Optimizing FM Server

[Tom Barnouw]

Hello all. I'm going to set up what I hope will be a fairly robust FM
server. Some of the reading I've done points to the importance of fast hard
drives, as well as putting the files to be hosted on a separate drive from
the OS and FM Server. I plan to use a G4/400Mhz tower running OS X with an
Adaptec Ultra-SCSI PCI card installed. If I use the default drive in the G4
for the OS and FM Server and install an Ultra-160 SCSI drive connected to
the PCI card for the databases, am I losing any potential benefit due to a
bottleneck between the slower default internal drive and the fast SCSI
drive? Would I need to install two Ultra-160 drives and split the OS and
files between them?

Thanks for any/all feedback.

Tom

[Tim Booth]

Tom Barnouw wrote:

>
> Hello all. I'm going to set up what I hope will be a fairly robust FM
> server. Some of the reading I've done points to the importance of fast hard
> drives, as well as putting the files to be hosted on a separate drive from
> the OS and FM Server. I plan to use a G4/400Mhz tower running OS X with an
> Adaptec Ultra-SCSI PCI card installed. If I use the default drive in the G4
> for the OS and FM Server and install an Ultra-160 SCSI drive connected to
> the PCI card for the databases, am I losing any potential benefit due to a
> bottleneck between the slower default internal drive and the fast SCSI
> drive? Would I need to install two Ultra-160 drives and split the OS and
> files between them?

How big are your actual systems anyway?

Due to network latency, we have yet to detect a measurable difference
between our two FileMaker Server machines, even though one is
a more modern and higher spec than the other...

Running about 150 databases to 30 users, very few complaints about
speed yet.

YMMV

Webko

[John Weinshel]

While I doubt that FMS is making enough OS calls to justify SCSI for a
separate drive, I'm not sure what advantage there is to separating it from
the OS. Why not just put the OS on the SCSI drive, and use the stock drive
for emergencies or one backup volume.

After drive components, network optimization is more important than
processor power.

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


"Tom Barnouw" <tbarnouw@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:BB72988C.4526%tbarnouw@u.washington.edu...

> Hello all. I'm going to set up what I hope will be a fairly robust FM
> server. Some of the reading I've done points to the importance of fast

hard

> drives, as well as putting the files to be hosted on a separate drive from
> the OS and FM Server. I plan to use a G4/400Mhz tower running OS X with

an

> Adaptec Ultra-SCSI PCI card installed. If I use the default drive in the

G4

> for the OS and FM Server and install an Ultra-160 SCSI drive connected to
> the PCI card for the databases, am I losing any potential benefit due to a
> bottleneck between the slower default internal drive and the fast SCSI
> drive? Would I need to install two Ultra-160 drives and split the OS and
> files between them?
>
> Thanks for any/all feedback.
>
> Tom
>

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Tom Barnouw

> Hello all. I'm going to set up what I hope will be a fairly robust FM

> server. Some of the reading I've done points to the importance of
> fast hard

> drives, as well as putting the files to be hosted on a separate
> drive from

> the OS and FM Server. I plan to use a G4/400Mhz tower running OS
> X with an

> Adaptec Ultra-SCSI PCI card installed. If I use the default drive
> in the G4

> for the OS and FM Server and install an Ultra-160 SCSI drive
> connected to

> the PCI card for the databases, am I losing any potential benefit
> due to a

> bottleneck between the slower default internal drive and the fast SCSI

> drive? Would I need to install two Ultra-160 drives and split
> the OS and

> files between them?

>

> Thanks for any/all feedback.

>

> Tom

Tom,



Maker sure to read the Best Practices guide at
[url]http://www.filemaker.com/downloads/pdf/fms_best_practices.pdf[/url]



Daniel Harlow


--
Posted via [url]http://dbforums.com[/url]

[Mariano Peterson]

Definitely don't put it on a Mac if you want the best performance.
This is not an anti-mac flame; from years of practice and experience
I've learned that FileMaker in particular runs substantially faster on
PCs and Unix servers than on Macs. Sorry, just thought you should
know (hopefully before you've committed to hardware).

Also, the hard drive does make a big difference on FileMaker servers.
I don't know if you need to go to the trouble of seperating the OS,
but other than the time it takes to configure it certainly can't hurt.
FileMaker is extremely dependent on disk write/read speed. Unlike
other database, FileMaker can only utilize 40mb of ram - far less than
the size of most db solutions.

Also, the network is important as well. If your network has heavy
traffic you'll definitely experience slower performance. Lotus notes
is a heavy network app that I know of.