Maybe your Web application should run on another server?

>We have this Web application running which is capable of handling much more hits than what we have right now. I would say we are only running at 1/8 of the hits that we should have when all the users would have been migrated to this new version. However, this server is affected by a robot which is running in it which is doing intensive I/O on the local disk. For another two months, the data still resides on the disk until it will be migrated to SQL Server. So, the Web application, the robot and the data are all on the same disk. But, because that robot is doing so, this causes some memory problem and such because it eats the entire CPU and it does a lot of transactions.
>
>So, when I became aware that this was the case, I asked for a removal of that robot so it would be executed on another server. Because, I have always been clear on the topic that, if a robot runs on a server where the Web site is running, that is should be minimal operations which are not CPU intensive. So, at least, with such a change, this would help for the CPU part. But, doing so would mean that the robot would access the data from a network drive as it wouldn't be a local drive anymore. But, the client says that doing so, because of the intensive transactions that are being done on the tables by that robot, that this would cause a lot of data corruption and the only way to work with such infrastructure would be when we would have a SQL Server backend. Because, it seems when doing such intensive work on the tables which are accessed from a network drive that VFP cannot handle it.
>
>This situation is conflicting with my architecture design for the Web application.
>
>What did I miss?