Re: SQL connection timeout -- is it pretty useless or what?

Bill,

This is VS 2005 -- maybe in the "old days" this was an issue, but again,
this is VS 2005?

What is sounds like your suggesting, it that the OS DDK for network drivers
is very much legacy code and there is not way to "adjust" the timeout
response from a NIC. Regardless, assuming the NIC is fine (which it is) the
timeout interval is still a useless setting in all but the most extreme
cases -- isn't it? If I issue a open on a connection and don't receive a
response within the amount of time specified, it should trigger an exception
and let me deal with it, the framework API is NOT dealing with the issue
correctly, if it did, timeout would work as advertised.

This is just another case of more features in .NET framework 2.0 that work
half ass and not reliable. Who the hell wants to write .NET applications
when much of the functionality just doesn't work as explained in their own
freakin' documentaiton??

Sorry Bill, I've read your books and they are good, but VS 2005 and .NET 2.0
really is the worst pile of crap I've seen from Redmond yet. If this is the
best M$ can do, then they've got some SERIOUS problems. Before you say move
to Linux or some other OS ....

Not sure going from one user intensive OS to another user intensive OS is
going to help solve anything beyond my immediate problems. The real issue:

1. Developers don't think outside their box (hence 80% of the population do
use what we produce)
2. The complexity of the OS is preventing complete QA cycles (more security
holes, more bugs)
3. Security should NOT be IN THE WAY and should NOT be the responsibility
of the user
4. Solid, reliable, well documented dev tools are the key to success

There are solutions to all three of these, yet nobody wants to spend the
time, money and resources on it -- and this is exactly how one dooms ones
fate to a flat 20% market share. Are the light bulbs going on? Not at
Microsoft and certainly not open source Linux or any other flavor. Going
with an alternative just because it is an alternative still doesn't address
the three issues above.

My hope is that a well funded group will see the light (and business/profit
potential) and come out with an OS (and no the Mac OS is no better) that is
truely for everyone.

Rob.

"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OoIeT8ioGHA.4396@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's more than just "moving wires around"--it's a function of the
fundamental design of the TCP protocol at the hardware layer. Yes, there
are Framework APIs that can test for network availability but they too are
dependent on the NIC to respond--which it won't if there is no wire
attached. Connection timeout was more useful (and more necessary) in the
early days when a server had far less CPU horsepower to run it and the
server or network could be too busy to respond in time.

--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
__________________________________

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u20E0xgoGHA.4152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I was looking it going thru SQL instances but realized that will only work
with local networks.

It seems to me that building in this timeout to permit "move wires
around" is building a solution (with an large negative impact) for a
problem that might happen .0001% of the time? Just about any shop I
know, usually provides "down time" for this activity, so why introduce a
45 second timeout. Does that make sense to you?

So what is the point of having a TimeOut property? I set it to 90
seconds and it timed out in 130 seconds, I set it to 2 seconds and it
timed out in 45 seconds, I set it to 60 seconds and it timed out in 120
seconds -- just seems to be to random and very useless to me?

Any way to quick test for a response (with a timeout) from an IP address
and SQL listening port -- hackers seem to be able to do it so it must be
pretty easy.

Rob.

"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveThis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eM2c9lgoGHA.4996@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The issue is usually that the timeout counter does not start until
network connectivity has been established. If the NIC card can't see the
wire, it's programmed to wait for quite some time before complaining.
This is by design and due to the way the TCP protocol works--it permits
you to move wires around or use a switch/router/hub without worrying
that it will disturb the network. We've talked about this issue for
decades--there is no easy way to resolve it.

hth

--
____________________________________
William (Bill) Vaughn
Author, Mentor, Consultant
Microsoft MVP
INETA Speaker
www.betav.com/blog/billva
www.betav.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
__________________________________

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Of95s0foGHA.2464@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm trying to code a routine that will test the connection to a server
and I would like to specific how long (aka timeout) the .Open() should
wait before a timeout error is triggered.

I've tried "connection timeout=10;" in the connect string, but that
still doesn't timeout til 30 seconds have passed. I can't set the
Connection.ConnectionTimeout as that is a read only property. So am I
out of luck? Is there no way to quickly test a SQL connection in .NET
2.0? Operative being quickly as in I can define how long to wait?

Please tell me I don't have to initiate a thread for the SQL connection
and have the thread stop after xx seconds. There must be a more simple
approach no?? VS 2005 is supposed to be RAD (rapid application
development) not WAAD (work around application development).

Thanks, Rob.










.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Frequent timeouts, Internet connectivity problem
    ... connection, but it sounds like you've ruled that out.) ... > Sites will timeout and not load anything. ... > * Your network may have been broken or gone down. ... Automatic updates occurred without incidents to SP2. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • How to quick-check SQL connection
    ... I am collecting data in local tables within the ... I want to recognize the occasional network connection so I can ... figured I could use them with timeout to "guess" my connection status. ... So far this works but it takes the default 30 seconds to timeout. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: SQL connection timeout -- is it pretty useless or what?
    ... What is sounds like your suggesting, it that the OS DDK for network ... timeout response from a NIC. ... Connection timeout was more useful in the ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: SQL connection timeout -- is it pretty useless or what?
    ... Framework APIs that can test for network availability but they too are ... It seems to me that building in this timeout to permit "move wires around" ... wire, it's programmed to wait for quite some time before complaining. ... Please tell me I don't have to initiate a thread for the SQL connection ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: Newbie Issues (networking w/ FreeBSD)
    ... > in and doubled the timeout, and after a long wait (I didnt check the ... > but it is the same if I use telnet (or any other network service). ... of course the final port is the uplink. ... Assuming basic connectivity, many application timeout issues in Unix ...
    (freebsd-questions)