Hi,

>>Yes - it is exclusive use of the application. But you only need 160 locks/sec if you're getting 160 hits/sec <s>
>
>No, only four hits a second as I have some hits that are doing up to 40 SQL commands.

Do you open and close a connection for each of these SQLs? If so maybe you could group some of them to share the same connection. Is all of the data really that volatile - maybe some of it could be cached?

>
>>As mentioned previously applying the lock seems, in my test, to reduce the maximum number of requests that can be handled by about 15%. If your server is running close to that limit then it may well get backed up anyway. Of course, in real terms, the usual snag applies - short runnning hits will still have to wait while the longer ones complete but overall the server should cope well enough.
>
>This issue has to be resolved completely.
I wouldn't bet on anything happening soon :-{ My guess is that the VFPOLEDB dll would need modifying....

> We cannot go with a diminished amount of errors as the result could be catastrophic assuming an error like that would occur during a write on disk.

Keeping the application lock in place for the entire life of a connection seems to eliminate the errors completely.
IAC, I'd suggest you test this - it may be that the performance hit is not as great as you anticipate.
Regards,
Viv