Performance of FM & Mac Minis

[csori]

Hi All,

I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware & viruses)  
and was wondering how performance
would be on the following:

X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)  
running FM 9, word and email.

Vs

Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg) running  
FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.


Thanks,

John F. Winfield, Jr.
Cremation Society of Rhode Island
Post Office Box 216
Scituate, RI 02857
401-647-0620
_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[Ned Simpson]

We are using various Mac Mini's for the following.
1ea  2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB Ram as my server for FMPS with 11  
clients
8 ea 1.83 Hz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB Ram as work stations
1 ea 1.83 Hz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1 GB with Tenon iTools for our web  
applications.

I am going to add an additional 1 GB of ram to the web server. Ram is  
inexpensive...

No spyware, no viruses. Down time , so far this year, 1 hour for a bad  
plug strip. Each of the work stations has the following,
OSx 10.5.5, iPhoto, iTunes, Mail, Address Book, Safari, Firefox, FMPA,  
Word, Excel, Acrobat, Transmit, Timbuktu. Some also have Photoshop,  
Dreamweaver, ScreenSteps and some other stuff.

and yes, we have some Mac Pros and iMacs as well...

We use VMware Fusion on one Mac Pro and the operator hates using  
Windows because of, wait for it, spyware & viruses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude 17, Ltd.
Ned Simpson                                H: 831.484.2671
25982 High Terrace Lane          C: 408.823.5196
Salinas, California  93908 ned@...






On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:52 PM, CSORI wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware &  
> viruses) and was wondering how performance
> would be on the following:
>
> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word and email.
>
> Vs
>
> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John F. Winfield, Jr.
> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
> Post Office Box 216
> Scituate, RI 02857
> 401-647-0620
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> FMPexperts@...
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[Patrick Neame-2]

We have an Xserve called Bruce running FMSA 8 on 10.4. Server. It  
serves:-

a basic model mini,
two G4 iMacs,
a PC in the office,
three PCs at various homes,
myself running FMP9A at home on a G5 Powermac,
and a fair old number of people using IWP.

Performance in the office is fine, IWP is remarkably quick and even  
updating the logic using FMP9A is pretty bearable over the internet.

The only problem was with the fist UPS proving not to be large enough  
when we had a power cut. We got a bigger UPS. Now that people are  
using IWP we could almost certainly do with some more RAM.

The mini runs Office 2004, VM Fusion with Sage and the usual email and  
web browsing stuff. It's all very stable and secure.

In the past there's been quite a bit of debate about what machines to  
get as a server. I'd recommend getting a machine that's built to  
server spec as opposed to a desktop machine pressed into service as a  
server. Of course, it depends to some extent on your budget and backup  
plans. But if you can go for a server spec machine.

On Oct 6, 2008, at 3:05 pm, E. Simpson wrote:

> We are using various Mac Mini's for the following.
> 1ea  2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB Ram as my server for FMPS with 11  
> clients
> 8 ea 1.83 Hz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB Ram as work stations
> 1 ea 1.83 Hz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1 GB with Tenon iTools for our web  
> applications.
>
> I am going to add an additional 1 GB of ram to the web server. Ram  
> is inexpensive...
>
> No spyware, no viruses. Down time , so far this year, 1 hour for a  
> bad plug strip. Each of the work stations has the following,
> OSx 10.5.5, iPhoto, iTunes, Mail, Address Book, Safari, Firefox,  
> FMPA, Word, Excel, Acrobat, Transmit, Timbuktu. Some also have  
> Photoshop, Dreamweaver, ScreenSteps and some other stuff.
>
> and yes, we have some Mac Pros and iMacs as well...
>
> We use VMware Fusion on one Mac Pro and the operator hates using  
> Windows because of, wait for it, spyware & viruses.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Latitude 17, Ltd.
> Ned Simpson                                H: 831.484.2671
> 25982 High Terrace Lane          C: 408.823.5196
> Salinas, California  93908 ned@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:52 PM, CSORI wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware &  
>> viruses) and was wondering how performance
>> would be on the following:
>>
>> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)  
>> running FM 9, word and email.
>>
>> Vs
>>
>> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg)  
>> running FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John F. Winfield, Jr.
>> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
>> Post Office Box 216
>> Scituate, RI 02857
>> 401-647-0620
>> _______________________________________________
>> FMPexperts mailing list
>> FMPexperts@...
>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> FMPexperts@...
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[Bob Patin]

John,

We use a mix of Xserves and G5s here, and are gradually transitioning  
to all Xserves, mainly because of the space constraints and ease of  
drive swaps in Xserves.

