> Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really tested to
> the max.

"Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in message
news:OpJil1Z8EHA.2804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>
> First of all:
> *** HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL!!! :) ***
>
> then, here it goes; I've downloaded SQL Spy 6.0 from Hybridx (got it
> from http://files.webattack.com/localdl834/sql_spy_setup.zip). It's a
> freeware tools to monitor SQL Server activity. I use this tool to watch
> how my apps (created with Microsoft Visual FoxPro 8.0 SP1, connect with
> SQL Server thru ODBC) interact with SQL Server. I found out that on some
> parts of my apps (where there are lots
> of traverse and calculation), the number of locks on the SQL Server
> could go up to 700 and the external connection could go up to 15 or 20.
> And I tested that on my box (that means; I run my apps on the server and
> no workstation connect to the server).
>
> Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really tested to
> the max. The traffic are quite low and the concurrent user has never
> exceed eight users. Yet, looking at the numbers, I'm afraid that there
> something that I don't do effectively.
> My Questions:
> 1. Is the number normal?
> 2. Anybody here can give me advices on C/S programming, I mean just a
> quick thumb rules what should and what, like should I make a connection,
> get the data, and disconnect immediately. Or should I share all SPT in
> one connection?, or any other rule what should and shouldn't?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Willianto
>
>

> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
written a
> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)

"Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OCObfsa8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> This is the open question of all times. Without looking at the code,
the
> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
written a
> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)
Lots of
> locks are fine, as long as you don't have lots of users contending for
those
> locks. You say you have 8 users, is that all you are planning for?
If
> everyone is happy, it might be fine.
>
> Bottom line is that you need to get some literature and read up on
design,
> internals, optimization, etc before you can decide if your application
is
> well written, and experience is a must. Without being able to
magically
> aquire this (and it takes a while and sadly we learn from failure!) I
would
> suggest that you take this statement:
>
> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really tested
to
> > the max.
>
> Define what max means and test for it. If it works fine under max
> conditions, then your application is fine.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Louis Davidson - drsql@hotmail.com
> SQL Server MVP
>
> Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
> Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
> Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested in
> consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
>
> "Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in message
> news:OpJil1Z8EHA.2804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First of all:
> > *** HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL!!! :) ***
> >
> > then, here it goes; I've downloaded SQL Spy 6.0 from Hybridx (got it
> > from http://files.webattack.com/localdl834/sql_spy_setup.zip). It's
a
> > freeware tools to monitor SQL Server activity. I use this tool to
watch
> > how my apps (created with Microsoft Visual FoxPro 8.0 SP1, connect
with
> > SQL Server thru ODBC) interact with SQL Server. I found out that on
some
> > parts of my apps (where there are lots
> > of traverse and calculation), the number of locks on the SQL Server
> > could go up to 700 and the external connection could go up to 15 or
20.
> > And I tested that on my box (that means; I run my apps on the server
and
> > no workstation connect to the server).
> >
> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really tested
to
> > the max. The traffic are quite low and the concurrent user has never
> > exceed eight users. Yet, looking at the numbers, I'm afraid that
there
> > something that I don't do effectively.
> > My Questions:
> > 1. Is the number normal?
> > 2. Anybody here can give me advices on C/S programming, I mean just
a
> > quick thumb rules what should and what, like should I make a
connection,
> > get the data, and disconnect immediately. Or should I share all SPT
in
> > one connection?, or any other rule what should and shouldn't?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Willianto
> >
> >
>
>

> So, using SQL Server as a backend is not _that_ easy... Oh well, at
> least I know for sure that the problem won't appear in my client for a
> near future.

"Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in message
news:e3bYpJv8EHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Louis:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
> written a
>> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)
> Lots of .. [skipped]
> Looks like my case is the second one :(
> As I stated in my post, the application runs fine, but it runs with a
> very minimum load. That's because the company using my apps is a
> machinery trading company. The activity is very low. To give you a clue
> how 'low' is that; they only have to create less than 10 invoices a day.
