I agree that this may well be a client problem. Some of my initial
evidence seemed to suggest a server issue, but on closer examination I
was less convinced that the server was causing the problem. In fact,
what I tried earlier today was to limit the number of concurrent
client threads making requests to a maximum of ten, and then I could
not recreate the problem. (I thought about using a queue, which would
be a better solution, but it may be overkill for what I need right
now.) By the way, I arbitrarily picked ten concurrent threads (which
probably closely approximates the number of concurrent requests) and
that made the problem go away. Can someone tell me what the actual
maximum I should use is, or is it configurable? Is it OS-dependent?
I am, however, left with a certain amount of curiosity: why does the
client never recover? The timeouts occur as expected, but once this
situation has occurred, no further requests ever reach the server. I
have to terminate the client application and restart it in order to
get it working again. This is, however, strictly curiosity and a
desire to understand: the above work-around is sufficient for my
needs in this case.
Brad.
>Hello,
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Luke
[MSFT] - 27 Apr 2005 06:46 GMT
Hi Brad,
I think it should be OS-dependent limitation. For example, there is a max
connction number for this client to the server. I suggest you may consult
your network administrator for this. Also, I think the application may not
release the connection or ports until you close it.
Luke
William Stacey [MVP] - 27 Apr 2005 19:12 GMT
When you see the problem, how many connections/threads are running? Was it
around 1700?

Signature
William Stacey [MVP]
> I agree that this may well be a client problem. Some of my initial
> evidence seemed to suggest a server issue, but on closer examination I
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> >
> >Luke
Bradley Plett - 28 Apr 2005 07:53 GMT
Oh, no, it never got nearly that high. I never got a consistent
number, but I doubt it ever exceeded 100.
Brad.
>When you see the problem, how many connections/threads are running? Was it
>around 1700?