the Internet Clients)?

      Are the 8GB Ram necessary- do they help or are they possibly not used?

       

      On a side note:

      I dont want to switch to 12 yet (speed issues).

      Since we are using Supercontainer, would there also be a way to integrate a good VPN hardware router (Cisco?)

      to start using the scenario via vpn possibly (or would that take all the wind out of the connection)?

       

      Thanks for your ideas!

        • 1. Re: perfect performance, small business scenario FMS 11 hardware
          taylorsharpe

          The Mac Mini Servers sure are nice with the i7 processors.  I personally set up several clients with them and married them to Pegasus RAIDs for their data and this resulted in pretty fast speeds!  For an inexpensive and less than enterprise level hardware, it sure is a great solution. 

           

          Another issues is how 12 uses container fields and if you're looking at SuperContainer on an old 10 version, you really should take a second look at how 12 handles container fields.  Data is stored externally from the database and can even be encrypted. 

           

          Personally, the layouts and reports I use in 12 are faster than 11.  I think there is a bug somewhere in 12 making a handful of situations slower, but most all of my reports are going faster in 12.  And I suspect any such UI issue causing some specific case problems will be addressed by FileMaker soon.  But overall, my databases are performing faster on my FileMaker server and WAN performance is improved too.  So while I could find a situation that is slower, overall the upgrade has benefited my performance via the server. 

          • 2. Re: perfect performance, small business scenario FMS 11 hardware
            taylorsharpe

            Ooops, one more thing, now that FileMaker is 64 bit, it can address more than 4 gigs of RAM if necessary.  So the 8 gigs really could benefit FileMaker 12 if you have really large databases.  While I can see a client machine still only being 4 gigs as the standard, I hardly see anyone buying a server with less than 8 gigs, especially since 8 gigs is not very expensive anymore.  If you run no other services or apps other than FileMaker, you could get by with 4, but I still would recommend 8. 

            1 of 1 people found this helpful
            • 3. Re: perfect performance, small business scenario FMS 11 hardware
              cateringtraveller

              thank you for your opinion.

               

              I tested the scripts that I am performing on FM 12 and they are all slower, up to 6seconds slower then on 11, and yes, there might be a bug

              and it should by FMI to find whatever is causing all the other slowing downs (eg. embossed fields on layouts converted to css etc).

               

              On the SuperContainer there are pros and cons, eg. importing full sets of files from a folder by script is a great feature. The streaming bit of the

              container fields I would have to look into. I can go with 11 at the moment.

              • 4. Re: perfect performance, small business scenario FMS 11 hardware
                taylorsharpe

                If you've tested it and it is slower for you, then you might want to hold off for a bit.  I'm still surprised when people keep saying all of their scripts are slower and mine don't seem to doing that.  I wonder if it has to do with my setup which includes FMS over LAN using RAID drives and plenty of RAM. 

                 

                Anyway, the latest version of 11 sure was a rock solid server, so you can't go wrong there.