General Network Error. Check your network documentation

Hi,

I am using .Net 1.1 for my web application.

And my database server is SQL Server 2005.

My application is running fine, as i can login to it and also able to view pages. But when i open Order management(having 3K records) its give me error,

General Network Error. Check your network documentation

I have also searched many articles and tried following solutions but nothing working

- connectiontimeout = 0, max pool size = 7500/100, pooling = false

- SSL disabling enforce security false as mentioned in microsoft kb article.

And there's nothing any issue with hardware/firewall as my application's login and other forms are working fine(which use same database with same connection string)

Can any one please help me to solve this error?

Hi,

Correct me if I am wrong but are you trying to load 3000 records onto a page. If so there is a limit to the number of data records that a page can hold and this may be your problem. Have you tried paging the results so that you only get about 100 or 500 records per page.

Regards

Scottyb

|||

Hi,

Finally i got solution.

that rather then adding connectiontimeout = 0 in connection string.

We have to assign it in command property.

cmd.ConnectionTimeout = 0

because if we didn't assign in command microsoft internally set it's default value.

If you see SqlCommand class code by disassemble, in it's constructor it set this property to 30.
so if you not assign value 0 its default value is 30. it can not take value from connection string.

And it's working fine.

Finally i got so now i can take breath, otherwise my client calling me every 15-20 mins for solution.

General Network Error

Hello.

I'm running into a rather intermittent problem when a search query is run on an ASP.Net web application.

The error is 'General Network Error' Check your Network Documentation...

As I said, it doesn't happen everytime which leads me to beleive that there is a problem with the database connection

There's probably no more than 50-60 max users hitting the app at any one time.

Anybody familiar with this?

Those can be a real nightmare to debug... See if this helps you:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;875285

General Network error

I am using Windows Form with web service, I am getting error ocassionally when I am accessing records "System.data.sqlclient.sqlexception General Network error" , When I click again the error disappears.This is not a security related error. You should try the SQL Server Data Access forum. If you want, I can move this thread there, just let me know.

Thanks
Laurentiu|||HI!! Laurentiu,

Kindly move the thread to Sql Server Data Access Forum.

Thank You
Uminder Khatri|||

The information here is really not sufficient for us to help figure this out. Can you give us some more detail as to what your configuration is?
Are you running .Net 1.1?
What version of SQL Server are you running?

It could quite possibly be that the server is crashing. Can you check out the error logs on the server and see if there's anything suspicious there?

Thanks.

sql

General configuration question - maximum performance.

