"Erin Loy" <erinloy@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:OG7Hn%234JHHA.3268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>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" <erinloy@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:OG7Hn%234JHHA.3268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>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" <erinloy@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:OG7Hn%234JHHA.3268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>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
>
>