My Three sided FM triangle

My Three sided FM triangle

Post by Rose » Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:13:57



Hi,
I'm seriously considering switching our rather heavy database application
over to FM Server.
But I am a "Proof-of-the-pudding "kind of person and I cannot recommend a
switch based on assumptions such as "I don't see why it shouldn't work".
"Filemaker Inc says this or that ...",
I am convinced that people have already been to where I want to go and I
want to find them and hear what they have to say.

I have three main criteria : Users, Files and Processing.
In my mind, these three criteria form a triangle.
I can only switch to FM if the three sides of the triangle are in place
***simultaneously***.

Side 1 :   15-20 users simultaneously, creating, searching, viewing,
modifying records using complex layouts.

Side 2 :    Big files :70000 clients, 20000 products, 300000 payments in the
Current base
               Bigger files : 140000 clients, 40000 products, 1500000
payments in the Archive base
                N.B. Users very rarely need to access the archive base. It
is managed by processes, scripts.

Side 3 :    User triggered processes, mailmerging, importing and exporting
files, creating reports ..

I have contacted local Filemaker people here in France asking them to point
me towards companies using Filemaker in these conditions.
Up to today we have not found an similar configuration over here,  i.e.
15-20 Users + Big Files + Heavy Processing *** simultaneously ***.

We have found companies that have big files, heavy processing but only one
or two users running scripts against the files.
We have found companies that have 30 Users, but medium sized files and
limited processing ... etc.

From my point of view, these are two sided triangles :) and so I am turning
to the group in the quest for my three sided triangle :
Can anyone point me to companies that are using FM in conditions similar to
(or worse than) those I described above ?

TIA

Seamus

 
 
 

My Three sided FM triangle

Post by J. Sque » Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:41:54


I'm running 5.5 server hosting 20 files for 100 simultaneously users.
It is accessed via FMP clients and the web using webcompanion.  One
database has 50K records.  On the web we have one with 750K records.
I haven't had any complaints.  It is just critical that you set it up
properly.  You need to have 2 PC's that are of decent power.  PC #1
will run FMP Server and PC #2 will run FMP Unlimited.  Using that
configuration, you can have files served for the web and for FMP
client users.

Filemaker is outstanding I recommend it.  If you were telling us that
thousands of users would be hitting the server then I would say to
look elsewhere, but what you have outlined seems to work.

-Squeed


> Hi,
> I'm seriously considering switching our rather heavy database application
> over to FM Server.
> But I am a "Proof-of-the-pudding "kind of person and I cannot recommend a
> switch based on assumptions such as "I don't see why it shouldn't work".
> "Filemaker Inc says this or that ...",
> I am convinced that people have already been to where I want to go and I
> want to find them and hear what they have to say.

> I have three main criteria : Users, Files and Processing.
> In my mind, these three criteria form a triangle.
> I can only switch to FM if the three sides of the triangle are in place
> ***simultaneously***.

> Side 1 :   15-20 users simultaneously, creating, searching, viewing,
> modifying records using complex layouts.

> Side 2 :    Big files :70000 clients, 20000 products, 300000 payments in the
> Current base
>                Bigger files : 140000 clients, 40000 products, 1500000
> payments in the Archive base
>                 N.B. Users very rarely need to access the archive base. It
> is managed by processes, scripts.

> Side 3 :    User triggered processes, mailmerging, importing and exporting
> files, creating reports ..

> I have contacted local Filemaker people here in France asking them to point
> me towards companies using Filemaker in these conditions.
> Up to today we have not found an similar configuration over here,  i.e.
> 15-20 Users + Big Files + Heavy Processing *** simultaneously ***.

> We have found companies that have big files, heavy processing but only one
> or two users running scripts against the files.
> We have found companies that have 30 Users, but medium sized files and
> limited processing ... etc.

> From my point of view, these are two sided triangles :) and so I am turning
> to the group in the quest for my three sided triangle :
> Can anyone point me to companies that are using FM in conditions similar to
> (or worse than) those I described above ?

