Depending on the usage pattern for your app, you might be a good candidate for one or more solid-state hard drives (SSDs).

Running TS on the bare metal should be better than either of your VM scenarios. You shouldn't need to worry that access across a virtual network is slower.

>Neil,
>
>I could not agree more, but is there anybody out there with a real life solution...
>(1 disk intensive application and 60 terminal users)
>
>We have tried the following scale down model: On a dual Processor server with RAID 10 storage, we had 2 Virtual Machine (VM1 and VM2) running Windows 2003 with terminal server. Each of then had a virtual disk attach to them. If we put the FoxPro database on the disk of VM1, VM2 has to access it via a network share. The speed to access the data is doubled on VM2 even if both vistual machine reside in the same physical sever...
>
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>The hardware requirements vary from app to app depending on disk I/O bottlenecks etc. How do the existing server perform i.e. do >some performance analysis on them. RAID10 WILL give great performance.
>
>>See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786809(WS.10).aspx for capacity planning.
>
>
>
>>>Many companies with FoxPro applications uses Windows Terminal Service (RDS in 2008 for Remote Desktop Service).
>>>
>>>We have a MRP/ERP system install in many companies using a single DC server with 15-30 users. The application is more Disk intensive than CPU. This is mainly the reason why we run the application on the server...The application is always running on the s>ame machine that contains the storage.
>>>
>>>What would you sugest for a company with 60-80 users ?
>>>
>>>- A huge terminal server (Dual quad core with maximum memory with a RAID-10) ?
>>>- Two terminal server with a seperate storage....(What king of storage? NAS Fiber channel SAN ???) that can compete with internal >storage ???
>>>
>>>- Other solutions ??? VMWARE...??? Anything ??
>Regards N Mc Donald