0 Replies Latest reply on Nov 5, 2013 6:06 PM by user10625

    Strange FMS 12 installation issue

    user10625

      Windows Server, running Server 2008 R2, FMS 12

      We have 2 servers, a Live Server and a Test Server.

      Live Server is fine.

      Test Server is not happy.

       

       

      Sequence of Events:

       

      Our IT company inadvertantly (so they say . . ) installed CryptoPrevent (an anti-virus thing) on our servers. Naughy, naughty. Subsequently, I noted that the Admin Panel would not open on the Test Server. Also, it stopped CWP hosting. I rebooted, no dice. (Meanwhile, the Live Server was/is working fine.)

       

      The IT company removed CryptoPrevent from the servers.

       

      After that, I de-installed, and re-installed FMS 12 on the Test Server. Still no dice. I then went to the Filemaker Website and made sure I had the latest and greatest FMS12 installer. De-installed, and re-installed again. No dice again.

       

      Not only won't the admin panel come up . . it seemed that the initial deployment over port 16000 wouldn't even get started. This is not the issue I've seen, sometimes, where the java file doesn't work because our version of Java is out of date (or too far in the future, or whatever the Java issue du jour is). In this case, hitting 16000 gives the following message in the browser:

       

      "Could not connect to Localhost:16000". No FMS logo or anything of that nature. The server is not even listening for connections.

       

      This was all on our Test Server. Again, our Live Server is fine. So, I did a little research.

       

      I noticed in the Tasks Manager that the Live Server was running fmadminserver.exe, but our test Server was not.

      I looked at the installations of FMS on the 2 servers.

       

      Turns out that in Program Files/FileMaker/Filemaker Server/Common/ , the Live Server has a folder called "Java".

      On the Test Server, that folder does not exist!!

       

      Can anyone tell me why the installations would be different on the 2 machines? Could something be blocking the installation of some of the folders? If so, why wouldn't I be receiving a warning about that during installation?

       

       

      Thanks for any advice,

      Christopher Bailey

      Baytaflow