>I have a VFP medical application which runs happily enough in about 10 locations in London, each location having its own version of the system on their local servers. The headquarters for these 10 locations is now making noises about combining all ten systems into one with the data stored on a SQL server at the headquarters and each location accessing the data via a VFP front end - thus removing the need for servers at each location.
>

A key question seems to be, what is the objective for removing servers at each location? The biggest gain of the system you propose is in providing system-wide real-time access to data. But the costs will likely include increased application and infrastructure complexity, and slower performance, and possibly loss of popular features, such as incremental searches. I recommend enough meetings to be sure all parties understand the tradeoffs up front.

>Is this really practical with VFP as the front end and data stored on an SQL server?
>

I have built an application like this, and it is practical, although more complex than 1-tier apps and slower than VFP over a LAN, but arguably faster than web-based apps that transmit pages of markup along with the data. I used SQL-Server and Web Connect, although there are other options available. XML was used to send data from computer-to-computer.


>Presumably this means that the EXE file will be stored on each location's PC.
>
>Will this result in a significant increase in accessing data provided of course the links between the SQL Server and each location are up to it?
>
>What should be the minimum data transmission speed between the SQL server and each location?

I agree with others' comments that fractional T-1 would be good, although you can get by with less if you minimize the amount of data sent per query, form, etc. The less bandwidth you have, the more design and planning it will take to get acceptable performance. Very early in development, I'd test throughput on the weakest link and report back to superiors, so nobody is surprised with whatever the performance is.


>
>Obviously if I go ahead with this I am going to have to teach myself SQL Server and how to store data in it. Is this a pain or is it fairly easy for the average
>programmer?


You are more likely to struggle with NT/2K's security + IIS than with the SQL database itself. One good book and a few hours mucking around and you'll be able to use the most important parts of SQL-Server. The finer details can be learned on an as-needed basis.

>
>I would appreciate any feedback from anyone with experience of the above.
>
>Many thanks
>
>Bob McGilvray