>>>So, if I were to need to retrieve a single record, and it sits on another machine, how would I do it?
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>Actually, we are speaking now about internal Fox processing. I'm not expert here (it would be better to ask someone from MS Fox team). However, the basics is following: if Fox wants to get particular record it takes record offset (all Fox records are of the same length) go to the record and take it. I guess that it travels through the network as part of network packet (again I don't know much here).
>
>Right, it uses the index file this way.
>
>>Surely, a record doesn't sit on another machine. The idea is that any time a user changes a record then all local buffers should be refreshed (again internally) and this is exactly the place when network limitation can fire.
>
>Is that a typo? A record can sit on another machine (the server). I am not sure what you mean, but if tables are on another machine, so are all the records. (??)
>
>>From practical side: I have LAN/WAN system with 10 million records, 1.5 GB and it still fast.
>
>It depends on the application. There are situations where VFP would not be practical with millions of records (except as a C/S front end).
>
>>P.S. I have strong suspicion :) that I could say something wrong about Fox internal things and I would really appreciate someone else comments here.
>
>I am also curious. If network traffic is not reduced by C/S, what is the advantage?
>
>Joe

I just can repeat that C/S will reduce network traffic when many users make many changes in data, because this situation will force VFP update local buffers too often.
Let's wait for a referee :)