Interestingly, in 15 years, I've had two hardware failures on Macs--
one was a desktop Mac not used for a server, and its motherboard  
failed. The second was a couple of weeks ago, when a power supply in  
an Xserve failed and the computer just shut down.

On the other hand, back in the 90s when I first got started hosting  
sites, I used an iMac for hosting a couple of CDML sites; now that  
I've almost completely gotten my clients to upgrade to PHP solutions,  
there are only a half-dozen sites here still running CDML, and one of  
these is still running on the same iMac he was using years ago (and  
which won't be upgraded since I'm trying to get him to redo his site  
in CDML!). It's been on 24/7 for 12 years, and never had a problem;  
the web server is a G5, but his database is still funneling through  
Filemaker Unlimited 6 on an old iMac!

I know this is anecdotal, but in the years we've been hosting, we've  
had better luck with desktop Macs than with Xserves. Heat is a problem  
here because we have 30 machines running, but we built a server room  
with its own A/C and I'm curious to see what difference would be seen  
if we were running all Xserves instead of a mix of desktops and rack-
mounted machines--I suspect the difference is probably fairly  
negligible.

When the Mac Mini came out we used them for development machines, and  
I still have a half-dozen here for backups--one is my itunes machine  
and runs 24/7, and it's been flawless so far. At Devcon every year  
this question comes up, and there are always dire warnings about using  
Mac Minis for mission-critical work, and I agree with this; if your  
business relies on your computers, and you're running on consumer-
grade machines with 4200RPM drives, you're tempting fate.

Having said this, I've yet to lose a drive in a Mac Mini, but that's  
not to say that I think it's a wise plan to use them as servers. It  
was really nice the other day, when the Xserve power supply failed, to  
simply pull the drive and put it into one of the other Xserves. Within  
minutes I had service restored.

My advice is this: get on eBay and buy some Xserve G5s or cluster-
nodes; the only thing to keep in mind with cluster-node machines is  
that they don't have video cards, so putting an OS on them can be  
difficult without at least one Xserve that has a DVD drive and a video  
card. Also, the cluster-nodes don't have dual drive bays; however, you  
can find them for around $500-600, and you're getting true server-
grade hardware, even if they're G5s and not Intel boxes.

Hope this helps,

Bob Patin
Longterm Solutions
bob@...
615-333-6858
http://www.longtermsolutions.com
iChat: bobpatin
AIM: longterm1954
FileMaker 9 Certified Developer
Member of FileMaker Business Alliance and FileMaker TechNet
--------------------------
FileMaker hosting and consulting for all versions of FileMaker
PHP • Full email services • Free DNS hosting • Colocation • Consulting




On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:52 PM, CSORI wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware &  
> viruses) and was wondering how performance
> would be on the following:
>
> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word and email.
>
> Vs
>
> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John F. Winfield, Jr.
> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
> Post Office Box 216
> Scituate, RI 02857
> 401-647-0620
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> FMPexperts@...
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[Bruce Herbach]

Hi John.

You have had a number of good responses here.  I just want to add that
over time you will probably have a better experience and better return
on your money using the Xserve and Mac Minis.  I spent years working in
the Windows world supporting both servers and desktops.  In general I
find it easier to maintain (keeping the software up to date) and had
less hardware issues with Macs then I did with PCs and Windows servers.

I also found it easier to support users in the Mac world.  To some
degree this has to do with Os X and the way it is configured and how
easy it is for a user to mess up an XP system.  I find that even curious
Mac users don't do as much damage to the mac as Windows users can and
do.  Thats not to say it won't happen,  just that I found it didn't
happen as often.

