Out of curiosity chris , how many hits do you get a day? -----Original Message----- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of silverbeetle Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2007 2:49 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Connection Pooling
big thanks to charlie for that info. i didnt have much luck on google when searching for info on this either. huge thanks to sean for really giving my problem some attention. best service i've had from an isp to date! Looking forward to seeing what improvements i can make at my end (stored procedures) and see how the changes you've made effect the problem. On Sep 25, 10:26 am, Sean Bucklar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charlie Arehart (lists account) wrote:> OK, here's the longer note with some thoughts. > > First, as for their recommendation to "revise your code and ensure > > that you are utilising connection pooling", it could be that your > > host is more familiar with .NET, Java, or other languages where one > > does indeed control pooling manually (in code). > > The auto-message that Charlie received was drafted at a point in time > when the majority of our user base were using ASP (mostly VBSCRIPT) > and one of our more common code related issues was a failure to close > database connections in code. Managing a very diverse environment we > try and keep our alert notices universally applicable where possible.> > But there are indeed settings in the CF Admin that can affect this. No > one > > has mentioned, but what are your settings related to connections for > > the DSNs in question? First and foremost, what about "maintain > > connections"? Do you have that enabled? If not, then you would > > indeed use more connections than needed. I do realize some argue > > against enabling it--but that will cause higher connection use and prevent pool reuse. > > Mostly in case Chris was wondering, it is enabled. We enable it by > default when we create a cfdsn unless specifically asked not to - > largely to cut down on excessive connection consumption. > > > It's the DSN connection setting for "limit connections" which, along > > with its "restrict connections to" value. That would seem just the > > solution here to restrict how many you create. Still, I saw Sean's > > later note that this is a rather high-volume site, so you will want > > to be careful in evaluating (and > > understanding) the impact of any such changes. You seem to be asking > > for ideas, though, which is why I write. > > > Steven Erat of Adobe did a nice blog entry on this, including some > > case examples and recommendations, back in 2005 at: > > >http://www.talkingtree.com/blog/index.cfm/2005/3/14/ConnPooling1 > > That blog entry is lovely. There's been some dispute around the office > on exactly what happens when the limit to N connections option is > enabled and the N threshold is exceeded. Experimenting on Chris's v. > popular production site seeming like a bad idea, building a test app > was on my short list for today but that blog entry has saved me the effort. > Having just had a chat to Chris, we've enabled that setting as it will > in the very least reduce the quantity of errors. > > > You had mentioned in an earlier note that you "might hit up the host > > for more info and check they have their CF Admin settings correct." > > Let's hear what you have. > > Select method - Direct > Limit connections - Restrict connections to 35 (previously wasn't > configured) > Maintain Connections > Max pooled statements 1000 > Timeout 20 Interval 7 > Login timeout 45 (previously 30) > > My current plan is to tune to timeout and interval settings down if > the errors persist further. I don't think that the application is > currently exceeding the Max pooled statements - but I don't have any > aversion to growing that value either.> If it's just that your site is > a higher volume CF site than your host is > > used to, and none of the above help, then perhaps there's nothing to > > be done other than to negotiate with them to let you use more > > connections, or change plans, or change hosts. > > A plan change is certainly possible. Chris is already using the > packages at the top of our shared platform offerings, the next step up > being a dedicated SQL instance. I'm sure he'd rather get more out of > what he's already paying for then pay us some more money. While it's > certainly an available option - we're more then happy to try and get > him the most out of what he's already got.> Hope that's helpful to you and others. > > It was certainly a big help to me. That blog link in particular is > lovely - I failed at Google when I tried to find something of that > nature yesterday. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
