Web Service max out at 20 SQL connections

Discussion in 'ASP .Net Web Services' started by Erin Loy, Dec 24, 2006.

  1. Erin Loy

    Erin Loy Guest

    I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    (anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).



    20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    performance/hardware limitation,

    but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005 is
    "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    connections).



    After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to the
    User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just sitting
    idle and waiting for connections to become available.



    We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.



    My configuration is:

    1 server

    SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)

    ASP.NET 2.0



    I could really use help on this one.



    Thanks,

    -Erin
     
    Erin Loy, Dec 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Erin Loy

    Scott M. Guest

    Have you done anything to adjust connection pooling settings & have you
    considered using web service caching?


    "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    news:OG7Hn%...
    >I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    >transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    >*much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >
    >
    >
    > 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    > performance/hardware limitation,
    >
    > but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    > is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    > connections).
    >
    >
    >
    > After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    > connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    > the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    > sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >
    >
    >
    > My configuration is:
    >
    > 1 server
    >
    > SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >
    > ASP.NET 2.0
    >
    >
    >
    > I could really use help on this one.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -Erin
    >
    >
     
    Scott M., Dec 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Are you trying to use MARS? It can exhibit this behavior.

    --
    ____________________________________
    William (Bill) Vaughn
    Author, Mentor, Consultant
    Microsoft MVP
    INETA Speaker
    www.betav.com/blog/billva
    www.betav.com
    Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    __________________________________
    Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
    Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
    and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    news:OG7Hn%...
    >I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    >transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    >*much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >
    >
    >
    > 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    > performance/hardware limitation,
    >
    > but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    > is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    > connections).
    >
    >
    >
    > After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    > connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    > the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    > sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >
    >
    >
    > My configuration is:
    >
    > 1 server
    >
    > SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >
    > ASP.NET 2.0
    >
    >
    >
    > I could really use help on this one.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -Erin
    >
    >
     
    William \(Bill\) Vaughn, Dec 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Another possibility (but I'm not sure of this one) is that you don't
    explicitely close the opened connections; hence waiting for the garbage
    collector to call the dispose method of the Connection objects sometime
    after they have got out of scope.

    --
    Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
    MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
    E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)


    "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    news:OG7Hn%...
    >I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    >transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    >*much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >
    >
    >
    > 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    > performance/hardware limitation,
    >
    > but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    > is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    > connections).
    >
    >
    >
    > After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    > connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    > the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    > sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >
    >
    >
    > My configuration is:
    >
    > 1 server
    >
    > SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >
    > ASP.NET 2.0
    >
    >
    >
    > I could really use help on this one.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -Erin
    >
    >
     
    Sylvain Lafontaine, Dec 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Erin,

    Why so many connections, you have one program normaly handling the requests
    from one user one by one in a sequential way.

    Why so many connection for one user. I certainly would not set it to zero,
    as it is very clear told not to do that on MSDN.

    Cor

    "Erin Loy" <> schreef in bericht
    news:OG7Hn%...
    >I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    >transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    >*much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >
    >
    >
    > 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    > performance/hardware limitation,
    >
    > but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    > is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    > connections).
    >
    >
    >
    > After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    > connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    > the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    > sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >
    >
    >
    > My configuration is:
    >
    > 1 server
    >
    > SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >
    > ASP.NET 2.0
    >
    >
    >
    > I could really use help on this one.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -Erin
    >
    >
     
    Cor Ligthert [MVP], Dec 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Erin Loy

    Erin Loy Guest

    I have tried a lot of things over the last few days. Adjusting connection
    pooling (Min 50, Max 100) didn't seem to change performance.

    Please point me to web service caching info. Does this make sense when all
    requests will contain different data? (the servce is for toolbars to query
    info about URLs as users surf the Internet).

    -Erin

    "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Have you done anything to adjust connection pooling settings & have you
    > considered using web service caching?
    >
    >
    > "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    > news:OG7Hn%...
    >>I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >>really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >>light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine.
    >>Each transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >>(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to
    >>take *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    >> performance/hardware limitation,
    >>
    >> but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    >> is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    >> connections).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    >> connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    >> the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    >> sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> My configuration is:
    >>
    >> 1 server
    >>
    >> SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >>
    >> ASP.NET 2.0
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I could really use help on this one.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> -Erin
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Erin Loy, Dec 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Erin Loy

    Erin Loy Guest

    I did not initially use MARS, but enabled it two days ago when trying to
    troubleshoot the problem. I increased performance substantially. Physical
    connections stayed the same, but Logical connections (based on the Windows
    performance conters) jumped up past 100. I was able to service a few more
    requests per second, but still not enough.

