Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] netatalk, samba, ...
From: Casey Bisson (cbisson@oz.plymouth.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 12 1999 - 09:34:35 EST
This example is exactly how _not_ to do it. FileMaker databases cannot be shared to
multiple users from a file server. To share the database, it absolutely requires a
filemaker database host/server. Any current version of FileMaker (back to 2.1 or below)
supports database hosting.
Typically, when accessing a database from a file server, the first computer opens it from
the file server and locks the entire file. The next computer to attempt to access it finds
the lock and looks to the first computer, trying to open it as a client of that machine.
But, from what I can remember of previous threads on the subject, netatalk doesn't support
locking or lock sharing with samba, so this process doesn't work, and you will likely
corrupt the database if you attempt it.
Once again: don't attempt to serve a database from a file server if data integrity is
important!
FileMaker Server, does do database serving faster: it performs finds and sorts on the
server, rather than on the client.
Casey Bisson
Plymouth State College
Jim Zajkowski wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Eddie Irvine wrote:
>
> } 2) Fred on a Mac and Mary on a PC have the same filemaker database open.
> } In this situation, I don't think record locking works that well.
>
> I think "it depends," based on how FileMaker notes what records are
> locked. The file won't be locked by the host OS since, well, what would
> be the point of having a DB that couldn't be shared?
>
> If you're bent on FileMaker, you should consider the FM Server thing. It
> supports record-level locking and handles concurrency better than a
> shared-file database. That goes for Access, too: you should get a real
> SQL server instead.
>
> Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:26 EST