Jozef (and Dorin),

I've started a topic: http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~IsWindowsReallyMadeForVFP-styledDataManipulation? (Wiki, as you see) to try to get additional discussion on this matter. It's 2+ days old and has had only 1 contributor of substance, so it looks like a bust at this point.

In any case, it looks strongly to me that there is a problem with Win cache management techniques vis-a-vis VFP-style write/update. The purpose of the Wiki topic is to gather 'proof' of such (if it exists) and inform MS about the problem(s) so they can be fixed. A secondary purpose is to identify if there are any other OSes or hardwares that might serve to circumvent the associated problems.

My personal 'take' on the problem is that it has always been there but it is now accentuated by the combination of:
1) much faster processors doing tons more writes/updates per second than even 2-3 years ago;
2) much much bigger installed RAMs than even 2-3 years ago, resulting in the OS (in particular) holding more records in cache for far longer periods than before;
3) Increased usage of table buffering, possibly also with 'unreasonable' numbers of records being involved, than was the case even 2-3 years ago.
4) Wider usage of PCs by the (basically) PC-illiterate, such users doing things like power-off instead of shutdown, switching users without forethought and such.

I sure hope to see some productive discussion of the issue. Right now it looks to be a "yawner" (translation: of very little interest) to most Wiki users.

cheers


>Hi Dorin ! Thanks.
>Interesting link. All that seems rather sad.
>
>>Hi,
>>I found a very interesting topic about this:
>>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~VFPTableConcurrency
>>
>>
>>>It it sad but is seems to be continous tendency that to solve a problem with VFP one must go otside VFP.
>>>
>>>>>Hi Dorin ! Thanks.
>>>>>I have FLUSH command after all commands that change data.
>>>>
>>>>We can have as many FLUSH commands as we want, seems that OS/network components/whatever... doesn't care about this. We must know various settings that affect network operations on shared files and to change these settings at server and client size (network client cache, locking, file handles cache, etc). This is not normal.
>>>>
>>>>I remember something about querying RECCOUNT() function having as result a disk flush at server side, but I'm not sure.
>>>>
>>>>>What else can I try ?
>>>>
>>>>A true database server :-) (At least for new projects)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As regard as second parameter "If you specify a value for nSeconds1 other than 0 but don't include nSeconds2, nSeconds2 is set to the same value as nSeconds1" so SET REFRESH TO 1 is equivalent of SET REFRESH TO 1, 1.
>>>>>Despite that, in a desperacy act I tried to use also SET REFRESH TO 1, 1 - without good result as you can see.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>