connection-pooling

What is the maximum allowable value of "Max Pool Size" in a connection string? Suppose this is my connection string in app.config <add name="Name" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" connectionString="Data Source=ServerName;Network Library=DBMSSOCN;Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;user=UserName;password=Password;Max Pool Size=1024;Pooling=true;"/> What is the maximum value I can use instead of 1024? Remember it is maximum value, not default value. There is no documented limit on Max Pool Size. There is however an exact documented limit on maximum number of concurrent connections to a single SQL

is there a recommended amount of connections fro each application i have for use with connection pooling.., my apps are using asp.net and c# against sql express on the "same" server. I have 5 applications running, they are not used intensively, all connections are opened and closed.. So i was thinking of setting each app to have min pool = 5 so this 5 x 5 = 25 Can sql express handle 25 connection ... well actually 5 pools and 5 connections each pool? Could i go up to ten? And is it necessary to put MAX pool property in the connection string to ensure i don't go over a number per pool? Any help

since last post, did all the changes suggested but this problem still haunts me. Here's the error i get: Caused by: com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.CommunicationsException: The last packet successfully received from the server was 44,499,102 milliseconds ago. here's my hibernate.cfg.xml <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <!DOCTYPE hibernate-configuration PUBLIC "-//Hibernate/Hibernate Configuration DTD//EN" "http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-configuration-3.0.dtd"> <hibernate-configuration> <session-factory> <property name="hibernate.connection.provider_class">org.hibernate

We have an ASP.Net MVC3 application that is running on Azure, connecting to a Sql Azure Database via Entity Framework. The Developer that produced this has Pooling=False in the connection string. I would have thought this was a bad idea - wouldn't we want to re-use the connections if possible? Can anyone give me some guidance of when this might be a good idea? Thanks! Yes, it is bad idea to have pooling=False. I don't use this option even for development. You should always use the SQL Server Connection Pooling. What you have to be aware of, however is the Transient Errors in SQL Azure. There

Hibernate connections to MySQL my db are not closing. After clicking 10 times in like 10 second, I get this connection statistics from MySQL Workbench (in my development machine. I'm the only user). MySQL Workbench Server Status I have those in place C3P0 and running (checked from log4j, no problem related to C3P0 and seems running) A ServletReqestListener which checks if there's an open session and closes it in requestDestroyed() method. Hibernate Session object is being kept in ThreadLocal, so every request only have one connection, which opens at first query, and closes in

I know that, at some point between Grails 1.X and Grails 2.X, the default connection pooling library changed from commons-dbcp to tomcat-dbcp . Now, I'm trying to configure either BoneCP or HikariCP as the connection pooling library for my Grails application. However, I see that this answer offers a solution which might only apply to Grails 1.X. I also found this Gist , but again, I don't know which Grails version it applies to. So, is it possible to define a custom connection pool inside a Grails 2.3.6 application? Thanks! UPDATE: OK so you actually need to tell Grails not to pool the

I have a question regarding general use of Prepared Statement along with connection pooling. Prepared Statements are generally tied to one connection only.In our application, a PreparedStatement is created at the start up and executed at a later point. If at the time of execution of some specific prepared statement, connection associated with the prepared statement is busy executing other statements than how this required statement will get executed.Does this statement will wait for connection to get free or this statement will be given preference in execution? Update I have tested this by