...the license unrestricted concurrent connections, ... there?
The doubt arises from:
yes, 50 is a theoretical limit for webdirect.
But don't forget that FMGo13 also counts towards concurrent connections now. So you could have 25 webdirect users connected and 75 FMGo users connected all at once. So your top screenshot is probably referring to that "more than 50".
Given the performance I've seen out of webdirect, I don't think I'd be comfortable putting it into place for more than 50 people anyways, at least not for a few more versions. You'd need some massive hardware and connection equipment to be able to run more than 50 people.
I think the Unrestricted license will make sense for some users....
Let's follow FileMaker Best Practices and compare two deployment options. For the sake of argument these would be identical servers (or virtual machines) with multilpe 10Gig NICs bound together for redundency and scalability and both using (20) SSD drives in a RAID-6 config via a fibre channel SAN. The concept here is to compare fairly common resources which are available as 'cloud-resources'. I don't want to say the cost is not important here, but the resource cost is equal between these two scenerios. These resources are readiliy available and it we are going to test this scenerio, it needs to be on modern cloud-ready hardware and not a Mac Mini.
Option 1: (2) FileMaker Servers with 25 WebDirect licenses in two machine deployments
- Total RAM: 28GB of RAM
- Processor Count: 28
- (2) FIleMaker Server licenses
- (50) WebDirect licenses
- (4) Windows Server licenses
- 60GB of drive space (before databases)
Option 2: (1) FileMaker Server with unlimited license in a two machine deployment
- Porcessor Count: 28
- unrestricted WebDirect
- (2) Windows Server licenses
- 30GB of drive space
The total license cost and the drive resources are higher in Option 1, not to mention if you have 26 users in Option 1, they could be denied; whereas in Option 2, they could still log on. Option 1 would require manual distribution of users. My aurgument of whether you use multiple systems or a few 'large' systems you are going to use the same amount of resources.
If we step away from FileMaker for a minute. 'Cloud logic' has shown us that Option 2 should perform better. Many Exchange servers, gaming servers, web servers, etc. are now running 'larger' servers instead of dividing into smaller resources.
There are a lot of people on this site which like to argue 'theory'. Worldcloud is offering free FileMaker 13 WebDirect access during the month of December. Instead of guessing how FileMaker might scale; we want to generate some real numbers and isolate where the 'real-world' limits may be. Once we get a reasonable amount of traffic, we plan to 'adjust' memory, processors, etc. to gain a better feel what factors have the most affect on WebDirect hosting.
Our problem, is that we can never predict usage on our shared servers; so if we set up 'unrestricted' licenses and load our servers to average about 40 users; we would still be able to scale if on the rare occassion we needed to go over 50 users without errors. If we say for argument, we need 10 'extra' licenses between average load and max, then the 'real-world' cost for a 25 session license is higher than the 50, or the unrestricted.
In years past, we have been told not to host more than 20-30 files per server; however, we have found that we can host far more than that and still keep the cache at 100%. Raising the files per server practically was the only way we can provide $12/mth hosting. We are currently trying to figure out how to best package for FMS13.
Scaling is key to license effeciency and/or lower costs. We are renewing our annual licensing before Dec 22; so this isn't a theoretrical argument for us. This is a very expensive challenge to balance resources and licensing to create the right FMS 13 WebDirect packages.
Retrieving data ...