> TIA

> Seamus


 
 
 

My Three sided FM triangle

Post by Rose » Wed, 16 Apr 2003 23:33:12


Thanks M. Squeed.
Can I connect to your Web server ? Is it public ?
Seamus (Rose)



> I'm running 5.5 server hosting 20 files for 100 simultaneously users.
> It is accessed via FMP clients and the web using webcompanion.  One
> database has 50K records.  On the web we have one with 750K records.
> I haven't had any complaints.  It is just critical that you set it up
> properly.  You need to have 2 PC's that are of decent power.  PC #1
> will run FMP Server and PC #2 will run FMP Unlimited.  Using that
> configuration, you can have files served for the web and for FMP
> client users.

> Filemaker is outstanding I recommend it.  If you were telling us that
> thousands of users would be hitting the server then I would say to
> look elsewhere, but what you have outlined seems to work.

> -Squeed




- Show quoted text -

Quote:> > Hi,
> > I'm seriously considering switching our rather heavy database
application
> > over to FM Server.
> > But I am a "Proof-of-the-pudding "kind of person and I cannot recommend
a
> > switch based on assumptions such as "I don't see why it shouldn't work".
> > "Filemaker Inc says this or that ...",
> > I am convinced that people have already been to where I want to go and I
> > want to find them and hear what they have to say.

> > I have three main criteria : Users, Files and Processing.
> > In my mind, these three criteria form a triangle.
> > I can only switch to FM if the three sides of the triangle are in place
> > ***simultaneously***.

> > Side 1 :   15-20 users simultaneously, creating, searching, viewing,
> > modifying records using complex layouts.

> > Side 2 :    Big files :70000 clients, 20000 products, 300000 payments in
the
> > Current base
> >                Bigger files : 140000 clients, 40000 products, 1500000
> > payments in the Archive base
> >                 N.B. Users very rarely need to access the archive base.
It
> > is managed by processes, scripts.

> > Side 3 :    User triggered processes, mailmerging, importing and
exporting
> > files, creating reports ..

> > I have contacted local Filemaker people here in France asking them to
point
> > me towards companies using Filemaker in these conditions.
> > Up to today we have not found an similar configuration over here,  i.e.
> > 15-20 Users + Big Files + Heavy Processing *** simultaneously ***.

> > We have found companies that have big files, heavy processing but only
one
> > or two users running scripts against the files.
> > We have found companies that have 30 Users, but medium sized files and
> > limited processing ... etc.

> > From my point of view, these are two sided triangles :) and so I am
turning
> > to the group in the quest for my three sided triangle :
> > Can anyone point me to companies that are using FM in conditions similar
to
> > (or worse than) those I described above ?

> > TIA

> > Seamus

 
 
 

My Three sided FM triangle

Post by John Weinshe » Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:30:49


Filemaker can handle these numbers, but how well depends on what the users
are doing and, most importantly, how well the system is built. I have built
systems with equally large recordsets in some key files, and they have
worked well (unfortunately, they are not publicly visible), but I spent a
lot of time building for speed, because a system that size is definitely
pushing Filemaker' useful limits. I would not undertake such a project
without a very experienced Filemaker developer on hand.

One area of concern is 'complex layouts'. If 'complex' means a lot of
graphical elements, particularly elements that are not generated in
Filemaker, Filemaker Server might slow down trying to push out those blobs.

--
John Weinshel
Datagrace
Vashon Island, WA
(206) 463-1634
Associate Member, Filemaker Solutions Alliance


Quote:> Hi,
> I'm seriously considering switching our rather heavy database application
> over to FM Server.
> But I am a "Proof-of-the-pudding "kind of person and I cannot recommend a
> switch based on assumptions such as "I don't see why it shouldn't work".
> "Filemaker Inc says this or that ...",
> I am convinced that people have already been to where I want to go and I
> want to find them and hear what they have to say.

> I have three main criteria : Users, Files and Processing.
> In my mind, these three criteria form a triangle.
> I can only switch to FM if the three sides of the triangle are in place
> ***simultaneously***.

> Side 1 :   15-20 users simultaneously, creating, searching, viewing,
> modifying records using complex layouts.

> Side 2 :    Big files :70000 clients, 20000 products, 300000 payments in
the
> Current base
>                Bigger files : 140000 clients, 40000 products, 1500000
> payments in the Archive base
>                 N.B. Users very rarely need to access the archive base. It
> is managed by processes, scripts.

> Side 3 :    User triggered processes, mailmerging, importing and exporting
> files, creating reports ..

