Just checking to see how cross-linking works in Discourse. FYI, the ‘new’ FileMaker Community posts publicly and just requires login to participate. So those posts are fair game to include to help contribute and even start conversations in Discourse.
[Discourse feature: supports Markdown in posts by default]
Original Post
What is the difference between a FileMaker Cloud backup and snapshot?
I am looking to setup a distributed FileMaker solution such that there is a ‘master’ solution in FileMaker Cloud and a set of individual copies on FileMaker Go iPads. My reasoning for this is that I want to move away from maintaining two code bases (a hosted and a mobile version).
My thinking is that I will use the Cloud version as the ‘master’ and then use the snapshot as a ‘distributed’ version for the iPads to download and run. The iPad versions currently do NOT communicate to the hosted version. This solution is a store audit form that the iPad users use to fill out in the store (many times with no Internet connection available). When the iPad user completes the form, the solution is designed to create a PDF of the form and email to the corporate office.
My intent would be to develop in the Cloud ‘master’ version of the solution and after any significant development change, download the Cloud snapshot and then send that file out to the iPad users to download and install after deleting the previous database file on their iPad. In this way I could maintain a single codebase and have a simple method of distributing updates.
Does this sound like a feasible and safe method to accomplish this goal?
From https://community.filemaker.com/en/s/profile/0050H00000BqLCaQAN
FileMaker Cloud uses the term snapshot for its backups because they are based on the AWS EBS Snapshots feature, which is a very efficient and fast way to backup the entire data volume on a regular schedule. In FileMaker Cloud, backups can be preserved and then the “Attach Snapshot” button on the Preserved Backups screen can be used to download copies of the databases as they existed at that point in time.
Based on what you described, you don’t necessarily need to use backups/snapshots to download a copy of your database. You can develop in the hosted version as you describe. When you want to send a copy to someone, simply:
Close the database in the FileMaker Cloud Admin Console
Download the database
Open the database in the FileMaker Cloud Admin Console
Then you can send the downloaded file to someone else and continue working in the hosted version yourself.
If your database is large or you have active users connected to the hosted database at the time you want to get a copy, then you might want to attach a snapshot and download the database from the backup so that you can avoid temporarily closing the hosted database.
If you do attach a snapshot, be sure to unattach it when you are finished with it to avoid some small extra charges. An attached snapshot exists as an additional EBS volume that is at least 40 GB (or the size of your data volume) and that costs about half a cent per hour while it exists (~$4 for a full month).
@Cecile: I think you posted something about this in another post, but can you refresh my memory in this post? I had created this post as a test of what might be able to cross-link between My Filemakers Community (MFC) and FileMaker Community (FMC). While doing that I had posted a reply to this post based on the reply in FMC, but that post was flagged as spam by the MFC system.
Is there any way to get the post to show up and not remain hidden? Did that post get deleted? I just want to understand how the auto-spam mechanism works and what the options are for human admins to revert the situation.
Let me see if I can bring it back. I did not read it. I thought it was a repeat!
Well as you can see, the back end is quite easy to figure out. I’d give it a 80% user friendliness.
Good support in the Discourse forum is available.
We might want to consider creating an exception or whitelist (whatever is the Discourse method) for the community.filemaker.com domain, so that people can easily cross-link going forward.
I moved this topic to Archives, but I’m naturally resistant to ‘too much’ organization, especially if ‘really good’ search is available. Is the creation of subchannels in the Archives channel intended to allow for browsability? I personally feel that good search results far outweigh organized browsing. Invariably posts fall into multiple categories (channels). The way Discourse is setup, channels are exclusive (if the topic is in one, it means it can’t also be in another). However, keywords/tags allow for multiple ‘non-exclusive’ organization and… unless you tagged keywords in the post, Discourse seems to have automatically added keywords (pretty accurately too!).
Well that is certainly one of the things that should be discussed, debated and decided as a team. I would personally also prefer that, with tags but only if on the other hand we had the curated collections I suggested in Community a few weeks ago. (I dare you to find that post lol). That is because I find that newbies do need to peruse a lot in order to acquire some vocabulary and a general orientation of what to ask about. You don’t know what you don’t know… ya know?
And I am the one who tagged it. Sorry to burst your bubble