This is a hyperthetical question.
If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
problem between multiple servers.
However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed,
what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
system or a credit card processing authority?
I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
goes so far.
What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
guess they are not on SQL Server?
Regards
Dave ADave
I'd turn on SQL Server Profiler to identify long running queries , stored
procedures and try to imrove them. How to improve, that is probably playing
with indexes and/or if you are in SQL Server 2005 let the 'problematic'
query run throu Tuning wizard to advise you.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
SQL Server has no problem to keep TERA byte databases , the point is how
well the db is designed?
"Dave A" <dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote in message
news:e5kphEFJIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> This is a hyperthetical question.
> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt
> the problem between multiple servers.
> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is
> well designed and the application that is communicating with it is well
> designed, what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a
> concept of a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
> system or a credit card processing authority?
> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
> goes so far.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
> Regards
> Dave A
>|||Remember, this is a hyperthetical question. There is no need to run Profile
since there is no database to profile.
I have no doubt that SQL Server can handle multiterabyte datbases, my
problem is when there are a million conurrenct users updating and reading
that data, what options does an SQL Server designer have at thier disposal?
(Don't worry, I am an SQL Server zealot. I am just wondering what happens
when we push the limits and how far can it go.)
So, my question remains. Is there a concept of a farm of sql servers? - just
like there is a cluster of sql servers or a farm of web servers.
Regards
Dave A
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ec0KCYFJIHA.5468@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Dave
> I'd turn on SQL Server Profiler to identify long running queries , stored
> procedures and try to imrove them. How to improve, that is probably
> playing with indexes and/or if you are in SQL Server 2005 let the
> 'problematic' query run throu Tuning wizard to advise you.
>> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
>> guess they are not on SQL Server?
>
> SQL Server has no problem to keep TERA byte databases , the point is how
> well the db is designed?
>
>
> "Dave A" <dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote in message
> news:e5kphEFJIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> This is a hyperthetical question.
>> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt
>> the problem between multiple servers.
>> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is
>> well designed and the application that is communicating with it is well
>> designed, what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have
>> a concept of a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
>> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
>> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks
>> computer system or a credit card processing authority?
>> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this
>> only goes so far.
>> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
>> guess they are not on SQL Server?
>> Regards
>> Dave A
>|||When it comes to CPU and RAM, you can only scale up, not scale out. So
"throwing another server at it" will not help.
With the long standing trend of ever faster CPU's and the growing number
of cores per computer this can go a long way.
But even if SQL Server supported scaling out, this would only go "so
far" too. If you have one server and add an identical server, the
performance gain will never be 100%, it will be less. There is a limit
as to how much you can scale out, just as there is a limit to how much
you can scale up.
You should have a look at the TPC numbers show (see www.tpc.org). An
interesting chart is the Top 10 TPC-C by Performance. You will notice
that there is only one clustered configuration in this top 10, which
uses Oracle 10g. All others are nonclustered configuration are
nonclustered, including 4 other Oracle 10g configurations.
I therefore conclude that currently, there is no practical need for a
clustered SQL Server solution.
--
Gert-Jan
Dave A wrote:
> This is a hyperthetical question.
> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
> problem between multiple servers.
> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
> designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed,
> what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
> a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
> system or a credit card processing authority?
> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
> goes so far.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
> Regards
> Dave A|||On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:54:20 +1000, "Dave A"
<dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote:
>This is a hyperthetical question.
>If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
>problem between multiple servers.
>However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
>designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed,
>what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
>a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
No. Not automagically. You are of course free to put all the A's on
one server, etc, and replicate data between them. This is often
enough done, but it is a lot of work. SQL Server 2008 looks like it's
aimed at much bigger configs, but I'm not up on the details.
>I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
>goes so far.
It goes pretty far, on a maxed-out Wintel machine, these days, with
SAN storage, etc. But increasingly, you actually have to know what
you're doing, config the hardware right, and be very careful of the
execution plans going sour on you. But do all that, and we're
probably running about 10^6 bigger and faster than SQL 6.5 on a 100mhz
server ten years ago! On a given hardware platform, for an average
transactional mix (whatever that might mean), or for a preplanned OLAP
environment, SQLServer is at least competitive with anyone.
>What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
>guess they are not on SQL Server?
Oracle is still your game if you want to throw hardware at the
problem. Teradata is another way to go on humongous databases and
ad-hoc queries. I suppose DB2 fits in there somewhere, but I don't
know quite where.
J.

General configuration question - maximum performance.

This is a hyperthetical question.
If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
problem between multiple servers.
However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed,
what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
system or a credit card processing authority?
I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
goes so far.
What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
guess they are not on SQL Server?
Regards
Dave ADave
I'd turn on SQL Server Profiler to identify long running queries , stored
procedures and try to imrove them. How to improve, that is probably playing
with indexes and/or if you are in SQL Server 2005 let the 'problematic'
query run throu Tuning wizard to advise you.

> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
SQL Server has no problem to keep TERA byte databases , the point is how
well the db is designed?
"Dave A" <dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote in message
news:e5kphEFJIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> This is a hyperthetical question.
> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt
> the problem between multiple servers.
> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is
> well designed and the application that is communicating with it is well
> designed, what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a
> concept of a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
> system or a credit card processing authority?
> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
> goes so far.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
> Regards
> Dave A
>|||Remember, this is a hyperthetical question. There is no need to run Profile
since there is no database to profile.
I have no doubt that SQL Server can handle multiterabyte datbases, my
problem is when there are a million conurrenct users updating and reading
that data, what options does an SQL Server designer have at thier disposal?
(Don't worry, I am an SQL Server zealot. I am just wondering what happens
when we push the limits and how far can it go.)
So, my question remains. Is there a concept of a farm of sql servers? - just
like there is a cluster of sql servers or a farm of web servers.
Regards
Dave A
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ec0KCYFJIHA.5468@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Dave
> I'd turn on SQL Server Profiler to identify long running queries , stored
> procedures and try to imrove them. How to improve, that is probably
> playing with indexes and/or if you are in SQL Server 2005 let the
> 'problematic' query run throu Tuning wizard to advise you.
>
>
> SQL Server has no problem to keep TERA byte databases , the point is how
> well the db is designed?
>
>
> "Dave A" <dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote in message
> news:e5kphEFJIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||When it comes to CPU and RAM, you can only scale up, not scale out. So
"throwing another server at it" will not help.
With the long standing trend of ever faster CPU's and the growing number
of cores per computer this can go a long way.
But even if SQL Server supported scaling out, this would only go "so
far" too. If you have one server and add an identical server, the
performance gain will never be 100%, it will be less. There is a limit
as to how much you can scale out, just as there is a limit to how much
you can scale up.
You should have a look at the TPC numbers show (see www.tpc.org). An
interesting chart is the Top 10 TPC-C by Performance. You will notice
that there is only one clustered configuration in this top 10, which
uses Oracle 10g. All others are nonclustered configuration are
nonclustered, including 4 other Oracle 10g configurations.
I therefore conclude that currently, there is no practical need for a
clustered SQL Server solution.
Gert-Jan
Dave A wrote:
> This is a hyperthetical question.
> If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt th
e
> problem between multiple servers.
> However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is wel
l
> designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designe
d,
> what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept o
f
> a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
> I understand that I could peel off read-only data to another database but
> what would happen if it was all read-write? eg maybe like a banks computer
> system or a credit card processing authority?
> I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
> goes so far.
> What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
> guess they are not on SQL Server?
> Regards
> Dave A|||On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:54:20 +1000, "Dave A"
<dave@.sigmasolutionsdonotspamme.com.au> wrote:

>This is a hyperthetical question.
>If a web site is running slowly then we can create a web farm and spilt the
>problem between multiple servers.
>However if my database is running slowly, and given that its schema is well
>designed and the application that is communicating with it is well designed
,
>what options do I have to speed it up? Does SQL Server have a concept of
>a database farm? Can I throw another server at it?
No. Not automagically. You are of course free to put all the A's on
one server, etc, and replicate data between them. This is often
enough done, but it is a lot of work. SQL Server 2008 looks like it's
aimed at much bigger configs, but I'm not up on the details.

>I could throw more CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc at it but ultimately this only
>goes so far.
It goes pretty far, on a maxed-out Wintel machine, these days, with
SAN storage, etc. But increasingly, you actually have to know what
you're doing, config the hardware right, and be very careful of the
execution plans going sour on you. But do all that, and we're
probably running about 10^6 bigger and faster than SQL 6.5 on a 100mhz
server ten years ago! On a given hardware platform, for an average
transactional mix (whatever that might mean), or for a preplanned OLAP
environment, SQLServer is at least competitive with anyone.

>What databases do the BIG database users use? eg AMEX? Walmart? etc. I
>guess they are not on SQL Server?
Oracle is still your game if you want to throw hardware at the
problem. Teradata is another way to go on humongous databases and
ad-hoc queries. I suppose DB2 fits in there somewhere, but I don't
know quite where.
J.

General Advice - Timesheet application

So I have been tasked with converting a pilot timesheet application (written in Access) into an all singing all dancing web app. I'm planning on using SQL Server to provide some scale but wondered if anyone had any advice about processing time calcs.

I can of course use the smalldatetime datatype to store all the start at, finish at and elapsed hours times but wonderd if there was any comparative advantage to using numerics instead and converting to/from HH:MM representation.

Maybe I need to finally figure out how to create and use custom data types?

There's lots of math to do on these things once the data is captured for reporting and such and smalldattime looks like a fairly big waste of space for something that really only deals in hours.