> I have contacted local Filemaker people here in France asking them to
point
> me towards companies using Filemaker in these conditions.
> Up to today we have not found an similar configuration over here,  i.e.
> 15-20 Users + Big Files + Heavy Processing *** simultaneously ***.

> We have found companies that have big files, heavy processing but only one
> or two users running scripts against the files.
> We have found companies that have 30 Users, but medium sized files and
> limited processing ... etc.

> From my point of view, these are two sided triangles :) and so I am
turning
> to the group in the quest for my three sided triangle :
> Can anyone point me to companies that are using FM in conditions similar
to
> (or worse than) those I described above ?

> TIA

> Seamus

 
 
 

My Three sided FM triangle

Post by J. Sque » Thu, 17 Apr 2003 02:23:56


The datasets that I am talking about are hosted via the web but it is
an intranet site which requires authentication so you would not be
able to gain access.  If you have other specific questions that I can
answer regarding performance of the system that is in place or any
others, let me know.

I forgot to mention that 2 of the databases that are hosted are very
server side script intensive.  Meaning that I am running 50 scripts
per day on one database.  These scripts do everything from back up the
data to sending out e-mails to users regarding the status of certian
records etc ...

Also, I don't know if you are planning on developing this yourself or
looking for a developer, if you need assistance in that area, please
let me know as well.

-Squeed


> Thanks M. Squeed.
> Can I connect to your Web server ? Is it public ?
> Seamus (Rose)



> > I'm running 5.5 server hosting 20 files for 100 simultaneously users.
> > It is accessed via FMP clients and the web using webcompanion.  One
> > database has 50K records.  On the web we have one with 750K records.
> > I haven't had any complaints.  It is just critical that you set it up
> > properly.  You need to have 2 PC's that are of decent power.  PC #1
> > will run FMP Server and PC #2 will run FMP Unlimited.  Using that
> > configuration, you can have files served for the web and for FMP
> > client users.

> > Filemaker is outstanding I recommend it.  If you were telling us that
> > thousands of users would be hitting the server then I would say to
> > look elsewhere, but what you have outlined seems to work.

> > -Squeed



> > > Hi,
> > > I'm seriously considering switching our rather heavy database
>  application
> > > over to FM Server.
> > > But I am a "Proof-of-the-pudding "kind of person and I cannot recommend
>  a
> > > switch based on assumptions such as "I don't see why it shouldn't work".
> > > "Filemaker Inc says this or that ...",
> > > I am convinced that people have already been to where I want to go and I
> > > want to find them and hear what they have to say.

> > > I have three main criteria : Users, Files and Processing.
> > > In my mind, these three criteria form a triangle.
> > > I can only switch to FM if the three sides of the triangle are in place
> > > ***simultaneously***.

> > > Side 1 :   15-20 users simultaneously, creating, searching, viewing,
> > > modifying records using complex layouts.

> > > Side 2 :    Big files :70000 clients, 20000 products, 300000 payments in
>  the
> > > Current base
> > >                Bigger files : 140000 clients, 40000 products, 1500000
> > > payments in the Archive base
> > >                 N.B. Users very rarely need to access the archive base.
>  It
> > > is managed by processes, scripts.

> > > Side 3 :    User triggered processes, mailmerging, importing and
>  exporting
> > > files, creating reports ..

> > > I have contacted local Filemaker people here in France asking them to
>  point
> > > me towards companies using Filemaker in these conditions.
> > > Up to today we have not found an similar configuration over here,  i.e.
> > > 15-20 Users + Big Files + Heavy Processing *** simultaneously ***.

> > > We have found companies that have big files, heavy processing but only
>  one
> > > or two users running scripts against the files.
> > > We have found companies that have 30 Users, but medium sized files and
> > > limited processing ... etc.

> > > From my point of view, these are two sided triangles :) and so I am
>  turning
> > > to the group in the quest for my three sided triangle :
> > > Can anyone point me to companies that are using FM in conditions similar
>  to
> > > (or worse than) those I described above ?

> > > TIA

> > > Seamus

 
 
 

My Three sided FM triangle

Post by Paul Brunea » Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:47:15


I currently have:

82 files (tables)
60 clients
1 Web server machine (Unlimited with probably 20 logins per day, not too
many queries)

The system runs the entire company with the exception of the General
Ledger.

