Malcolm,

Have you tried removing the FLUSH from the Flush_Buffers function, as suggested by Patrick Kan in message #583949 ?

Also, is there any chance to try it with a "real" file server (i.e. not peer-to-peer)?

Jim

>I have been trying to find a way of properly committing/protecting data to tables in the event of a power fail.
>
>I have a test program which opens 7 tables with tablebuffering, in a database in VFP6.0. The code then:-
>************************************************************************
>FOR i = 1 To 1200 &&add records into the table
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> SELECT transfers &© records from szdtfrhd
> SCATTER MEMVAR MEMO
> SKIP
> INSERT INTO szdtfrhd FROM MEMVAR
> INSERT INTO szdtfrh1 FROM MEMVAR
> INSERT INTO szdtfrh2 FROM MEMVAR
> INSERT INTO szdtfrh3 FROM MEMVAR
> INSERT INTO szdtfrh4 FROM MEMVAR
> INSERT INTO szdtfrh5 FROM MEMVAR
> INSERT INTO szdtfrh6 FROM MEMVAR
> DO Flush_Buffers WITH 'szdtfrhd'
> DO Flush_Buffers WITH 'szdtfrh1'
> DO Flush_Buffers WITH 'szdtfrh2'
> DO Flush_Buffers WITH 'szdtfrh3'
> DO Flush_Buffers WITH 'szdtfrh4'
> DO Flush_Buffers WITH 'szdtfrh5'
> DO Flush_Buffers WITH 'szdtfrh6'
> @1,10 SAY "Added Record " + STR(i, 4, 0)
> END TRANSACTION &&Now commit everything to the database
> FLUSH
>NEXT i
>
>***********************
>PROCEDURE Flush_Buffers
>***********************
>PARAMETERS cAlias
>*
>*Commits the buffered table supplied and closes it
>*
>IF USED(cAlias)
> SELECT (cAlias)
> IF CURSORGETPROP('Buffering') = 5 &&Must be optimistic table buffering
> =TABLEUPDATE(1, .T.)
> ENDIF
> FLUSH
>ENDIF
>RETURN
>************************************************************************
>
>After this loop has run for say 1200 records I turn off the power. On restart Scandisk detects problems with the tables and fixes them. Once back into VFP I need to reindex the tables to use them. However, the number of records in each table is far short of the 1200, and is different across the 7 tables.
>
>I've also tried the same thing using 2 Win2000 systems with a Windows network, writing into a datbase/tables on one of the systems. I allow both to run, adding to the tables, then switch off the "server" machine.
>
>After the server had added 201, and the client 433, the server was powered off.
>
>The number of records in the various tables were:-
>1. 1,106
>2. 1,106
>3. 1,043
>4. 1,106
>5. 1,088
>6. 917
>7. 998
>
>The number of records should have been 1,136, since I started with 502 in each table.
>
>Now I wouldn't mind losing 1 or 2 records, but to lose several hundred AND for there to be different numbers in each table is bizarre. I thought FLUSH was meant to get everything out to the disk?
>
>I've also tried actually closing the database on each iteration and I still lose records. So I can only think that Windows is not performing a proper flush but is caching the command, until it feels like it. I also tried putting an INKEY(1) in the loop to give Windows time to Flush, but it didnt help.
>
>I found an article in the Microsoft Knowledgebase describing a bug in Visual C++, V6.0 and below, where fflush() and flushall() dont write directly to the disk, and it suggests using the FlushFileBuffers() API call. But this in turn needs to be given a file handle. How do I get the file handle of the VFP Database/Table/Index/Memo files?
>
>Any ideas would be gratefully recieved
>
>Kind Regards
>
>Malcolm Sheldon