    -Erin

    "William (Bill) Vaughn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Are you trying to use MARS? It can exhibit this behavior.
    >
    > --
    > ____________________________________
    > William (Bill) Vaughn
    > Author, Mentor, Consultant
    > Microsoft MVP
    > INETA Speaker
    > www.betav.com/blog/billva
    > www.betav.com
    > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights.
    > __________________________________
    > Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
    > Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
    > and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    > news:OG7Hn%...
    >>I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >>really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >>light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine.
    >>Each transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >>(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to
    >>take *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    >> performance/hardware limitation,
    >>
    >> but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    >> is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    >> connections).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    >> connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    >> the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    >> sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> My configuration is:
    >>
    >> 1 server
    >>
    >> SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >>
    >> ASP.NET 2.0
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I could really use help on this one.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> -Erin
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Erin Loy, Dec 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Erin Loy

    Erin Loy Guest

    All connections are explicitly closed after use.

    -Erin

    "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
    wrote in message news:O$...
    > Another possibility (but I'm not sure of this one) is that you don't
    > explicitely close the opened connections; hence waiting for the garbage
    > collector to call the dispose method of the Connection objects sometime
    > after they have got out of scope.
    >
    > --
    > Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
    > MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
    > E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
    >
    >
    > "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    > news:OG7Hn%...
    >>I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >>really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >>light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine.
    >>Each transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >>(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to
    >>take *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    >> performance/hardware limitation,
    >>
    >> but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    >> is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    >> connections).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    >> connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    >> the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    >> sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> My configuration is:
    >>
    >> 1 server
    >>
    >> SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >>
    >> ASP.NET 2.0
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I could really use help on this one.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> -Erin
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Erin Loy, Dec 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Erin Loy

    Erin Loy Guest

    The service serves data about URLs to toolbars as users browse the Internet.
    It needs to be able to handle thousands of simultanious connections.

    SQL Server installs by default with a "0" connection limit. Please point me
    to info on appropriately setting this value.

    -Erin

    "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Erin,
    >
    > Why so many connections, you have one program normaly handling the
    > requests from one user one by one in a sequential way.
    >
    > Why so many connection for one user. I certainly would not set it to zero,
    > as it is very clear told not to do that on MSDN.
    >
    > Cor
    >
    > "Erin Loy" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:OG7Hn%...
    >>I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >>really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >>light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine.
    >>Each transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >>(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to
    >>take *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    >> performance/hardware limitation,
    >>
    >> but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    >> is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    >> connections).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    >> connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    >> the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    >> sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> My configuration is:
    >>
    >> 1 server
    >>
    >> SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >>
    >> ASP.NET 2.0
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I could really use help on this one.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> -Erin
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Erin Loy, Dec 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Erin Loy

    Scott M. Guest

    Caching will help when the service might return the same results given the
    same input.

    The following article discusses caching in more detail:

    http://www.theserverside.net/tt/articles/showarticle.tss?id=Top5WSMistakes



    "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have tried a lot of things over the last few days. Adjusting connection
    >pooling (Min 50, Max 100) didn't seem to change performance.
    >
    > Please point me to web service caching info. Does this make sense when
    > all requests will contain different data? (the servce is for toolbars to
    > query info about URLs as users surf the Internet).
    >
    > -Erin
    >
    > "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Have you done anything to adjust connection pooling settings & have you
    >> considered using web service caching?
    >>
    >>
    >> "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:OG7Hn%...
    >>>I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >>>really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >>>light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine.
    >>>Each transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >>>(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to
    >>>take *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    >>> performance/hardware limitation,
    >>>
    >>> but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    >>> is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    >>> connections).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    >>> connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    >>> the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    >>> sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> My configuration is:
    >>>
    >>> 1 server
    >>>
    >>> SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >>>
    >>> ASP.NET 2.0
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I could really use help on this one.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks,
    >>>
    >>> -Erin
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Scott M., Dec 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Erin Loy

    Erin Loy Guest

    What performance counters should I be looking at to further diagnose this?