> Actually, that's the best numbers they got for years (that means less
> than ten sales a day - but, hey, the profit of selling one machine could
> cover three months expenditure!). Anyway, what I did is I backup the
> database, call up some of my fellow, line up eight computers, and
> massively attack the system with all the apps feature (purchasing,
> receive goods, stock preview, stock opname, delivery order, customer
> order, etc...). After an hour we manage to hang the server which by
> then, got about 350,000 locking and 80,000 external connections :(
>
> So, using SQL Server as a backend is not _that_ easy... Oh well, at
> least I know for sure that the problem won't appear in my client for a
> near future.
>
> Regards,
> Willianto
>
> "Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OCObfsa8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> This is the open question of all times. Without looking at the code,
> the
>> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
> written a
>> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)
> Lots of
>> locks are fine, as long as you don't have lots of users contending for
> those
>> locks. You say you have 8 users, is that all you are planning for?
> If
>> everyone is happy, it might be fine.
>>
>> Bottom line is that you need to get some literature and read up on
> design,
>> internals, optimization, etc before you can decide if your application
> is
>> well written, and experience is a must. Without being able to
> magically
>> aquire this (and it takes a while and sadly we learn from failure!) I
> would
>> suggest that you take this statement:
>>
>> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really tested
> to
>> > the max.
>>
>> Define what max means and test for it. If it works fine under max
>> conditions, then your application is fine.
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> Louis Davidson - drsql@hotmail.com
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>> Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
>> Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
>> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
>> Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested in
>> consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
>>
>> "Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in message
>> news:OpJil1Z8EHA.2804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > First of all:
>> > *** HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL!!! :) ***
>> >
>> > then, here it goes; I've downloaded SQL Spy 6.0 from Hybridx (got it
>> > from http://files.webattack.com/localdl834/sql_spy_setup.zip). It's
> a
>> > freeware tools to monitor SQL Server activity. I use this tool to
> watch
>> > how my apps (created with Microsoft Visual FoxPro 8.0 SP1, connect
> with
>> > SQL Server thru ODBC) interact with SQL Server. I found out that on
> some
>> > parts of my apps (where there are lots
>> > of traverse and calculation), the number of locks on the SQL Server
>> > could go up to 700 and the external connection could go up to 15 or
> 20.
>> > And I tested that on my box (that means; I run my apps on the server
> and
>> > no workstation connect to the server).
>> >
>> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really tested
> to
>> > the max. The traffic are quite low and the concurrent user has never
>> > exceed eight users. Yet, looking at the numbers, I'm afraid that
> there
>> > something that I don't do effectively.
>> > My Questions:
>> > 1. Is the number normal?
>> > 2. Anybody here can give me advices on C/S programming, I mean just
> a
>> > quick thumb rules what should and what, like should I make a
> connection,
>> > get the data, and disconnect immediately. Or should I share all SPT
> in
>> > one connection?, or any other rule what should and shouldn't?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> >
>> > Willianto
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

"Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:exoghN18EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Yeah, I think the telltale sign here is the 80,000 connections. You
are
> probably not closing a connection in your application somewhere. This
can
> actually be dangerous if you are using any transactions in your code
(not
> using transactions is dangerous for other reasons, like data
integrity!)
>
> > So, using SQL Server as a backend is not _that_ easy... Oh well, at
> > least I know for sure that the problem won't appear in my client for
a
> > near future.
>
> It isn't that bad though. Just like any code you have to be careful
to
> clean up after yourself when you connect to and use a resource.
Either way,
> understanding the need for improvement is step number one, and if the
> application is meeting all of your current needs without much
troublem,
> sounds like you have time to isolate the issues.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Louis Davidson - drsql@hotmail.com
> SQL Server MVP
>
> Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
> Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
> Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested in
> consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
>
> "Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in message
> news:e3bYpJv8EHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Louis:
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> >> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
> > written a
> >> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)
> > Lots of .. [skipped]
> > Looks like my case is the second one :(
> > As I stated in my post, the application runs fine, but it runs with
a
> > very minimum load. That's because the company using my apps is a
> > machinery trading company. The activity is very low. To give you a
clue
> > how 'low' is that; they only have to create less than 10 invoices a
day.