Part of this may be the way OS X hides the system files from the user.  
Anyway my 2 cents is that if you go with the Macs, over time you will be
happy with the decision.

Best of luck.
Bruce Herbach



CSORI wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware & viruses)
> and was wondering how performance
> would be on the following:
>
> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)
> running FM 9, word and email.
>
> Vs
>
> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg) running
> FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John F. Winfield, Jr.
> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
> Post Office Box 216
> Scituate, RI 02857
> 401-647-0620
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> FMPexperts@...
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[Richard DeShong]

Since we're talking about database performance, we should also note that the
hard drive is a common component between the two platforms.  Thus, a hard
drive "hard" crash is not related to the mnfg of the computer, or the OS
running on the box.  It's also important to note that hardware failure is
not the only way for a drive to fail.  A drive can also "soft" fail -
meaning it can have an error reading or writing one bit of data from/to a
sector.  This type of failure is more likely to be properly managed in a
server-style drive subsystem.

--
Richard DeShong, Athletic Study Center, UCBerkeley


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Patin

John,
We use a mix of Xserves and G5s here, and are gradually transitioning  
to all Xserves, mainly because of the space constraints and ease of  
drive swaps in Xserves.
Interestingly, in 15 years, I've had two hardware failures on Macs--
one was a desktop Mac not used for a server, and its motherboard  
failed. The second was a couple of weeks ago, when a power supply in  
an Xserve failed and the computer just shut down.
On the other hand, back in the 90s when I first got started hosting  
sites, I used an iMac for hosting a couple of CDML sites; now that  
I've almost completely gotten my clients to upgrade to PHP solutions,  
there are only a half-dozen sites here still running CDML, and one of  
these is still running on the same iMac he was using years ago (and  
which won't be upgraded since I'm trying to get him to redo his site  
in CDML!). It's been on 24/7 for 12 years, and never had a problem;  
the web server is a G5, but his database is still funneling through  
Filemaker Unlimited 6 on an old iMac!
I know this is anecdotal, but in the years we've been hosting, we've  
had better luck with desktop Macs than with Xserves. Heat is a problem  
here because we have 30 machines running, but we built a server room  
with its own A/C and I'm curious to see what difference would be seen  
if we were running all Xserves instead of a mix of desktops and rack-
mounted machines--I suspect the difference is probably fairly  
negligible.
When the Mac Mini came out we used them for development machines, and  
I still have a half-dozen here for backups--one is my itunes machine  
and runs 24/7, and it's been flawless so far. At Devcon every year  
this question comes up, and there are always dire warnings about using  
Mac Minis for mission-critical work, and I agree with this; if your  
business relies on your computers, and you're running on consumer-
grade machines with 4200RPM drives, you're tempting fate.
Having said this, I've yet to lose a drive in a Mac Mini, but that's  
not to say that I think it's a wise plan to use them as servers. It  
was really nice the other day, when the Xserve power supply failed, to  
simply pull the drive and put it into one of the other Xserves. Within  
minutes I had service restored.
My advice is this: get on eBay and buy some Xserve G5s or cluster-
nodes; the only thing to keep in mind with cluster-node machines is  
that they don't have video cards, so putting an OS on them can be  
difficult without at least one Xserve that has a DVD drive and a video  
card. Also, the cluster-nodes don't have dual drive bays; however, you  
can find them for around $500-600, and you're getting true server-
grade hardware, even if they're G5s and not Intel boxes.


On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:52 PM, CSORI wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware &  
> viruses) and was wondering how performance
> would be on the following:
>
> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word and email.
>
> Vs
>
> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John F. Winfield, Jr.
> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
> Post Office Box 216
> Scituate, RI 02857
> 401-647-0620
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> FMPexperts@...
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au


_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[John May-2]

I would second Bob's suggestion of picking up the G5 Xserves.  You can
get both the cluster and non-cluster boxes off Ebay, though do be sure
to purchase from a reputable seller with a good return policy.

