Hi Chris --

Hope Ga is still treating you well! I'm at M2M now, and having a good time.

Just some stuff off the top of my head.

For conventional file server apps, the highest number of users I've heard of is in the range of 300-400. There was an article in DBMS Magazine about 6 years ago now, which identified large FP/VFP installations -- including Pat Robertson's fund raising arm.

The "chunnel" project was rewritten in VFP. Besides presentations, Val wrote an article on that in FPA about 4 years ago. He basically used FP/VFP to write an RDBMS back end. But, I don't know if that model applies to your situation.

Web-based apps provide some kind of a model, it would seem, but, because all work is done on the server, you don't have the kinds of interactions typical of networked clients.

You said that you have info on Surplus Direct. You might do a search here for other comments Rick has made. The rationale for going to SQL Server was for the benefits that the client server architecture offers. In regard to your specific situation, I believe that keeping indexes up to date began to be a problem in VFP with the volume of hits they experienced.

Jay











>Good point...while I can't imagine the ratio of appends to updates would be that different in our application from any other application (all 300 users wouldn't be appending at the same time), it's definitely something we can look at if we see performance bottlenecks.
>
>Thanks.
>
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>One thing to watch out for is adding records. This is an operation that only one user can do at a time in VFP. If all 300 users are adding records to the same table at the same time that could be a problem.
>>
>>--
>>Christof