> > Actually, that's the best numbers they got for years (that means
less
> > than ten sales a day - but, hey, the profit of selling one machine
could
> > cover three months expenditure!). Anyway, what I did is I backup the
> > database, call up some of my fellow, line up eight computers, and
> > massively attack the system with all the apps feature (purchasing,
> > receive goods, stock preview, stock opname, delivery order, customer
> > order, etc...). After an hour we manage to hang the server which by
> > then, got about 350,000 locking and 80,000 external connections :(
> >
> > So, using SQL Server as a backend is not _that_ easy... Oh well, at
> > least I know for sure that the problem won't appear in my client for
a
> > near future.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Willianto
> >
> > "Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:OCObfsa8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> This is the open question of all times. Without looking at the
code,
> > the
> >> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
> > written a
> >> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)
> > Lots of
> >> locks are fine, as long as you don't have lots of users contending
for
> > those
> >> locks. You say you have 8 users, is that all you are planning for?
> > If
> >> everyone is happy, it might be fine.
> >>
> >> Bottom line is that you need to get some literature and read up on
> > design,
> >> internals, optimization, etc before you can decide if your
application
> > is
> >> well written, and experience is a must. Without being able to
> > magically
> >> aquire this (and it takes a while and sadly we learn from failure!)
I
> > would
> >> suggest that you take this statement:
> >>
> >> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really
tested
> > to
> >> > the max.
> >>
> >> Define what max means and test for it. If it works fine under max
> >> conditions, then your application is fine.
> >>
> >> --
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > ------
> >> Louis Davidson - drsql@hotmail.com
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >>
> >> Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
> >> Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
> >> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
> >> Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested
in
> >> consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
> >>
> >> "Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in
message
> >> news:OpJil1Z8EHA.2804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > First of all:
> >> > *** HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL!!! :) ***
> >> >
> >> > then, here it goes; I've downloaded SQL Spy 6.0 from Hybridx (got
it
> >> > from http://files.webattack.com/localdl834/sql_spy_setup.zip).
It's
> > a
> >> > freeware tools to monitor SQL Server activity. I use this tool to
> > watch
> >> > how my apps (created with Microsoft Visual FoxPro 8.0 SP1,
connect
> > with
> >> > SQL Server thru ODBC) interact with SQL Server. I found out that
on
> > some
> >> > parts of my apps (where there are lots
> >> > of traverse and calculation), the number of locks on the SQL
Server
> >> > could go up to 700 and the external connection could go up to 15
or
> > 20.
> >> > And I tested that on my box (that means; I run my apps on the
server
> > and
> >> > no workstation connect to the server).
> >> >
> >> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really
tested
> > to
> >> > the max. The traffic are quite low and the concurrent user has
never
> >> > exceed eight users. Yet, looking at the numbers, I'm afraid that
> > there
> >> > something that I don't do effectively.
> >> > My Questions:
> >> > 1. Is the number normal?
> >> > 2. Anybody here can give me advices on C/S programming, I mean
just
> > a
> >> > quick thumb rules what should and what, like should I make a
> > connection,
> >> > get the data, and disconnect immediately. Or should I share all
SPT
> > in
> >> > one connection?, or any other rule what should and shouldn't?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance
> >> >
> >> > Willianto
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in message
news:%23H5zSE58EHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Louis:
>
> Thanks for your time. I've manage to put a quick-and-dirty code to close
> all connections used by the form on its Destroy event (occur when the
> form object is about to be destroy - a credit goes to VFP community in
> microsoft.public.fox.programmer.exchange). It's less than 10 lines of
> code, but it sure clean up the mess.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Regards,
> Willianto
>
> "Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:exoghN18EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Yeah, I think the telltale sign here is the 80,000 connections. You
> are
>> probably not closing a connection in your application somewhere. This
> can
>> actually be dangerous if you are using any transactions in your code
> (not
>> using transactions is dangerous for other reasons, like data
> integrity!)
>>
>> > So, using SQL Server as a backend is not _that_ easy... Oh well, at
>> > least I know for sure that the problem won't appear in my client for
> a
>> > near future.
