> 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.
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -