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

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Ah, in some respects I agree. We've raised this issue from the earliest
Windows 1.0 days (when I was in the Developer Liaison group at MS). We
raised it at MSU when OS/2 arrived and again as the first NT systems were
built. I expect the problem is still out of MS's control--it's defined by
the way that the Ethernet protocols work which MS did not invent or define
and the protocol that everyone has to deal with.

As far as an OS that everyone would like, I think that's a pipe dream. There
is no universal solution and there should not be. What's right for games is
not right for business clients, what's right for hosting services is not
right for client applications.I think MS has a very hard job trying to
please everyone and the world's governments as well. And no, it's not an
ideal situation but it's what the market has adopted.
--
____________________________________
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:O6z$2vPpGHA.4192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: how to handle socket timeout?
    ... There will be no response, ... with respect to the connection, what you send, and what you detect, it ... But, once the server stops being unreachable, the requests start ... The notion of "fast" is configurable by the timeout value. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: SQL connection timeout -- is it pretty useless or what?
    ... What is sounds like your suggesting, it that the OS DDK for network drivers ... timeout interval is still a useless setting in all but the most extreme ... Connection timeout was more useful in the ... wire, it's programmed to wait for quite some time before complaining. ...
    (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)