Re: Underlying connection was closed
From: Sachin (sachin_spam_protect__at_rcsworks.com)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: Michael Jackson: "problem with prefixed elemets in the <SOAP-ENV:Body>, namespaces and not using the SOAPAction header"
- Previous message: John Bailo: "Re: Architecture question"
- Maybe in reply to: paul: "Re: Underlying connection was closed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:36:50 -0400
Here’s my problem stack trace
The underlying connection was closed: The request was canceled. at
System.Net.HttpWebRequest.CheckFinalStatus()
at System.Net.HttpWebRequest.EndGetRequestStream(IAsyncResult
asyncResult)
at System.Net.HttpWebRequest.GetRequestStream()
at
System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol.Invoke(String
methodName, Object[] parameters)
at MyWebService.WebMethod1()
I get this error intermittently.
The most popular fix posted for the problem is to set KeepAlive = false…
but that wasn’t working for me.
Infact as suggested by Daniel I did a netStat –p TCP and found that I
had plenty of connections in TIME_WAIT state with the KeepAlive set to
false. If I remove that, I get a lot fewer connections in TIME_WAIT state.
But I still intermittently see this issue. What does the stack trace
tell anyone?
I really don’t know what going on with this. Hopefully someone can help!
* Remove _spam_protect_ to contact
Daniel Roth [MSFT] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Did you try checking on the number of connections in the TIME_WAIT state using the netstat command I mentioned earlier? Also could you please confirm for me that you
> are seeing exaclty the same error message?
>
> Thank you for your patience.
>
> Daniel Roth
>
> --------------------
> From: meetarpan@gmail.com (AShah)
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
> Subject: Re: Underlying connection was closed
> Date: 18 Sep 2004 19:34:52 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 211
> Message-ID: <c03bfe96.0409181834.e7d7b46@posting.google.com>
> References: <999e01c48637$da5519b0$a601280a@phx.gbl> <npRxjW8iEHA.1968@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl> <BImKiUFjEHA.2968@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>
> <17f801c48c6d$e0cdbcc0$a601280a@phx.gbl> <T3E0GBvjEHA.1088@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.218.120.108
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1095561292 20360 127.0.0.1 (19 Sep 2004 02:34:52 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:34:52 +0000 (UTC)
> Path: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
> nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
> Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices:6674
> X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
>
> Did you get solution to this problem ? I am seeing exactly the same
> problem when I load my system with many HTTP requests.
>
> daroth@online.microsoft.com (Daniel Roth [MSFT]) wrote in message news:<T3E0GBvjEHA.1088@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>...
>
>>You might be getting the "The underlying connection was closed. Unable to connect to the remote server" error because
>>too many connections are in the TIME_WAIT state. When this happens the system may run out of the random port range.
>>Clearing the KeepAlive flag might actually be aggravating this situation.
>>
>>Please try entering "netstat -p TCP" at the command prompt and see how many TIME_WAIT connections are found.
>>
>>Also, do you have code that we could use to reproduce these errors for further investigation?
>>
>>Thank you for your patience.
>>
>>Daniel Roth
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------
>>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>>From: "Rajeev Tipnis" <rtipnis@convoq.com>
>>Sender: "Rajeev Tipnis" <rtipnis@convoq.com>
>>References: <999e01c48637$da5519b0$a601280a@phx.gbl> <npRxjW8iEHA.1968@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>
>><BImKiUFjEHA.2968@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>
>>Subject: RE: Underlying connection was closed
>>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:41:42 -0700
>>Lines: 170
>>Message-ID: <17f801c48c6d$e0cdbcc0$a601280a@phx.gbl>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
>>thread-index: AcSMbeDGoXHBF+5uQYaTicjNqvUzdQ==
>>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
>>Path: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl
>>Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices:6386
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftngxa14.phx.gbl 10.40.1.166
>>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
>>
>>
>>Hi Daniel -
>>Thanks for looking into this.
>>
>>When you say, this patch applied to 1.1, do you mean we
>>still need to get this patch (if we already have 1.1)?
>>In any case, we are in the process of getting this patch.
>>
>>However, what I dont understand is - how can the
>>configuration be incorrect as this happens
>>only "intermittently".
>>
>>So, in my load test case, I have a load test application
>>that runs against a web service. When the number of
>>simultaneous connections go over 20-25 range to the web
>>service, we begin to see these errors.
