>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

Jess,

I am responsible for an aplication that has followed the same development path. We are also using 2.6 tables as free tables in the 5.0 converted version without any problems what so ever. The only obvious difference is our largest dbf fluxuates around 600,000 records. It takes a fair amount of hits and we do all kinds of things to it like deleteing a range of records, re-appending, packing, re-indexing and so far, so good.

I'm not sure what all that means except now I have something more to be paranoid about. :~)

HTH