2 Gig per file is FMP's limit, and the problems you describe may well be due
to that limit being approached. The application needs some room to maneuver
within the limit, and it is thus not a good idea to get too close. I have
heard (it is a rare event I have never seen) that it is an ugly thing to
behold when the limit is breached.
It is almost certain that the large file size, particularly with so few
records, is a result of the images being stored directly within the files.
The more usual method is to store only the path to the images and store the
images themselves elsewhere. That "elsewhere" may be software especially
designed for image cataloguing, such as Cumulus. Again, to move images to
the web expeditiously, it's quite likely their size will need to be reduced,
independently of how they are stored-- either by compression, conversion to
another protocol, and/or size reduction.
I believe there are some good plugins (try Troi, but others here may know
better) for grabbing the file path, so that you do not need to go back and
manually re-target the images.5.5 has improved that capability, but a plugin
seems more promising.
It's possible some file size reduction might also be achieved by breaking
the file into two or more parts, but my guess is that the text, unless you
are storing encyclopedias, is not taking up much room.
You should not encounter any problems skipping revs, and 5K records is no
problem, and a good argument for trying to solve the size problem and
staying within Filemaker, as it seems unlikely an enterprise app is needed
here, and FMP is so perfect in every other way for what you describe. You
will need Unlimited to serve out the pages.
Whatever you do, do it quickly, before the 2 gig limit gets any closer. As
an interim measure, you can export half the records to a clone, but that is
not a good file structure at all.
Vashon Island, WA
Associate Member, Filemaker Solutions Alliance
> We are considering taking on a project involving a database
> constructed in FileMaker 3, and moving it onto the Web.
> The database is very large: 2 Gb of material (text and images) in
> about 5,000 records. The client was motivated to do something about
> it because there has been some kind of degradation lately. Older
> records are sometimes corrupt, and new records will not record
> I'm not very familiar with FileMaker, but I gather it integrates well
> with the Web. I've seen a few sites (mentioned here and at the fm
> site) that work very nicely. None of these seem to involve quite this
> volume of material though. We're wondering whether to stay with fm or
> go some other route.
> Is this client stretching fm3 beyond its limits, or does it sound more
> like a hardware problem? Can fm5.5 handle this quantity of material?
> (I see nothing about such limits on the website or anywhere in the
> trial version of fmpro I've downloaded.) Are there likely to be
> problems skipping a version (moving from ver. 3 to 5.5)? This would be
> a pretty low traffic site, but possibly more than ten users at a time.
> They will not be manipulating the data, though. The idea is for
> people to have access to the information on the Web (they currently
> have to go to the client's office!), but not to enter any or alter it.
> Will we definitely need the Unlimited edition?
> One attraction of fm is that it seems relatively easy to learn (we do
> have expertise in SQL, ASP and related). But I'm not sure it's
> intended for this kind of use.
> Any enlightenment most appreciated.