>Hi Chris,
>
>>Would doing this have any benefit when running over Terminal Service?
>
>Yes, although less. Keeping a DBC locally has two reasons: network transfer and locking. On a terminal server the DBC is already local, so you won't reduce the amount of data transferred over the network. But you still have the locking issue if the user tries to open the same view in two instances. In addition, with a local DBC you can open it exclusively allowing VFP to make use of the cache more extensively.

Hi Christof,

we have tramendous speed increase since we run our multi user stuff on TSE. Somehow there is a big problem with multi user access to serverbased files.

This is only access, write (locking) problems are not touched.

If we open run a CA local on a shared table on a server we load the whole file (more or less). If we refresh the CA and we are the only user and there is nothing changed we use something from a local cache what is fast. As soon as a seconf user access the same shared table every refresh reread the whole file, whether there is a change or not. This behaviour even remains if the second user stops using the table. And those reloads are very, very consuming. On TSE, he seems to know if the file is touched, and there is no need to move the stuff through the LAN.

It does not make a differnce what server (MS Linux etc) is used.

Agnes