Note that, although many others seem to be confused/misled on this
point, MHz for MHz the G5 is just as fast as the Core (2) Duos.  Eg: a
dual processor 2GHz G5 Xserve is just as fast, processor wise, as a 2GHz
Core 2 Duo Intel chip.  Trust me, we've done lots of tests here
regarding such.

Not to mention that the Xserves have *much* better busses, drive
controllers, monitoring hardware, yadda-yadda-yadda.  And a dual
processor G5 Xserve will handle all but the most intensive environments.

Don't use consumer grade hardware for server-class applications - do
yourself a favor and go the Xserve route.

        - John


Bob Patin wrote:

> John,
>
> We use a mix of Xserves and G5s here, and are gradually transitioning to
> all Xserves, mainly because of the space constraints and ease of drive
> swaps in Xserves.
>
> Interestingly, in 15 years, I've had two hardware failures on Macs--one
> was a desktop Mac not used for a server, and its motherboard failed. The
> second was a couple of weeks ago, when a power supply in an Xserve
> failed and the computer just shut down.
>
> On the other hand, back in the 90s when I first got started hosting
> sites, I used an iMac for hosting a couple of CDML sites; now that I've
> almost completely gotten my clients to upgrade to PHP solutions, there
> are only a half-dozen sites here still running CDML, and one of these is
> still running on the same iMac he was using years ago (and which won't
> be upgraded since I'm trying to get him to redo his site in CDML!). It's
> been on 24/7 for 12 years, and never had a problem; the web server is a
> G5, but his database is still funneling through Filemaker Unlimited 6 on
> an old iMac!
>
> I know this is anecdotal, but in the years we've been hosting, we've had
> better luck with desktop Macs than with Xserves. Heat is a problem here
> because we have 30 machines running, but we built a server room with its
> own A/C and I'm curious to see what difference would be seen if we were
> running all Xserves instead of a mix of desktops and rack-mounted
> machines--I suspect the difference is probably fairly negligible.
>
> When the Mac Mini came out we used them for development machines, and I
> still have a half-dozen here for backups--one is my itunes machine and
> runs 24/7, and it's been flawless so far. At Devcon every year this
> question comes up, and there are always dire warnings about using Mac
> Minis for mission-critical work, and I agree with this; if your business
> relies on your computers, and you're running on consumer-grade machines
> with 4200RPM drives, you're tempting fate.
>
> Having said this, I've yet to lose a drive in a Mac Mini, but that's not
> to say that I think it's a wise plan to use them as servers. It was
> really nice the other day, when the Xserve power supply failed, to
> simply pull the drive and put it into one of the other Xserves. Within
> minutes I had service restored.
>
> My advice is this: get on eBay and buy some Xserve G5s or cluster-nodes;
> the only thing to keep in mind with cluster-node machines is that they
> don't have video cards, so putting an OS on them can be difficult
> without at least one Xserve that has a DVD drive and a video card. Also,
> the cluster-nodes don't have dual drive bays; however, you can find them
> for around $500-600, and you're getting true server-grade hardware, even
> if they're G5s and not Intel boxes.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Bob Patin
> Longterm Solutions
> bob@...
> 615-333-6858
> http://www.longtermsolutions.com
> iChat: bobpatin
> AIM: longterm1954
> FileMaker 9 Certified Developer
> Member of FileMaker Business Alliance and FileMaker TechNet
> --------------------------
> FileMaker hosting and consulting for all versions of FileMaker
> PHP • Full email services • Free DNS hosting • Colocation • Consulting
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:52 PM, CSORI wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware & viruses)
>> and was wondering how performance
>> would be on the following:
>>
>> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)
>> running FM 9, word and email.
>>
>> Vs
>>
>> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg) running
>> FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John F. Winfield, Jr.
>> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
>> Post Office Box 216
>> Scituate, RI 02857
>> 401-647-0620
>> _

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
John May : President                   http://www.pointinspace.com/
Point In Space Internet Solutions             jmay@...

