It might be close, but no cigar. We are talking about comparing an Enterprise Client Server database system to a fileserver based database system.

With VFP, you are almost guaranteed fo getting a corrupt DBF during a power loss. Not to mention the possibilities of DBF/CDX corruption if a user powers down while a VFP app is open.

VFP with DBFs doesn't even compare to the robustness of client server system. One of the big reasons for using SQL Server/Oracle vs. something like VFP.

PF

>Perry,
>
>FoxAudit sure comes close!
>
>
>>I would assume that what the analyst was refering to was an enterprise database system such as Oracle's abiliity to write out transactions to a log file. This is an automatic process that will help the database recover from a system crash. A fileserver database system, such as VFP is not going to be able to offer protection to that level.
>>
>>
>>>I had a question from one of our analysts asking how good VFP's restoration after a corrupt table was.
>>>
>>>This was a comparison to Oracle, in which I responded that VFP's tables would have to be restored via NT's tape drive and didn't have any means of restoring corrupt/damaged files itself, although there are products out there can restore corrupt tables - but I'm not sure how good these are as opposed to Oracles own recovery devices.
>>>
>>>Is that incorrect, or is that the bottom line to such a question?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Kev