Anyone doen things like this before? Any advice on what not to do?

many thanks

Steve1) Use datetime
2) If necessary, denormalize your datetime field converting them in several int fields. This method sometimes is used in DW environment (with a dimension time)

Function to validate e-mail address

does anyone have a funciton or Stored PRoc to validate internet e-mail addresses?

I have a table of e-mail addresses, many of which are junk (the web programmer did not enforce validation on the survey form) and now i have to filter the junk out of the list.

Can any one help with this? Is there a UDF or SP floating out there I could use?These links may give you some ideas:

One that does it in the database

One that does it in C#

Full-Text Search and Output Parameters

Hi,

I'd like to incorporate search functionality (SQL Server 2005 Full-Text Search) into a web application, so I want to be able to return a paged list of results based on the user's search terms. I already have a parameterized stored procedure that returns a list of products when a category ID is supplied. I modified this procedure to use a different input parameter (@.SearchTerms), but I'd still like to return the number of records, as in the original stored procedure.

However, I'm getting this error: Invalid object name 'ProductEntries'.

Here's the original stored procedure:

ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.GetProductsByCategoryID
(
@.CategoryID INT,
@.PageIndex INT,
@.NumRows INT,
@.CategoryName VARCHAR(50) OUTPUT,
@.CategoryProductCount INT OUTPUT
)
AS

BEGIN
SELECT @.CategoryProductCount = (SELECT COUNT(ProductID)
FROM Products
WHERE Products.CategoryID = @.CategoryID)
SELECT @.CategoryName = (SELECT CategoryName
FROM Categories
WHERE Categories.CategoryID = @.CategoryID)

DECLARE @.startRowIndex INT;
SET @.startRowIndex = (@.PageIndex * @.NumRows) + 1;

WITH ProductEntries AS (
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY ProductID) AS Row, ProductID, CategoryID, Description, ProductImage, UnitCost
FROM Products
WHERE CategoryID = @.CategoryID
)

SELECT ProductID, CategoryID, Description, ProductImage, UnitCost
FROM ProductEntries
WHERE Row BETWEEN
@.startRowIndex AND @.startRowIndex + @.NumRows - 1

END

And here's the modified one:

ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.GetSearchResults
(
@.SearchTerms VARCHAR(200),
@.PageIndex INT,
@.NumRows INT,
@.ProductCount INT OUTPUT
)
AS

BEGIN
SELECT @.ProductCount = (SELECT COUNT(ProductID)
FROM ProductEntries)

DECLARE @.startRowIndex INT;
SET @.startRowIndex = (@.PageIndex * @.NumRows) + 1;

WITH ProductEntries AS (
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY ProductID) AS Row, ProductID, CategoryID, Description, ProductImage, UnitCost
FROM CONTAINSTABLE (Products, *, @.SearchTerms, 25) AS c, Products p
WHERE c.[KEY] = p.ProductID
)

SELECT ProductID, CategoryID, Description, ProductImage, UnitCost
FROM ProductEntries
WHERE Row BETWEEN
@.startRowIndex AND @.startRowIndex + @.NumRows - 1

END

I thought I might be getting this error because SELECT @.ProductCount occurs before the ProductEntries table is created, but when I move that SELECT statement further down, I still get the same error.

How can I get the value of @.ProductCount in this scenario so that I can display it in the UI of the web app?The first to do would be to directly query the ProductEntries table from both a Stored Procedure and then as an individual statement. In 99% of cases, this solves the problem.

A possible and common reason for your error may have to do with ownership properties of the table and their association, or lack thereof, to the account that you are using to create the stored procedure.

I haven't used SQL Server for a few months now, as I've just recently started working on an Oracle project, and I cannot recall exactly the relationship between CREATE and EXECUTE on stored procedures and which of the above explicitly allows access to the underlying objects that will be used by the stored procedure.

Regards,|||Hi Robert,

Thanks for your suggestions. Unfortunately, I could not get the procedure to work. After further research, I decided not to rely on SQL Server Full-Text Search for my site's search engine because it's really not practical in a shared hosting environment. So, I think I'll put this one to rest and check out the MSN Search SDK (http://search.msn.com/developer).

Anyway, thanks again for your reply -- it was much appreciated.