        Professional FileMaker Pro, MySQL, PHP & Lasso Hosting
              * FileMaker Pro 9 Hosting Now Available *

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[Hank Shrier-2]

While I have been reading this casually, why has no one suggested hiring a
company that already has the hardware and the expertise.  Seems to me you
could host for a very long time before paying of the hardware, software,
maintenance, and downtime costs associated with running your own server.

Seems to me that $40.00 to 60.00 a month beats the daylights out of doing
your own hosting.  My hosting service is Point in Space. The service has
been fast, reliable and most importantly, friendly. It's rare to see John
post something. Guess he invests his time in his clients.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Hank Shrier  Founder GBN
[phone]                 Office
[phone]                 Cell
[phone]                  Fax
hank@...

THIS COMMUNICATION IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein.   If you are, or are not, the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, without written
permission, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
error, please immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and
any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof.


-----Original Message-----
From: fmpexperts-bounces@...
[mailto:fmpexperts-bounces@...] On Behalf Of John May
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10:04 PM
To: fmpexperts@...
Subject: Re: Performance of FM & Mac Minis

I would second Bob's suggestion of picking up the G5 Xserves.  You can
get both the cluster and non-cluster boxes off Ebay, though do be sure
to purchase from a reputable seller with a good return policy.

Note that, although many others seem to be confused/misled on this
point, MHz for MHz the G5 is just as fast as the Core (2) Duos.  Eg: a
dual processor 2GHz G5 Xserve is just as fast, processor wise, as a 2GHz
Core 2 Duo Intel chip.  Trust me, we've done lots of tests here
regarding such.

Not to mention that the Xserves have *much* better busses, drive
controllers, monitoring hardware, yadda-yadda-yadda.  And a dual
processor G5 Xserve will handle all but the most intensive environments.

Don't use consumer grade hardware for server-class applications - do
yourself a favor and go the Xserve route.

        - John


Bob Patin wrote:

> John,
>
> We use a mix of Xserves and G5s here, and are gradually transitioning to
> all Xserves, mainly because of the space constraints and ease of drive
> swaps in Xserves.
>
> Interestingly, in 15 years, I've had two hardware failures on Macs--one
> was a desktop Mac not used for a server, and its motherboard failed. The
> second was a couple of weeks ago, when a power supply in an Xserve
> failed and the computer just shut down.
>
> On the other hand, back in the 90s when I first got started hosting
> sites, I used an iMac for hosting a couple of CDML sites; now that I've
> almost completely gotten my clients to upgrade to PHP solutions, there
> are only a half-dozen sites here still running CDML, and one of these is
> still running on the same iMac he was using years ago (and which won't
> be upgraded since I'm trying to get him to redo his site in CDML!). It's
> been on 24/7 for 12 years, and never had a problem; the web server is a
> G5, but his database is still funneling through Filemaker Unlimited 6 on
> an old iMac!
>
> I know this is anecdotal, but in the years we've been hosting, we've had
> better luck with desktop Macs than with Xserves. Heat is a problem here
> because we have 30 machines running, but we built a server room with its
> own A/C and I'm curious to see what difference would be seen if we were
> running all Xserves instead of a mix of desktops and rack-mounted
> machines--I suspect the difference is probably fairly negligible.
>
> When the Mac Mini came out we used them for development machines, and I
> still have a half-dozen here for backups--one is my itunes machine and
> runs 24/7, and it's been flawless so far. At Devcon every year this
> question comes up, and there are always dire warnings about using Mac
> Minis for mission-critical work, and I agree with this; if your business
> relies on your computers, and you're running on consumer-grade machines
> with 4200RPM drives, you're tempting fate.
>
> Having said this, I've yet to lose a drive in a Mac Mini, but that's not
> to say that I think it's a wise plan to use them as servers. It was
> really nice the other day, when the Xserve power supply failed, to
> simply pull the drive and put it into one of the other Xserves. Within
> minutes I had service restored.
>
> My advice is this: get on eBay and buy some Xserve G5s or cluster-nodes;
> the only thing to keep in mind with cluster-node machines is that they
> don't have video cards, so putting an OS on them can be difficult
> without at least one Xserve that has a DVD drive and a video card. Also,
> the cluster-nodes don't have dual drive bays; however, you can find them
> for around $500-600, and you're getting true server-grade hardware, even
> if they're G5s and not Intel boxes.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Bob Patin
> Longterm Solutions
> bob@...
> 615-333-6858
> http://www.longtermsolutions.com
> iChat: bobpatin
> AIM: longterm1954
> FileMaker 9 Certified Developer
> Member of FileMaker Business Alliance and FileMaker TechNet
> --------------------------
> FileMaker hosting and consulting for all versions of FileMaker
> PHP . Full email services . Free DNS hosting . Colocation . Consulting
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:52 PM, CSORI wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware & viruses)
>> and was wondering how performance
>> would be on the following:
>>
>> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)
>> running FM 9, word and email.
>>
>> Vs
>>
>> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg) running
>> FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John F. Winfield, Jr.
>> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
>> Post Office Box 216
>> Scituate, RI 02857
>> 401-647-0620
>> _

