Hi Jonathan,
Fox has been really, really stable for many years now. Provided the hardware and network has been set up properly :-)


>I'm surprised how you all talk about the number of records and transactions we can handle with Fox. In my country there are too few people that believes in the power of Fox and they say it has too much corruption problems.. In my case, I had a corruption problem about 8 years ago, with an applicantion in FPD 2.6 running on a Novell 3.11 network. in this case, the last character or each field passed to be the first on the next field.. fortunatelly, the last field was not so critic for the application's purpose, so i made a program to fix the problem and 'voila!..'
>
>
>Note:
>I'm trying to improve my english, if you find any mistakes, please tell me so.
>
>>It was probably about 5 years ago - that were running mixed NT and Novell with the 32 bit client. I think the admin guys were less than helpful, as you say. Kerrie, my sister, is pretty tough though, she worked through it all, and they're still running the Fox.
>>
>>We (our clients) haven't had any "real" index problems for quite some time. The 2066 error is undoubtedly some caching issue. We've virtually NEVER had memo corruption. In fact in over 14 years I've never had more than 6 hours work recovering data, and that was about 7 years ago - touch wood! And that's with about 300,000 database changes a day; seriously, we shadow every one of them with a live backup, using VFP of course :-)
>>
>>
>>>I feel sorry for your sister. She must not have had any pull with the administrator of the network. I worked for the government for seven years and managed a huge system on Novell (I was both the network manager and a programmer then) which started out on Novell 3.11 and moved through all versions eventually to 6.0 Never had a single index corruption in all those years. Seriously, not one. I had little if any memo corruption also. I learned early what optimal settings to use (you can find them here on the UT) and it paid off. I didn't experience index and memo corruption until I started working with apps on peer-to-peer networks in small mom and pop shops on Windows 98/2K/XP systems where the owners change settings on you following someone else's idea of finetuning that they found on the web without realizing the repercussions. What I would sometimes give for the old days! :o)
>>>
>>>>We think it's the in memory index corruption because of caching which VFP 8 now reports butVFP7 ignored. We're going to use SYS(1104) in the error handler with a retry on the LOCATE. The description of the problem in earlier threads matches our problem.
>>>>
>>>>My sister managed a big Fox app on a Novell a couple years back - index corruption was a nightmare then for her. My systems were on NT, no problems. She was so jealous! Especially after rebuilding a 3 million record customer table with about 20 tags every night for months.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>David,
>>>>>
>>>>>Is it possible that there's WRITE cacheing on the server's DB HD?... or even on workstations? I don't know anyone who trusts that stuff and turning it OFF seems to be pretty much universal.
>>>>>
>>>>>I recently had a problem where network adapters had 'sleep mode' set on at factory (all DELL systems). a sudden short-term sleep might do who knows!?!?
>>>>>
>>>>>Finally, long ago and with a different NOS (Novell 3.11) we had daily index corruptions. These were real. We had the most expensive server available at the time, a Tricord model XXX. Turned out it had never been 'certified' for Novell. Changing to a clunky sounding (by comparison) Compaq ??? pentium 90 with 256MB and a 20+ drive RAID array solved that one nicely.
>>>>>
>>>>>One more thing... I wonder if older OS' on workstations might have some compatibility problems with latest storage/locking scheme of 2003 server.
>>>>>
>>>>>good luck
>>>>>
>>>>>