>Ed,
>
>I tried as you suggested on our original table, as follows
>
>SYS(3050,1,1024)
>SYS(3050,2,1024)
>SELECT * FROM TRANFILE ORDER BY TRAN_DATE
>
>Unused physical memory decreased ~20MB, swap file increased ~20MB,
>and Locked memory increased 20MB, the table size is almost 19MB
>
>Are you running the test on NT or WIN98?

I ran this as stated on NT Server 4.0 Enterprise, build 1381, SP4 (128 bit), on a system with 256MB of RAM and swap file space preallocated to 300MB, spread across 3 drives. It seemed appropriate for the test, since we were discussing the use of a VFP app as an NT Service. At no time did the memory use of VFP exceed 2.5MB > the value assigned to SYS(3050) for the mode of operation. This was using VFP6 as distributed on the October MSDN Universal release, with VS SP1 and SP2 applied. Memory use was tracked both with TaskMgr and BoundsChecker.

I also ran this under Win98, on a system with 256MB of RAM and a swap partition of 500MB. using BoundsChecker, VFP never exceeded the rughly 2.5MB excess of the SYS(3050) value, although it did extend swap file space without apparently committing anything to it. I used a file of ~162MB, which resided locally on the NT Server box, and was shared to my net and made available to the Win98 box.

>Also, the undocumented SYS(1011) returns the number of memory
>handles in use, the same number seems to be reported regardless
>of the sys setting.

I didn't look at SYS(1011), since the number appears to be meaningless. I used BoundsChecker to track memory allocation because I trust it to accurately track both physical and virtual memory use over time - that's part of what it's good at.