Jess,

Absolutely *NO* other changes with the implementation. . . *NO* new server hardware, *NO* network parameter changes, *NO* implementations of WIN95 on only some machines (to run VFP 5), *NO* network software changes, *NO* relocations of tables. . . etc. etc etc.???

Good luck,

Jim N

>The situation is this:
>
>Our hospital system was formerly pure Fox 2.6 developed. It runs smoothly and no problem at all. Recently, we developed some modules in VFP 5.0 accessing Fox 2.6 tables (Free tables only) and there, the problem started. Within two weeks of implementation, one of the table approximately 4 Million records in size was corrupted 3 times at the minimum. This is not happening until the VFP modules were implemented.
>
>My suspicion is that, there should be a size limitation of Fox 2.6 table. It might also be the integration of VFP modules. What do you think?
>
>TIA