>The particular IT guy is talking about storage and retrieval issues.

If storage would become an issue, such as getting over the 2GB limit, I think the URL provided by Marc M. would be useful. See also the latest reply we just got from Fabio Lunardon.

>The volume is huge. In the range of 5K records per hour, 12 million per year, 24 months active before deletes.
>That's the header table. Detail can be X 6 on average for records.

Based on the record info, are we getting over the 2GB limit within those criteria? If yes, than Val's approach could do. Or, are they just basing their scability terminology on storage?

>Isn't the only 'bad' thing about DBF's is record addition, which can be compensated with creating millions of records ahead of time and doing record recycling?

I heard some doing that approach. It's been a while since the last time I heard about that however.

>We did a West Wind solution that is more than adequate for Canada...it's porting the app to the US, where the yearly volume is multiplied by 500.

If storage is the only issue, assuming getting over that limit, assuming too much trouble to implement something like Val did, maybe we could just change the backend. I don't see any relation to kill VFP in that project if that is only a matter of data storage where they would feel more comfortable with SQL Server.