>>
>> It isn't that bad though. Just like any code you have to be careful
> to
>> clean up after yourself when you connect to and use a resource.
> Either way,
>> understanding the need for improvement is step number one, and if the
>> application is meeting all of your current needs without much
> troublem,
>> sounds like you have time to isolate the issues.
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>> Louis Davidson - drsql@hotmail.com
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>> Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
>> Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
>> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
>> Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested in
>> consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
>>
>> "Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3bYpJv8EHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi Louis:
>> >
>> > Thanks for your reply.
>> >> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
>> > written a
>> >> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)
>> > Lots of .. [skipped]
>> > Looks like my case is the second one :(
>> > As I stated in my post, the application runs fine, but it runs with
> a
>> > very minimum load. That's because the company using my apps is a
>> > machinery trading company. The activity is very low. To give you a
> clue
>> > how 'low' is that; they only have to create less than 10 invoices a
> day.
>> > Actually, that's the best numbers they got for years (that means
> less
>> > than ten sales a day - but, hey, the profit of selling one machine
> could
>> > cover three months expenditure!). Anyway, what I did is I backup the
>> > database, call up some of my fellow, line up eight computers, and
>> > massively attack the system with all the apps feature (purchasing,
>> > receive goods, stock preview, stock opname, delivery order, customer
>> > order, etc...). After an hour we manage to hang the server which by
>> > then, got about 350,000 locking and 80,000 external connections :(
>> >
>> > So, using SQL Server as a backend is not _that_ easy... Oh well, at
>> > least I know for sure that the problem won't appear in my client for
> a
>> > near future.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Willianto
>> >
>> > "Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:OCObfsa8EHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >> This is the open question of all times. Without looking at the
> code,
>> > the
>> >> best that can be said is that you might be fine, or you might have
>> > written a
>> >> terrible app (something we all have done at one time or another :)
>> > Lots of
>> >> locks are fine, as long as you don't have lots of users contending
> for
>> > those
>> >> locks. You say you have 8 users, is that all you are planning for?
>> > If
>> >> everyone is happy, it might be fine.
>> >>
>> >> Bottom line is that you need to get some literature and read up on
>> > design,
>> >> internals, optimization, etc before you can decide if your
> application
>> > is
>> >> well written, and experience is a must. Without being able to
>> > magically
>> >> aquire this (and it takes a while and sadly we learn from failure!)
> I
>> > would
>> >> suggest that you take this statement:
>> >>
>> >> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really
> tested
>> > to
>> >> > the max.
>> >>
>> >> Define what max means and test for it. If it works fine under max
>> >> conditions, then your application is fine.
>> >>
>> >> --
>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>> > ------
>> >> Louis Davidson - drsql@hotmail.com
>> >> SQL Server MVP
>> >>
>> >> Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
>> >> Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
>> >> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
>> >> Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested
> in
>> >> consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
>> >>
>> >> "Willianto" <willianto@remove-me.telkom-and-me.net> wrote in
> message
>> >> news:OpJil1Z8EHA.2804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > First of all:
>> >> > *** HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL!!! :) ***
>> >> >
>> >> > then, here it goes; I've downloaded SQL Spy 6.0 from Hybridx (got
> it
>> >> > from http://files.webattack.com/localdl834/sql_spy_setup.zip).
> It's
>> > a
>> >> > freeware tools to monitor SQL Server activity. I use this tool to
>> > watch
>> >> > how my apps (created with Microsoft Visual FoxPro 8.0 SP1,
> connect
>> > with
>> >> > SQL Server thru ODBC) interact with SQL Server. I found out that
> on
>> > some
>> >> > parts of my apps (where there are lots
>> >> > of traverse and calculation), the number of locks on the SQL
> Server
>> >> > could go up to 700 and the external connection could go up to 15
> or
>> > 20.
>> >> > And I tested that on my box (that means; I run my apps on the
> server
>> > and
>> >> > no workstation connect to the server).
>> >> >
>> >> > Whilst the apps so far running fine, it's never been really
> tested
>> > to
>> >> > the max. The traffic are quite low and the concurrent user has