Hi Jim thanks for BOTH your prompt replies.

Yes we run the app on a virtual machine.

Actually there is another FPW2.6 for Windows!!! app that runs like this and there are at lease 50 users at one time who log onto a farm" of Terminal Servers. There are at least 5 terminal servers specifically assigned to the ""Farm" to handle users logging in from all over the country, using not only the FPW app but apps like Outlook, WWord, Excel etc.

My numbers were gauged from looking at the memory uage of the process in the WIN2k taskbar where Memory usage is (supposed to be ) displayed.

I guess what I really needed was some way of limiting the memory usage of the VFP app. The FPW2.6 app always uses a virtual block of about 8m, whereas VFP varies from 1.7 upto 300m depending on the processws being run.




>Bernard,
>
>I *suspect* that it is a difficult thing to get a real handle on memory (RAM & virtual) usage at the best of times and especially in a Terminal Server environment.
>
>How many attached users were attached when these were the numbers?... It may not be a logical conclusion to just straight-line extrapolate for 'n' users attached.
>
>For instance, a minimized app. may go way down upon minimizing, but that doesn't mean that the RAM (and virtual, if any) is actually freed and reused. It may be 'freed' in the sense that it is made AVAILABLE to other applications should it be needed, but that doesn't mean that it *does* get used. For instance, I notice that when I use Word, then exit it, then if I start it again after doing something relatively small like an IE session then Word re-starts INSTANTLY. So it is evident that the OS knows what RAM was dedicated to what process and that it will not hesitate to reuse it when it is allowable (and apparently Word is written as a re-entrant program, so it does).
>
>We haven't been made aware of the reentrant 'status' of VFP (runtimes), but I'd guess that much of it must be. IF that happens to be true then there is no easy way to gauge **real** RAM usage (at least that I can think of).
>
>Now I have no idea of the overhead of running a LAN as an all Terminal Server setup, but I'd have to say it sounds to be on the risky side to me at best. For all I know it handles each session as a pseudo virtual machine, dedicating RAM/virtual to each session.
>
>good luck. I'd say it sounds like furthet testing is really required before any firm conclusions can be drawn. When you reach some conclusions I hope you'll let all of us know.
>
>cheers
>
>Hi all
>>
>>I have an app compiled in VFP7 which is an SDI. This app is to run on Terminal Servers (Win2K) by users logging in to the server, and running the app in their session. This is how our intranet works.
>>
>>The app swows up as using 2.5m on startup, 1.7m on being minimized. The odd part is as soon as anyone even so much as accesses a dropdown list box or text box or other object on the form, the usage jumps to +8.5m
>>
>>Again if minimized the usage drops to 1.7. Taskmanager shows a peak usage of 16m.
>>
>>The network person is worried that many users using this app on the server will suck up resources. I expect an average of 30 users at any time to be using the app.
>>
>>Is there any way to reduce the memory usage, since this is a simple form with not much of processing to be done except on a save. I have looked at SYS(3050)but it does not seem to work.
>>
>>Any ideas?