>Hi All,
>
>I have a client with 22 terminals that has been having serious speed issues, all along my application has been blamed, but following days of work we traced it to a server issue (copied data to a workstation and ran peer-2-peer and ran 6 workstations with no loss of performance).
>The "Hardware Consultant" is now saying that the issue is a compatibility issue with VFP and RAID 5, he has "proved" his point by putting a new server in without RAID 5 which is performing well.

More detail might help, 6 WS might not be a valid test.
Also HW config of the "proof", which I also suspect of being tainted
- exchanging R5 for other disc in the same server setup might be a better way to proof, but not foolproof ;-)

>I am not convinced of his conclusion and I am not aware of any VFP with RAID5 issues, are any know?

I am with Sergeys opinion, with a slight addendum, that R5 is not the best for write-intensive apps.
SSDs show similar behaviour, fantastic reads (esp. partial "filtered" ones, where normal HD head positioning might be an issue)
combined with write-performance sometimes markedly below classic HD speeds.

So there can be suboptimal vfp code, which shows *more* of the bad side effects on SSD and Raid 5.
But that should not result in "serious issues" (trace logs, better definition ???)

regards

thomas