1 2 Previous Next 19 Replies Latest reply on Jun 29, 2013 10:30 AM by Stephen Huston

    Performance difference between Pro and Server

    StevenRubenstein

      Just found a weird thing happen -- performance on a FMS12 served file just got really slow. Sorts, in particular, are taking forever.

       

      I pulled the file off the server and opened the non-hosted version, and performance was great. Put it back on the server, performance was terrible.

       

      I've been playing with the SeedCode free calendar, and the initial loading of the month view on server is practically unusable because it takes so long. After initial entry to month view, it's passable. Same is true with sorts. (And I suspect the two are connected.)

       

      Anybody have any ideas on this?

        • 1. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
          taylorsharpe

          Yes... tell me about your network?  Try and time some file transfers between the client and server and see if you're getting poor network speeds.  Also, look at the External Data Sources.  They maybe are finding or erroring out much faster locally than on the Server.  If they aren't correct on the Server, it will spend a lot of time looking for those non-existent or bad links. 

          • 2. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
            StevenRubenstein

            Speeds look like they are OK, and we deleted all of the external data sources.  We're going to be testing this file on another server tomorrow AM, so will report back.

            • 3. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
              taylorsharpe

              Are there many other services running on the server at the same time such as file sharing or web services?  How is the cpu load?  What type of server OS and cpu?  How much RAM do you have and is memory having to page out?  What kind of hard drives are you working on?

              • 4. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                Mike_Mitchell

                Taylor has good suggestions. To build on them, the first thing I look at when I see a stark difference between Server and local performance is network / bandwidth issues. The fact that you see a difference between the first load of a layout or a found set and subsequent operations heightens my suspicions. What that indicates is a caching issue. FileMaker is loading the records to the local cache, which is then used for sorting and refreshing.

                 

                That suggests that there may be a problem with the database design. Caching is primarily in two areas: The Relationships Graph and the width of a table. When you first open a file, FileMaker inspects the Graph and caches all the joins. If your Graph gets too busy, it can hit what Ray Cologon calls a performance "elbow", where performance is okay, okay, okay ... LOUSY!     So check your Graph and see if you have too many table occurrences / joins. Get rid of those you're not using.

                 

                The other thing to check is the "width" of the table you're sorting on. When a FileMaker client requests a record from the server, it gets the entire record - all fields. So the more fields you have in a table, the longer it takes to fetch. Records are fetched in batches, 25 records at a time for Form View, or enough for the current display in List View and Table View. However, when you perform a Sort, FileMaker has to fetch the entire found set (because it has to know what records to put where in the sort order). Hence, you wind up with a delay as the client grabs all those records down from the server. So check your table definition and eliminate any fields you don't have to have.

                 

                HTH

                 

                Mike

                • 5. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                  gdurniak

                  I once had a similar problem, and the network patch cord for the server was defective

                   

                   

                  About the "Graph":  Years ago ( FileMaker 4 ), I had a client yell at me, because I had "added too many relationships". This, of course, was ridiculous ( at least then ).

                   

                  Is there a link to Ray's post ?  Since all the solutions I work on are "Legacy", they all have horribly massive spider graphs, but I have yet to see a specific slow down ( or "elbow" )

                   

                  greg

                   

                   

                  > If your Graph gets too busy, it can hit what Ray Cologon calls a performance "elbow", where performance is okay, okay, okay ... LOUSY!     So check your Graph and see if you have too many table occurrences / joins

                  • 6. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                    Mike_Mitchell

                    It was his presentation (or one of them) at last year's DevCon (discussing the various Graph methodologies and "processing in place). The presentation was titled, "Taming the Graph - Techniques for Graph Modeling". The example he used was BaseElements. At the time, that application had 1,028 TOs. They split that out into two files, one with 181 TOs (data file) and one with 847 TOs (UI). By doing so, they took a small DDR import from 38 seconds down to 19.

                     

                    Ray explained that this was due to caching. Since the data file had far fewer TOs, its caching burden is much smaller; hence, evaluation of all the joins is faster during imports. (He also covered how Inspector Pro accomplished much the same improvement via ExecuteSQL.)

                     

                    Every relationship has a caching burden, between every TO and every other TO on the graph and in every open file. All that contributes to overhead. Where the performance "elbow" hits for a specific application will vary, but it definitely will happen.

                     

                    Mike

                     

                    P.S. I feel your pain on the legacy apps!  

                    • 7. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                      StevenRubenstein

                      Deployed on second server, still having problems.  Great performance when it isn't hosted.

                       

                      Are there any white papers on "Taming the Graph"?  That would be helpful.

                      • 8. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                        Mike_Mitchell

                        This is Ray's original white paper. It was the basis for his talk (along with some additional material).

                         

                        Mike

                        • 9. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                          Stephen Huston

                          Let's also consider your data structure:

                          • How wide are your tables (number of fields)?
                          • Are your sorts on unindexed fields? Or, worse yet, unstored calcs?
                          • Do you have containers on the layout when you are sorting?

                          These are all things which can cause realllllly.......slooow caching on the network, but aren't particularly noticable when opened as local files.

                          • 10. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                            gdurniak

                            Please answer the previous question:  "tell me about your network? "

                             

                            this does not sound like a "Graph" problem

                             

                            greg

                             

                            > Deployed on second server, still having problems.  Great performance when it isn't hosted.

                            • 11. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                              StevenRubenstein

                              So details as follows:

                               

                              Server OS: Windows 7 sp1 64bit

                              RAM: 2GB

                              Dedicated to FMS (No other services).

                              HDD: 60gb (15.5gb free)

                              • 12. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                                Stephen Huston

                                It appears you are trying to run on a server machine with less than minimum  server specs, and that will have an impact on server performance, assuming it keeps running. RAM really is important with server.

                                 

                                 

                                Windows 7 Professional Edition SP1 * (64-bit)

                                Minimum:    CPU: Dual Core

                                        RAM: 4 GB

                                        Hard drive: 80 GB

                                Recom:    CPU: Dual core

                                        RAM: 8 GB

                                        Hard drive: 80 GB

                                • 14. Re: Performance difference between Pro and Server
                                  jormond

                                  Of a key note to pay attention to is this statement ( here ):

                                   

                                  1. Choose the proper operating system:  While FileMaker Server will run on client versions of Microsoft Windows, such as Windows 7, it Is recommended that the use of client versions of Microsoft Windows be reserved for offline development, testing, and/or demonstration purposes.  It is recommended that you install FileMaker Server using the Microsoft Windows 2003 or 2008 Server platform.

                                   

                                  Stephen Huston wrote:

                                   

                                  It appears you are trying to run on a server machine with less than minimum  server specs, and that will have an impact on server performance, assuming it keeps running. RAM really is important with server.

                                   

                                   

                                  Windows 7 Professional Edition SP1 * (64-bit)

                                  Minimum:    CPU: Dual Core

                                          RAM: 4 GB

                                          Hard drive: 80 GB

                                  Recom:    CPU: Dual core

                                          RAM: 8 GB

                                          Hard drive: 80 GB

                                  1 2 Previous Next