William Vaughn
5/7/2008 9:56:00 PM
Is the 2.1 framework patch installed on all systems?
--
__________________________________________________________________________
William R. Vaughn
President and Founder Beta V Corporation
Author, Mentor, Dad, Grandpa
Microsoft MVP
(425) 556-9205 (Pacific time)
Hitchhiker???s Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Joseph" <Joseph@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A52BD34D-DD3C-4CA7-AECC-E5698BF97995@microsoft.com...
> Sorry - I had the password part stripped out - it really is in there.
> Yes,
> definitely using the 2.0 framework all around.
>
> Where my confusion lies is in what the fundamental difference is between
> async & non-async that would cause one method to always work and another
> to
> always fail? And why only on certain machines (regardless of the user
> logged
> in)? And why a timeout/not responding error?
>
> Thanks,
> Joseph
>
> "William Vaughn [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> So it's a Connection timeout. Ah, are you using the 2.0 Framework (async
>> is
>> not supported on 1.0 or 1.1)? Whenever you change the ConnectionString
>> you
>> get a new pool but I've done this without incident--but again, only on
>> 2.0
>> and later. Ah why are you worried about persist security info? There is
>> no
>> password in your CS.
>>
>> --
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> William R. Vaughn
>> President and Founder Beta V Corporation
>> Author, Mentor, Dad, Grandpa
>> Microsoft MVP
>> (425) 556-9205 (Pacific time)
>> Hitchhiker???s Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________________
>> "Joseph" <Joseph@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:E94FC234-C1FF-4ACB-A152-21C79CF89C96@microsoft.com...
>> > It's a WinForms application. At one point in the application we do a
>> > connection without async=true and do a few things. For all subsequent
>> > connections, we use an asynchronous connection.
>> >
>> > Here's what we're doing:
>> >
>> > create a system.data.sqlclient.sqlconnection
>> > set connectionstring equal to something like Persist Security
>> > Info=False;Integrated
>> > Security=SSPI;server=serverxxxx;database=dbxxxx;Asynchronous
>> > Processing=true;
>> > try .open
>> > and we're catching an SqlException.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Joseph
>> >
>> >
>> > "William Vaughn [MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> When you change the ConnectionString, you're getting a separate
>> >> connection
>> >> pool for that connection and any like it. Are you on ASP.NET, Windows
>> >> Forms
>> >> or something else? The Timeout error on a connection is different than
>> >> that
>> >> of a command. This looks like a command... Turn on the profiler to see
>> >> how
>> >> this command is different.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> __________________________________________________________________________
>> >> William R. Vaughn
>> >> President and Founder Beta V Corporation
>> >> Author, Mentor, Dad, Grandpa
>> >> Microsoft MVP
>> >> (425) 556-9205 (Pacific time)
>> >> Hitchhiker???s Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________________
>> >> "Joseph" <Joseph@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:05BF83F4-6497-4449-B264-02B87E4F70AC@microsoft.com...
>> >> > Have an app deployed on a network. On some machines, a regular
>> >> > connection
>> >> > to
>> >> > the sql server establishes and works great, but the same exact
>> >> > connection
>> >> > string along with "Asynchronous Processing=true" gives a 'Timeout
>> >> > expired.
>> >> > The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or
>> >> > the
>> >> > server
>> >> > is not responding.' error. I know the timeout setting isn't the
>> >> > actual
>> >> > issue, and the client machine can demonstrate connectivity to the
>> >> > sql
>> >> > server
>> >> > manually (and like I mentioned, has no problem connecting without
>> >> > the
>> >> > async).
>> >> > Is anyone familiar with anything like this?
>> >>
>>