>>
>>In my case the scenario is as follows:
>>Two separate machines:
>>1. Web Services Client (for load testing):
>> A simple .net console app (.NET 1.1 Framework)
>>2. Web Services Server:
>> A .Net web service hosted on IIS 6.0 (on Win2K3)
>>on .NET 1.1 Framework.
>>
>>I start to see these errors when the load goes
>>beyond a certain threshold (about 25 connections, I
>>believe are open at that point).
>>
>>What I have experimented with so far:
>>- Cleared the keep-alive flag on the IIS and on the
>>client by overriding the client proxy methods
>>- IIS 6.0 is configured to receive unlimited connections
>>and configured to have really long timeouts
>>
>>If the configuration was incorrect, I would expect that
>>this would fail each time, but it fails with these errors
>>only under load.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>Rajeev
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Hi Rajeev,
>>>
>>>I've answered your questions below:
>>>
>>>1) I believe this patch does apply to .Net 1.1.
>>>2) No, it does not solve the other cases since they are
>>
>> mostly a result of user configuration problems.
>>
>>>3) Yes, the fix does apply when the client is not an
>>
>> ASP.NET client.
>>
>>>For the issues you are having, you should verify that
>>
>>your proxy settings are correct and that you are
>>correctly specifying a valid server. Quite possibly
>>these two issues
>>
>>>are related. If you are still having these problems, I
>>
>> might be able to help if you provide some more details.
>>
>>>Let me know if you have further questions.
>>>
>>>Daniel Roth
>>>
>>>
>>>--------------------
>>>X-Tomcat-ID: 809948391
>>>References: <999e01c48637$da5519b0$a601280a@phx.gbl>
>>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----
>>
>> =_NextPart_0001_6ADD76EC"
>>
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>From: daroth@online.microsoft.com (Daniel Roth [MSFT])
>>>Organization: Microsoft
>>>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:37:23 GMT
>>>Subject: RE: Underlying connection was closed
>>>X-Tomcat-NG:
>>
>> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
>>
>>>Message-ID: <npRxjW8iEHA.1968@cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl>
>>>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
>>>Lines: 120
>>>Path: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl
>>>Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl
>>
>> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices:6375
>>
>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: TOMCATIMPORT1 10.201.218.122
>>>
>>>Hi Rajeev,
>>>
>>>I am in the process of investigating your questions. I
>>
>> will get back to you as soon as I have an answer.
>>
>>>Daniel Roth
>>>
>>>--------------------
>>>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>>>From: "Rajeev Tipnis" <rtipnis@convoq.com>
>>>Sender: "Rajeev Tipnis" <rtipnis@convoq.com>
>>>Subject: Underlying connection was closed
>>>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:59:51 -0700
>>>Lines: 23
>>>Message-ID: <999e01c48637$da5519b0$a601280a@phx.gbl>
>>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>>>Thread-Index: AcSGN9pVbhl3R/z4Q7iWwoav0NPNXg==
>>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
>>>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
>>>Path: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl
>>>Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl
>>
>> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices:6290
>>
>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftngxa14.phx.gbl 10.40.1.166
>>>X-Tomcat-NG:
>>
>> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices
>>
>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
>>>us;819450
>>>
>>>Questions:
>>>1) Is this patch (fix) applicable to the .NET 1.1
>>>Framework as well? That is, if we have Framework 1.1 (On
>>>Win2K3/IIS6.0), do we still need this patch?
>>>
>>>2) Does it specifically solve only this error:
>>>The underlying connection was closed. An unexpected
>>
>> error
>>
>>>occured on send.
>>>and not these (which is what we are seeing):
>>>
>>>- The underlying connection was closed. Unable to
>>
>> connect
>>
>>>to the remote server. OR
>>>- The underlying connection was closed. The proxy name
>>>could not be resolved, verify correct proxy
>>
>> configuration.
>>
>>>3) Would this not happen when the webservices client is
>>>not an ASP.NET client?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>Rajeev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
>>
>>confers no rights. Use of included script samples are
>>subject to the terms specified at
>>
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
>>>
>>>Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all
>>
>>responses to this message are best directed to the
>>newsgroup/thread from which they originated.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
>>
>>confers no rights. Use of included script samples are
>>subject to the terms specified at
>>
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
>>>
>>>Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all
>>
>>responses to this message are best directed to the
>>newsgroup/thread from which they originated.
>
>
>
>
- Next message: Michael Jackson: "problem with prefixed elemets in the <SOAP-ENV:Body>, namespaces and not using the SOAPAction header"
- Previous message: John Bailo: "Re: Architecture question"
- Maybe in reply to: paul: "Re: Underlying connection was closed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