That includes: Orders (30,000), Payables (70,000), Customers/Vendors
(4000), Estimates (20,000), then the big ones: Estimate line items
(200,000), Job Pricing Line Items (150,000), etc etc

I never could have built this system in the beginning. After 3 years my
learning curve started getting pretty flat. I've been building the
system for about 5 years and stuff I did in the beginning was much
stupider, but FileMaker is very forgiving, flexible, and updatable
without pain.


> Hi,
> I'm seriously considering switching our rather heavy database application
> over to FM Server.
> But I am a "Proof-of-the-pudding "kind of person and I cannot recommend a
> switch based on assumptions such as "I don't see why it shouldn't work".
> "Filemaker Inc says this or that ...",
> I am convinced that people have already been to where I want to go and I
> want to find them and hear what they have to say.

> I have three main criteria : Users, Files and Processing.
> In my mind, these three criteria form a triangle.
> I can only switch to FM if the three sides of the triangle are in place
> ***simultaneously***.

> Side 1 :   15-20 users simultaneously, creating, searching, viewing,
> modifying records using complex layouts.

> Side 2 :    Big files :70000 clients, 20000 products, 300000 payments in the
> Current base
>                Bigger files : 140000 clients, 40000 products, 1500000
> payments in the Archive base
>                 N.B. Users very rarely need to access the archive base. It
> is managed by processes, scripts.

> Side 3 :    User triggered processes, mailmerging, importing and exporting
> files, creating reports ..

> I have contacted local Filemaker people here in France asking them to point
> me towards companies using Filemaker in these conditions.
> Up to today we have not found an similar configuration over here,  i.e.
> 15-20 Users + Big Files + Heavy Processing *** simultaneously ***.

> We have found companies that have big files, heavy processing but only one
> or two users running scripts against the files.
> We have found companies that have 30 Users, but medium sized files and
> limited processing ... etc.

> From my point of view, these are two sided triangles :) and so I am turning
> to the group in the quest for my three sided triangle :
> Can anyone point me to companies that are using FM in conditions similar to
> (or worse than) those I described above ?

> TIA

> Seamus

 
 
 

My Three sided FM triangle

Post by Bill Merc » Sat, 19 Apr 2003 08:36:17



> I currently have:

> 82 files (tables)
> 60 clients
> 1 Web server machine (Unlimited with probably 20 logins per day, not too
> many queries)

8<--- SNIPPAGE--->8

For what it's worth, I maintain a large Filemaker database, with about
70 tables, The main tables range in size from a few thousand to about
two million records. Total size of all the files is a bit under 3
gigabytes. There's lots of complex layouts with multiple portals,
scripted buttons, etc. Everything runs on FM clients, not web
browsers. During the day it serves between 12-15 internal users. Three
of these users are doing very heavy data processing all day long,
including lots of imports, printing, and scripted updates. The rest
are doing more intermittent work, lookups, printing reports, and
manual data entry. From my experience with this system, the biggest
performance limitations are the client workstations, followed by the
network speed. The FM server (450 MHz PII) pretty much twiddles its
thumbs all day.

The biggest frustration is how long it takes to open a gigabyte-sized
table.

 
 
 

1. FM Server 5.5v1 MacOS9 triangle crash

Hi group!

Has anyone here, running FM Server 5.5v1 in OS9, had the Server
application crash when clicking the disclosure triangles in the admin
window (the local admin window)?

The most crash prone triangles seem to be the ones that are in the
"Files" tab that when clicked are supposed to disclose which users
currently have a given file open.

I am working with FM on this issue and they say they have never heard of
it, but I am getting to the point where it is easy to reproduce this
crash and was wondering if anyone else had seen it.

PB

2. SPIRIT LANG/DMS-1

3. concat three fields server-side.

4. oracle8 jdbc begginer's question

5. Using one SQL Server to link three remote offices with three different databases

6. Tricky Calc or Script

7. US-Major Cities Oracle Architects Three Big Six and Three Vendors

8. Returning random row

9. 4.2x and 6.0 side by side

10. client side cursor vs. server side cursor

11. ADO Cursor: Client Side or Server Side

12. SQL Server 6.5 and 7 - side by side installation

13. Client Side Cursors vs Server Side Cursors