Hi Guys.....

>It's not a good idea to use Windows 95 as a server for a database application. If you must do this I would recommend at least using your server only as a server and not running anything else on it (especially something that eats resources the way VFP does).
>
>Your best bet would be to get a copy of NT workstation and put it on a computer that is dedicated as a server. It will cost you more, but it's still less expensive than NT Server and it will be much more reliable than what you have now.
>

I agree 100%. I have seen a tremendous amount of problems with VFP on Win95 peer-to-peer including almost daily corruption of tables. Moving to NT will help a lot. He will *never* get complete reliability for a VFP app in Win95 PPN.

>
>>Our app is a 9mb EXE. The network consists of 5 Win95 machines, peer-to-peer file and printer sharing. The system that acts as file & print server is a P200MMX with 32MB. (By the way, on boot up I get the message that memory is 31MB + 1MB shared memory)
>>Our application runs on every system, including the one that acts as file server.
>>
>>Most of the user actions involve reading data from the server via SELECT into a local cursor. New data is entered in local tables and validated before being written to the database on the server.
>>
>>We are encountering two serious problems:-
>>
>>1. some data doesn't get saved properly

You are probably table buffering, right? You almost have to entirely forego buffering on Win95 peer-to-peer. This has been my experience.

>>2. the network behaves strangely: print jobs 'hang', copying files to/from the server is aborted with the message 'network resource failure'. Even when all our apps are closed, the network still crashes for simple file copy actions. Re-booting the file server seems to fix this.
>>
>>My first thought is that we have a memory leak on the server and that it gradually runs out of memory resources. However, we don't do any memory-type commands in our app.
>>
>>Any ideas / suggestions ???
>>
>>TIA