1 of 1 people found this helpful
I've got a couple of clients that use Mini's for low-volume FMS 11 work. Nobody on 12 yet though. Soon. To date, everybody has been fine. the only problem we've ever run in to is broken permissions on the second internal drive for backups. That's always been easy to fix though.
One thing that I noticed is that Apple isn't offering the Fusion drive on the Server version of the Mini, just the regular version of it. So I'm wondering if the Fusion drive isn't classified as a "server class" drive yet.
I've been thinking of the Mini to replace an aging unit for my own server work. I've been considering the SSD version.
The downside of the Mini has traditionally been the drives in it. The processor is more than powerful enough to handle anything you'll be throwing at it based on your specs.
Do you think I'm better off sticking with a standard hard drive?
1 of 1 people found this helpful
Sure, it's perfect!
I have many Mac mini Server that works in this scenario.
Best Regards, Fabio
Il giorno 07/nov/2012, alle ore 15:02, rick_stringer <firstname.lastname@example.org> ha scritto:
creato da rick_stringer in Server and Server Advanced - Visualizza la discussione completa
I want to setup a pretty low-volume FileMaker 12 server. The machine that I'm considering is a Mac mini, 2.6GHz Quad-Core Intel Core I7, 16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion Drive, OS X 10.8.x. I'd also add an external USB 3 drive or possibly Thunderbolt drive. This would primarily be for databases run by my company. There are only 12 of us. We would have some databases that we would make available to clients through a web interface or possibly directly through FileMaker, but again, I don't see this as high-volume. At the most, it might get 100 hits in a week. I doubt it would even be that much. It isn't for sharing with the public.
Do you think that Mac mini can handle it? I believe it would do fine, but want to see what some of the experts out there think.
Per rispondere a tale utente, rispondi a questo messaggio e-mail -o- accedi al messaggio su FileMaker Technical Network
Avvia una nuova discussione in Server and Server Advanced per e-mail o in FileMaker Technical Network
Gestisci le tue preferenze email.
FileMaker Developer Conference 2013 • San Diego, California • August 12-15 • www.filemaker.com/devcon
Apple is not offering the server with the Fusion drive, because the Fusion drive is a hard drive + a SSD (so they use both slots) joint as one smart volume, where the OS keeps track of which files are on the SSD and which files are on the hd.
Ruben van den Boogaard
Depends by your solution!
Standard Hard Drives are ok if you create a RAID 1 array, but if you have a big and very complicated database, one SSD for the databases and one HDD for the backup is best solution.
Mac mini Server has two channel, so you can configure the first one SSD for System + databases and the second HDD for the backup.
Best Regards, Fabio
Ruben, does that mean the Fusion drive would not be appropriate for running FileMaker Server? I was not intending to get the OS X Server version of the mini.
I recently picked up this in as a solution to bringing my video rig's drive setup online (bunch of removable bay sata drives) since there isn't a realistic thunderbolt solution yet. I love it (so far). I have always had great results with sonnets products. I'm running server 12.
That xMac mini Server is slick! I think it is overkill for what I'm going to do with this mini, but I really like it. I will certainly keep that link. Thanks!
In the immortal words of Hannibal (a-team), "overkill is under rated".
We have a semi low user count (average active online user) which sits around 10-15.
I noticed that the unquestionable bottle neck on performance came from the disk io.
My initial drive to get xmac server was connectivity - direct attached sata, but it really felt like it
Ripped the ceiling off the bottleneck as well. With ur user count, I wld let the driving factor be how hard ur solutions hit containers with files. It doesn't take many simultaneous requests for file serving bfr it takes a hit. Then regardless, I wld opt to take Hannibal's advice ;)
Good Luck !
Just to throw more FMS on Mac Mini info out there -- most of my smaller clients are using Mac Minis, and all are still in use. None have given me any problems.
I am in talks with one such client who will replace their 4+ year old Mini with the one you describe ONLY because they are moving to FMS 12 because the OS not worth updating. They have about 10 local users and 10 remote users, and all bottlenecks are because of internet access latency. Never has the drive been a problem with the exceptin of hourly backups.
One of my larger clients is using an i7 Mini Server with an SSD-HDD and this machine is amazing. 250 users, although most are IWP and peak at 50 simultaneous users. Backups to SSD is too fast for the users to notice.
I must admit that I have never had the HD as a bottleneck because we've always had more than enough RAM. Use of the SSD was a tremendous help for backups, but in my case it doesn't speed up daily use.
... it Ripped the ceiling off the bottleneck as well...
That's a mixed metaphor and a half... Love it!
Our solution was a bit sluggish, so we actually upgraded from a Mac Mini, to an X Serve
Not much difference ! Mac Mini works
( it turns out the real Bottlenecks are often elsewhere )
The ONE downside we found. When the drive did fail, we could not easily pop open the box, and swap the drive with an imaged clone
> Do you think that Mac mini can handle it?
That is great to know. Thanks Scott!
That certainly gives me an option to consider. Thanks!