>>>I can also see advantages to separating them. No contention for shared resources and it's very unlikely that one process can bomb the other. With some type of Giga channel between the two boxes I don't think you would lose much time because of data transfer.
>>
>>Hmmm... you're effectively using a C/S interface between your two boxes, why would you need that much bandwidth? Gigabit Ethernet is still pretty expensive.
>
>This idea was based solely on a gut feeling for avoiding a possible bottleneck between the two server boxes. Two adapters and some cabling could be had for under $1300. Example price from Microwarehouse:
>
>PRO/1000 Gigabit Server Adapter
>Manufacturer: Intel
>Manufacturer Part #: PWLA8490
>Platform: PC/Mac
>$609.99
>
Don't forget hub/switch, etc. This can be big $$.

>Changing out two adapter cards and cabling is not that hard so I suppose it makes a lot of sense to start out with a dedicated 100 mhz link and only upgrade to Gigabit when the need is proven. Any sensible choice would have to be based on the configuration of the entire network.
>
>I guess my main point is that having the SQL DB on one machine and the VFP middleware on another would not pose a problem for throughput.

What on earth are you contemplating, where you actually might NEED that kind of bandwidth in a C/S (effectively) environment? A lot of server clusters (PC, mini, or mainframe) don't have that level of interconnect bandwidth.