Re: Execution Timeout Problem

Steven,

Thanks for your reply.

I have a question about your second suggestion below, concerning the debug
attribute in web.config. You suggested setting it to "true". If it's set
to "true" (debug-true), isn't that setting the compilation to DEBUG? You
said "executeTimeout won't work correctly under debug compilation".

Thanks,

Mark


"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" <stcheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:61mtQetpFHA.944@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for Brock's good suggesitons.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> In addition to Brock's suggestion on make your serverside processing
> asynchronously so as to release the woker thread, regarding on the problem
> itself, I think you can still check the following things:
>
> 1. You can use the Server.ScriptTime property to also adjust the
> ScriptTimeout value in addition to the httpRuntime/@executeTimeout
setting,
> just to make sure all the worker thread level timeout has been adjusted
> correctly.
>
> 2. Please check the web.config file 's system.web/compilation/@debug
> attribute to see whether it is set to "true" or "false", if false, please
> change it to "true" since the "executeTimeout won't work correctly under
> debug compilation.
>
> In addition, you can also check whether you've apply any Timeout setting
at
> the database processing layer, such as the SqlCommand's IdleTimeout .
>
> Hope also helps. Thanks,
>
> Steven Cheng
> Microsoft Online Support
>
> Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.)
> --------------------
> | From: "Mark G" <greenb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | References: <#oE4#4ppFHA.3256@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <1131861632602464974843750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | Subject: Re: Execution Timeout Problem
> | Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:51:25 -0500
> | Lines: 100
> | X-Priority: 3
> | X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> | X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
> | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
> | Message-ID: <O#EddLqpFHA.320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> | Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
> | NNTP-Posting-Host: alxapex01.southernco.com 146.126.51.51
> | Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> | Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl
> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet:119366
> | X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
> |
> | I guess I better get to work :-), I'll let you know how it turns out.
> |
> | Thanks for the info,
> |
> | Mark
> |
> |
> | "Brock Allen" <ballen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | news:1131861632602464974843750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > The browser really is the ultimate problem here, since it can choose
to
> | abandon
> | > the request. You don't have a lot of control over that...
> | >
> | > Re: fixing this ASAP: It really isn't a lot of work. I could imagine
it
> | getting
> | > done in one or two days.
> | >
> | > -Brock
> | > DevelopMentor
> | > http://staff.develop.com/ballen
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > > Thanks again, but the immediate issue is this is a production
> | > > application
> | > > that needs to be fixed ASAP. For the short term, shouldn't I be
able
> | > > to use
> | > > the executionTimeout attribute of the <httpRunTime> element to
control
> | > > these
> | > > timeouts? That's the way the documentation reads anyway.
> | > > Thanks,
> | > > Mark
> | > >
> | > > "Brock Allen" <ballen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > > news:1130958632602391938906250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > >
> | > >> Well, you need to access the server somehow to initiate the long
> | > >> running task. It doesn't matter if that's an AJAX call or a normal
> | > >> page post. Same thing for refreshing thew page to check the status;
> | > >> somehow you need to
> | > >>
> | > > contact
> | > >
> | > >> the server. Both approaches will work.
> | > >>
> | > >> -Brock
> | > >> DevelopMentor
> | > >> http://staff.develop.com/ballen
> | > >>> Brock,
> | > >>>
> | > >>> Thanks for your reply, it sounds like a good idea. Will AJAX
allow
> | > >>> me to initiate the long running task and give the user the ability
> | > >>> to refresh the page to get the status? I have read an article or
two
> | > >>> on AJAX but haven't used it yet.
> | > >>>
> | > >>> Thanks,
> | > >>>
> | > >>> Mark
> | > >>>
> | > >>> "Brock Allen" <ballen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > >>> news:1130292632602246365000000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > >>>
> | > >>>> You should consider redesigning this long running work so the
> | > >>>> browser isn't waiting for it to complete. So make a button that
> | > >>>> initiates the work, then give the user the ability to refresh the
> | > >>>> page to see the pending work. To initiate the work you'll have to
> | > >>>> kick off another thread somehow (so use
> | > >>>> ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem, or manually create another thread;
> | > >>>> there are pros and cons to each of these approaches). To monitor
> | > >>>> the pending work you'll need some other status table in the DB
> | > >>>> where your user can see if the work is complete. Once it is,
update
> | > >>>> that table. Anyway, just an idea on how to rework this long
running
> | > >>>> task....
> | > >>>>
> | > >>>> -Brock
> | > >>>> DevelopMentor
> | > >>>> http://staff.develop.com/ballen
> | > >>>>> Our asp.net web app uses a .NET component (DLL) in the bin
> | > >>>>> directory to call several stored procedures back to back to
> | > >>>>> perform updates. They don't return any data. Sometimes the total
> | > >>>>> execution time can take 2-3 minutes, but even though I have set
> | > >>>>> the executionTimeout in web.config to a high number of seconds
> | > >>>>> (2400), the request will still time out after 90 seconds. The
> | > >>>>> user sees a Request timed out error. The app logs a
ThreadAborted
> | > >>>>> exception, [Thread was being aborted].
> | > >>>>>
> | > >>>>> The web app and the component are compiled in Release mode. I
> | > >>>>> read that you only have to set one property; executionTimeout or
> | > >>>>> the ScriptTimeout property in IIS, but not both. Is that true
or
> | > >>>>> false?
> | > >>>>>
> | > >>>>> Thanks for your help,
> | > >>>>>
> | > >>>>> Mark
> | > >>>>>
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
> |
>


.