>Hi:
>
>Presently, I am using SQL Server as the back end for a VFP application.
>I'm getting ready to setup a duplicate system in another location ... and a few more location in the near future.
>It's been bothering me for years that perhaps SQL Server is not needed - over kill for this application.
>Why did I decided on SQL Server in the first place?
>Less data corruption problems ... and to-date, not a single database problem.
>
>There are 15 work stations on this netowrk, and the application is installed on all 15 workstations.
>Each workstation queries and/or writes to SQL Server every 0.25 second - via a VFP timer in the application.
>The largest table has only about 20,000 records.
>
>My question is:
>How can I make a VFP Database as reliable as SQL Server?
>Will 3rd party application make it more reliable?
>Is VFP Database 9.0 different from the past and more reliable?
>
>TIA
>
>Mal

Mal,
If you already written it to be used with SQL server why do you want to revert to VFP database. The largest being 20K table it sounds to be a 'small' one. If total is under 4Gb (I guess it's) it qualifies for free SQL server version and I wouldn't see it as an overkill.
I don't know if VFP9 local database is more reliable than older versions because with older versions too I didn't have a problem with database. IOW VFP is reliable for me for years (load is over 15 workstations and largest table is over 20K records). I don't keep tables open all the time, use buffering and write with optimistic locks. It works well for me. Since you already coded for remote tables you might use VFP tables as if they're remote via SPT,RV,CA... However VFP SQL is not fully compatible with SQL server's SQL and you'd need to revise your SQLs then.
Cetin