    -Erin

    "Erin Loy" <> wrote in message
    news:OG7Hn%...
    >I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    >really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    >light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    >transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    >(anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    >*much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >
    >
    >
    > 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    > performance/hardware limitation,
    >
    > but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005
    > is "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    > connections).
    >
    >
    >
    > After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    > connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to
    > the User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just
    > sitting idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >
    >
    >
    > My configuration is:
    >
    > 1 server
    >
    > SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >
    > ASP.NET 2.0
    >
    >
    >
    > I could really use help on this one.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -Erin
    >
    >
     
    Erin Loy, Dec 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Erin Loy

    JayKon Guest

    How many web servers are feeding queries in? More than 1? Remove 1 web server
    (or add one) and see if the number of concurent connections changes.

    In an IIS->ODBC->Informix setup I found that pooling was going on in
    multiple places. IIS was doing it, ODBC, ADO (was never clear on the ADO) and
    Informix. It wasn't until all of the configurations were setup perfectly that
    we got the maximum throughput through all 12 webservers and the database.
    However, I isolated it to settings on the web server by adding and removing
    them.

    "Erin Loy" wrote:

    > I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    > really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    > light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    > transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    > (anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    > *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    >
    >
    >
    > 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    > performance/hardware limitation,
    >
    > but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005 is
    > "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    > connections).
    >
    >
    >
    > After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    > connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to the
    > User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just sitting
    > idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    >
    >
    >
    > My configuration is:
    >
    > 1 server
    >
    > SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    >
    > ASP.NET 2.0
    >
    >
    >
    > I could really use help on this one.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -Erin
    >
    >
    >
     
    JayKon, Dec 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Erin Loy

    kferron Guest

    The red flag that comes to mind is that in your original post you said
    "We are using Thread Pooling"

    Thread pooling and connection pooling are very different things.. are
    you opening connections on a worker thread? Its possible im off base,
    and that you meant connection pooling, but i find it interesting that
    youre getting a hard limit at 20. With a ThreadPool max of 25 threads
    per processor, add in a bounding bug and you might be bumping against
    this threshold.



    JayKon wrote:
    > How many web servers are feeding queries in? More than 1? Remove 1 web server
    > (or add one) and see if the number of concurent connections changes.
    >
    > In an IIS->ODBC->Informix setup I found that pooling was going on in
    > multiple places. IIS was doing it, ODBC, ADO (was never clear on the ADO) and
    > Informix. It wasn't until all of the configurations were setup perfectly that
    > we got the maximum throughput through all 12 webservers and the database.
    > However, I isolated it to settings on the web server by adding and removing
    > them.
    >
    > "Erin Loy" wrote:
    >
    > > I have been tasked with load testing our .NET 2.0 web service, which is
    > > really just wraps 1 or 2 very simple and light weight SQL queries. Under
    > > light load (less than 20 requests per second), everything works fine. Each
    > > transaction takes about 10-12 ms to complete. As the load increases
    > > (anything more than 20 web requests per second), transactions begin to take
    > > *much* longer (more than 10 seconds or more).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 20 SQL Server connections seems to be a hard limit of some kind, not a
    > > performance/hardware limitation,
    > >
    > > but the only connection limitation setting I can find in SQL Server 2005 is
    > > "Maximum number of concurrent connections" and is set to 0 (Unlimited
    > > connections).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > After investigating further, it looks to me like the number of active
    > > connections to SQL Server never rise above 20 connections (according to the
    > > User Connections performance counter), and web requests are just sitting
    > > idle and waiting for connections to become available.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > We are using thread pooling and closing connections appropriately.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > My configuration is:
    > >
    > > 1 server
    > >
    > > SQL Server 2005 (Standard version from MSDN subscription)
    > >
    > > ASP.NET 2.0
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I could really use help on this one.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > -Erin
    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    kferron, Dec 28, 2006
    #13
    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. Krister L.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    843
    Jp Calderone
    Nov 4, 2003
  2. Allan Ebdrup
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    467
    Allan Ebdrup
    May 14, 2007
  3. jobs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,399
    bruce barker
    Nov 10, 2007
  4. jobs
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    917
  5. John A Grandy

    config param : max # web service connections

    John A Grandy, Apr 6, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Web Services
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    508
    Josh Twist
    Apr 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page