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
John May : President                   http://www.pointinspace.com/
Point In Space Internet Solutions             jmay@...

        Professional FileMaker Pro, MySQL, PHP & Lasso Hosting
              * FileMaker Pro 9 Hosting Now Available *

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[Maxwell Klein-3]

In a different life I ran a school solution that required a separate  
FM6 Pro 'server' for each school, it was a sophisticated and messy  
CDML solution. The Mac mini was an excellent option in that situation,  
cheap, small, fast enough etc. We were up to about 10 schools/Minis  
when I left that job, I can only assume the solution is still running  
and adding Minis as new schools come online. We experienced very few  
issues and when a given Mini was having trouble we only had that  
school down.

I use Minis as my own development servers and couldn't be happier with  
their performance. But if you decide to use Mac Minis as a server in a  
production environment, the best thing you can do for performance is  
replace the drive. At last look Apple was shipping 5400 RPM drives in  
new Minis, which is understandable for a consumer system, but no good  
for a server. You need at least 7200 and preferably a 10000 RPM drive.

To answer your original question John, I'd say you'll be pretty  
satisfied with a Mac-based system. However, you should also take into  
account how your users will respond to switching from Windows to Mac,  
they may have specific needs that only Windows can provide, even with  
Parallels, VMware, and Boot Camp as possible solutions for these users.

As others here have suggested, nothing can beat having a system with  
server-grade specs, and those Xserves are oh so pretty. However, based  
on you budget, expected server load, complexity of your solution, and  
other central services you want to provide, I'd say a current model  
Mini (with a faster drive and loads of RAM) could suffice as a decent  
FileMaker Server to small group of moderate users.


On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:52 PM, CSORI wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm getting sick of my windows network (licensing, spyware &  
> viruses) and was wondering how performance
> would be on the following:
>
> X server (base model) Running FMS 9, 7 mac minis (base model 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word and email.
>
> Vs
>
> Win 2003 Server, Running FMS 9, 7 WinXPs ($400 machines 1 meg)  
> running FM 9, word, webroot anti spyware/antivirus and email.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John F. Winfield, Jr.
> Cremation Society of Rhode Island
> Post Office Box 216
> Scituate, RI 02857
> 401-647-0620

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[White Craig]

Running an online database I have users who need to change initial
passwords.  FM 9 shows that password changing is now a web enabled
function.  I am running FM Server version 9.0.3.325 on a Windows 2003
server.  Has anyone been able to make this function work?   If you need
more information please let me know.

Craig White
_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

[tim ballering]

On Oct 6, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Hank Shrier wrote:

> Seems to me that $40.00 to 60.00 a month beats the daylights out of  
> doing
> your own hosting.  My hosting service is Point in Space. The  
> service has
> been fast, reliable and most importantly, friendly.


We're a former Point In Space client and will echo Hank's sentiments.

For the average small shop a FMS hosting service performs well at a  
lower cost and frustration than DIY hosting.  It certainly overcomes  
the financial arguments against FMS that  three to nine seat shop  
often use to defend a peer to peer set up.

Tim Ballering
tim@...
_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
FMPexperts@...
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au