It looks like I'll have to go into more server details than I wanted - I know we have RAID but don't know the type, level, configuration... One of the network guys said that cache is good because it allows the server to go over periods when there are more requests to write than it can serve. I'd accept that is a good thing if the cache keeps track about pending writes and reads from the most recent, not from the disk.

>Hi,
> I have seen MS Word cause delayed write failures on highly loaded networks when disk caching is turned on.
>
>>>>I've noticed this trend years ago - all sorts of network problems were detected in Fox apps only, because we were the only ones who were seriously stressing the network. Nobody noticed when a .doc file loaded a few seconds slower, but everyone sees when a popup/lookup/dropdown/whatever takes three seconds longer than usual. And when the network guy comes, he'd just save another Word doc to show everything works ;).
>>>>
>>>
>>>For me to trust caching, it should be application independent. If it works for Word, but not for VFP they (MS, disk manufacturers, or whoever is... caching in) should say so.
>>
>>A Frisbee network would work for Word - it has to access shared files only once in a while, if ever. And it always takes the whole file and locks it. Which is why I always had this insane desire to tell the network guy to save that file where the eclipse is permanent. Now if Word could have ten guys pounding at the same text at the same time, and everyone sees what others are doing to the text, and the word count is correct at all times - then OK, forget what I said.