If you aren;t having problems with data corruption, then you probably don;t need SQL Server.

But if you had 300 clients accessing that many records, or those 30 users were accessing 200,000,000 records, then you might want it. In the first case, for performance reasons, in the second case, for data integrity reasons.

Nothing is cut and dried - if those 300 people each only open 1 record per day, no need for SQL Server, really. But 300 people pounding away all day with new data, reports, and queries - performance is a wierd thing. I compare native tables and SQL Server like Ethernet and Token Ring. With low numbers of users, the native tables perform far better. Likewise Ethernet. Load up with user counts in the hundreds with constant traffic, and SQ Server will most likely perform better. Like token ring. TR networks start out slow but don't get much slower when the traffic balloons. Ethernet starts out blazingly fast but quickly succumbs to excessive traffic. At some user count/load, the faster one suddenly isn't faster anymore.

Randy


>I'm demonstrating my ignorance here. But what the heck.
>
>Just a simple question.
>
>What requirements would justify a need for an sql server?
>
>Who needs it? / Who doesn't?
>
>I have a network of just 30 clients accessing vfp tables of 200,000 records max.