Heya guys
My 2c is about Filemaker native hosted databases themselves and not specifically about Kamar (I have personally never used or seen Kamar). I would avoid them where a more elegant solution exists. To me 'more elegant solution' probably means based on web-based technologies and hosted.
I've had experience supporting a couple of commercial businesses with custom in-house Filemaker databases and a couple of others who license and run a NZ-written job/inventory/shop management solution for the pre-press industry that is also based on VM. Invariably doing any FM stuff remotely is slow and painful compared to running on the local LAN.
I'm talking about direct TCP/IP connections from FM client to FM server (either directly-routed or via VPN encapsulation). FM just seems to be affected badly by the small increases you see in latency on today's WANs compared to today's LANs (eg +30-100ms). My guess is that it does not efficiently use TCP session setups, but that's just a guess. Maybe one day it could leverage Google's QUIC* to improve things?
In any case, if I had to deploy anything based on FM these days, I'd seriously consider creating a solution around the users remoting into something like a Terminal Services or OS X server sharing or something similar to run instances of the FM client that are 'close' to the FM server. That would, in my opinion, give a better user experience for any who spend a reasonable amount of time accessing remotely (eg teachers around reports time).
But I'd still probably park the whole FM idea and go for a nice web-based cloud solution if that alternative existed! :)
As always, ymmv.
Pete
* For anyone who don't know what QUIC is, I recommend this video from the recent NANOG64 conference:
(warning, 28 minute highly-technical talk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSNT88_gedw