[FX.php List] [OFF] FMS13 & SSL?

BEVERLY VOTH beverlyvoth at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 06:47:10 MDT 2014 

Joel, when people are just learning how and/or only have 1 site (in house, public or private), I always recommend 1-machine. It is very easy to set up if you follow TFM. If you are running MySQL and FM and PHP, then 2-machine (FMServer for one) and MySQL and php/WebServer the other works well enough, too. Then if you expand, all websites (including those using FM db) are on a webserver dedicated to that task with appropriate web apps (& perhaps with mail server as well, if needed). Then each db type (FM, MS SQL, MySQL, Oracle if used) should have it's own server. They just work better when dedicated. And that doesn't mean you need to have cloud-worthy machines as servers, unless your into that... 

When I was co-owner of a hosting provider with 100's of sites, we always said 'single-point-of-failure' can save you in the long run. If you have an OS update or hardware upgrade, for example, you don't have to take everything down, just the one machine.

Beverly

On 16 Jul 2014, at 11:30 PM, Joel Shapiro wrote:

> Thanks Chris
> 
> I wonder how many CWP solutions out in the world use 2- or 3-machine configs vs 1-machine.  I know of a number of people that had set up 2-machine when the API (& FMI guidelines) first came out but then changed to 1-machine a year or two later to "simplify" things.  And I wonder how many of the multi-machine configs are set up as per FMI and how many use these non-FM web servers.  And I wonder what kind of noticeable performance difference there is between the various setups, especially on sites without a lot of data &/or traffic.
> 
> (Anybody here up for a poll?)
> 
> Anyway, I wonder.
> 
> Best,
> -Joel
> 
> 
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Chris Hansen <chris at iViking.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hey Joel,
>> 
>> There might be a performance loss since the data being transferred would be XML (verbose).  Of course, as I don't know the format of the data is that FileMaker would be passing in the other scenario, it's hard to surmise exactly what the performance difference would be.  Also, the various parts of FileMaker server might be designed to take advantage of living on a single machine (just a guess).  Finally, in my experience, the bigger data gets, the more likely it is to live on its own, optimized machine, as searching lots of data non-optimally will be much slower than transferring a bit of data over the network.
>> 
>> At any rate, there are a variety of reasons to use your own web server rather than FileMaker's, e.g. wider choice of server options (nginx, linux web servers, apache on windows, etc.), the availability of server or php modules not available with FileMaker's server version, and so on.
>> 
>> Thanks for the update on the SSL process.  My guess is that others may well run into the problem down-the-line.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> --Chris
>> 
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Joel Shapiro <mail at jsfmp.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Chris
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the reply.
>>> 
>>> My understanding is that the changes that came w/ FMS13 made it hard/impossible to host different domains on one server, so setting up FMS as a one-machine config and then using a separate non-FM web server, pointing to the FMS server, was a way to get around that -- just like hosting a CWP site on a godaddy server and pointing to some FMS elsewhere.  But I'd imagine there must be some performance loss by not having the WPE on the second server -- as in a "real" two-machine config -- so if you've got the two machines and don't need to host multiple sites, it seems you wouldn't want to use that setup.  Or don't I understand correctly?
>>> 
>>> FWIW: The tech dept in my situation just had to edit the website binding and the originally installed SSL cert is working again.  (I'm going to try to get more details from them)
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> -Joel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Chris Hansen <chris at iViking.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Also, keep in mind the "non-traditional" 2-machine install that Bob Patin (correct me if I'm wrong, Bob) has been using. Namely, a dedicated web server machine, and an "all FileMaker stuff" machine.  Used that way, you could use whatever cert you want on the web server.  You can set up the cURL used by FX.php to ignore the cert warnings (if it doesn't already), and no worries about a user seeing one, as they'd only be connecting via the cert on the web server.
>>>> 
>>>> Just a thought...  Hopefully it's at least somewhat useful to someone =)
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> --Chris
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Joel Shapiro <mail at jsfmp.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Darn that Go!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the extra info.  Interesting thought about the 2-machine config.  Seems some have had problems using the command-line installation on 2-machine configs:
>>>>> http://fmforums.com/forum/topic/90722-ssl-certificate-installation/
>>>>> 
>>>>> And FWIW here's the doc w/ SSL install instructions (Appendix D):
>>>>> http://www.filemaker.com/nl/support/docs/downloads/security_guide_13_en.pdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> -Joel
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Steve Winter <steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also worth mentioning is that the small list of SSL providers and types is because the same cert is used for connections between FMS and the web and FMS and FMP/FMGo and it's because of the route certs in Go that you can only use those providers...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However if as in your case you have a two machine install then it may be possible that you could install a non-approved provider cert in the web machine (i.e a cheaper one) and then have your web connections secured with a 'real' certificate, leaving the FMI self-signed one in place on the primary server for Pro/Go connections.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> YMMV
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from the iPhone of Steve Winter
>>>>>> Matatiro Solutions
>>>>>> steve at matatirosolutions.co.uk
>>>>>> +44 777 852 4776
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:33, Steve Winter <steve at bluecrocodile.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Howdy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes it can, and yes it does, because the FMS install establishes its own instance of the httpd service (which IIS also uses) installs its own SSL cert into that, and takes over the task of serving data through port 443 on that machine.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You can install your own certificate so long as it's issued by one of a small set of SSL certificate providers, using the fmsadmin command line tool. On a train at the mo, so can't find references, but google and/or the FMS docs can provide details.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from the iPhone of Steve Winter
>>>>>>> Matatiro Solutions
>>>>>>> steve at matatirosolutions.co.uk
>>>>>>> +44 777 852 4776
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 15 Jul 2014, at 21:58, Joel Shapiro <mail at jsfmp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It seems FMS13 comes w/ a default SSL certificate, such that hitting an FMS13 site on https can bring up an "untrusted connection/invalid certificate" warning.  ("The certificate is only valid for FMI Certificate Authority...")  I've seen this on two different servers now -- both Windows.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My question:
>>>>>>>> Is it possible that this FMI cert could override an existing cert?  I've got a client who's setting up FMS13 now (2-machine).  Their tech dept said they'd installed an SSL cert on the web server but we didn't test it before installing FMS.  Now when we go to https we get the FMI "invalid certificate" warning.  The tech dept isn't the friendliest, so we're trying to check if the FMS install could have overwritten the existing cert -- or if this means that there was never one before FMS.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Does anybody know?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> TIA,
>>>>>>>> -Joel
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> FX.php_List mailing list
>>>>>>>> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> FX.php_List mailing list
>>>>>>> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
>>>>>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> FX.php_List mailing list
>>>>>> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
>>>>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> FX.php_List mailing list
>>>>> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
>>>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FX.php_List mailing list
>>>> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
>>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FX.php_List mailing list
>>> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
>>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> FX.php_List mailing list
>> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
>> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FX.php_List mailing list
> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list

More information about the FX.php_List mailing list