determining max pool size

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by steven, Apr 8, 2008.

  1. steven

    steven Guest

    hi

    i've got an app that runs something like 4000 updates when certain
    pages are updated. it's taking on average 20 seconds for these pages
    to execute the update command (15 seconds if all i do is open and
    close the connection without even executing the sql statement). the
    original max pool size set in the web.config file was set to 100. I've
    boosted the max pool size to 500 and now get the update command to
    execute in about 2-3 seconds.

    i'm worried that i'm going to run out of resources somewhere. this is
    an SQL Express server. the "maximum number of concurrent connections"
    in SQL Express is set to 0 (unlimited). the machine SQL Express is
    installed on is Intel Xeon 2.8 with 2.5 gigs ram.

    the ado.net default max pool size is 100. why? why not boost it to
    1000 or more? what environmental issues do i need to consider when
    setting the max pool size?

    tks in advance.
     
    steven, Apr 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. steven

    Peter Morris Guest

    > what environmental issues do i need to consider when
    > setting the max pool size?


    I believe SQL Server Express isn't meant for this kind of situation and that
    you should spend some money on proper SQL Server licenses.
     
    Peter Morris, Apr 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steven

    steven Guest

    On Apr 8, 11:01 am, "Peter Morris"
    <peter[dot]morris(at)capableobjects.com> wrote:
    > > what environmental issues do i need to consider when
    > > setting the max pool size?

    >
    > I believe SQL Server Express isn't meant for this kind of situation and that
    > you should spend some money on proper SQL Server licenses.


    SQL Express is running in my QA environment. I've got SQL 2000
    Standard running in production and plan on making the changes there
    should things stress test well in QA.
     
    steven, Apr 8, 2008
    #3
  4. I do not see how increasing pool size changes the speed Update command is
    running with..
    Are you sure you are closing DB connections always? Cause it sounds like you
    do not... 500 open connections to SQL server I awfully lot....

    George.

    "steven" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > hi
    >
    > i've got an app that runs something like 4000 updates when certain
    > pages are updated. it's taking on average 20 seconds for these pages
    > to execute the update command (15 seconds if all i do is open and
    > close the connection without even executing the sql statement). the
    > original max pool size set in the web.config file was set to 100. I've
    > boosted the max pool size to 500 and now get the update command to
    > execute in about 2-3 seconds.
    >
    > i'm worried that i'm going to run out of resources somewhere. this is
    > an SQL Express server. the "maximum number of concurrent connections"
    > in SQL Express is set to 0 (unlimited). the machine SQL Express is
    > installed on is Intel Xeon 2.8 with 2.5 gigs ram.
    >
    > the ado.net default max pool size is 100. why? why not boost it to
    > 1000 or more? what environmental issues do i need to consider when
    > setting the max pool size?
    >
    > tks in advance.
    >
     
    George Ter-Saakov, Apr 8, 2008
    #4
  5. steven

    steven Guest

    On Apr 8, 11:33 am, "George Ter-Saakov" <> wrote:
    > I do not see how increasing pool size changes the speed Update command is
    > running with..


    the larger the pool size, the more requests can be server. anything
    over 500 requests sits in a queue.

    > Are you sure you are closing DB connections always? Cause it sounds like you
    > do not... 500 open connections to SQL server I awfully lot....


    agreed. i've inherited this project from another developer who was
    apparently aware of a memory leak somewhere because she had pooling
    turned off altogether. this worked fine for her until the number of
    records grew and now we're dealing with some very expensive opening
    and closing of db connections. i've spent a little while working on
    trying to make sure the connections are closed, but there's thousands
    of lines of code and i can't be sure i've caught everything. we're
    also looking at phasing out the current site by the end of the year,
    so i'm just trying to make things work without expending huge amounts
    of resources on trying to track down every issue.

    i've reduced the number of connectios in the pool to 100 and it seems
    to be executing quickly enough. my main concern now is that i've
    missed closing connections somewhere and if i create too small a
    connection pool, the pool will max out. so, i'd rather have a really
    large pool and hope the garbage collector has time to clean up any
    unused connections than too small a connection pool. if a large
    connection pool simply means more CPU and ram usage, i'm okay with
    that.



    >
    > George.
    >
    > "steven" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > hi

    >
    > > i've got an app that runs something like 4000 updates when certain
    > > pages are updated. it's taking on average 20 seconds for these pages
    > > to execute the update command (15 seconds if all i do is open and
    > > close the connection without even executing the sql statement). the
    > > original max pool size set in the web.config file was set to 100. I've
    > > boosted the max pool size to 500 and now get the update command to
    > > execute in about 2-3 seconds.

    >
    > > i'm worried that i'm going to run out of resources somewhere. this is
    > > an SQL Express server. the "maximum number of concurrent connections"
    > > in SQL Express is set to 0 (unlimited). the machine SQL Express is
    > > installed on is Intel Xeon 2.8 with 2.5 gigs ram.

    >
    > > the ado.net default max pool size is 100. why? why not boost it to
    > > 1000 or more? what environmental issues do i need to consider when
    > > setting the max pool size?

    >
    > > tks in advance.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > - Show quoted text -
     
    steven, Apr 8, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vladimir Davidov

    "max pool size was reached" problem again!

    Vladimir Davidov, Nov 20, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    9,165
    +The_Taco+
    Nov 20, 2003
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9u?=

    Timeout Expired...max pool size was reached.

    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9u?=, Oct 3, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    679
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9u?=
    Oct 3, 2006
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    660
    bruce barker
    Feb 12, 2007
  4. Allan Ebdrup
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    463
    Allan Ebdrup
    May 14, 2007
  5. jobs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,345
    bruce barker
    Nov 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page