"Hicky" <hi***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:44865CCD-903A-4994-A9B8-2A1EF5D03618@microsoft.com...
> On one of our test servers I've just seen this counter spike to almost 1
> billion then drop down to zero.
>
> Has anyone seen this behaviour?
>
> Is it a consequence of something in the code or a bug in the counter?
>
> Thanks.
>

"William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:

> Ah what counter are you referring to? There are at least two that I know of
> that can monitor the number of pooled connections. What do you have the max
> connections set to? The older performance counters did have some issues (see
> Chapter 9).
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Hicky" <hi***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:44865CCD-903A-4994-A9B8-2A1EF5D03618@microsoft.com...
> > On one of our test servers I've just seen this counter spike to almost 1
> > billion then drop down to zero.
> >
> > Has anyone seen this behaviour?
> >
> > Is it a consequence of something in the code or a bug in the counter?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>
>

"Hicky" <hi***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:F3D2967D-6A7F-4B32-A51C-500D3018E94C@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the reply, I was referring to the counter in the title ;-)
> specifically the ADO.NET 2.0 ".Net Data Provider for SQLServer"
> NumberOfActiveConnectionPools "The total number of connection pools."
>
> We've taken the default on max connections.
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
>
>> Ah what counter are you referring to? There are at least two that I know
>> of
>> that can monitor the number of pooled connections. What do you have the
>> max
>> connections set to? The older performance counters did have some issues
>> (see
>> Chapter 9).
>>
>> --
>> ____________________________________
>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> Microsoft MVP
>> INETA Speaker
>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> www.betav.com
>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> __________________________________
>> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
>> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "Hicky" <hi***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:44865CCD-903A-4994-A9B8-2A1EF5D03618@microsoft.com...
>> > On one of our test servers I've just seen this counter spike to almost
>> > 1
>> > billion then drop down to zero.
>> >
>> > Has anyone seen this behaviour?
>> >
>> > Is it a consequence of something in the code or a bug in the counter?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>>
>>
>>

"William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:

> Ok, sorry I missed that. If the number of POOLS is growing like crazy, it
> means that the connection string, the transaction context or the application
> domain is changing. This is "by design". Is this a web site or a Windows
> Forms application (or what)?
>
> However, I might also suspect that the "billion" value would be a
> bug--possibly a negative number.
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Hicky" <hi***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:F3D2967D-6A7F-4B32-A51C-500D3018E94C@microsoft.com...
> > Thanks for the reply, I was referring to the counter in the title ;-)
> > specifically the ADO.NET 2.0 ".Net Data Provider for SQLServer"
> > NumberOfActiveConnectionPools "The total number of connection pools."
> >
> > We've taken the default on max connections.
> >
> > "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
> >
> >> Ah what counter are you referring to? There are at least two that I know
> >> of
> >> that can monitor the number of pooled connections. What do you have the
> >> max
> >> connections set to? The older performance counters did have some issues
> >> (see
> >> Chapter 9).
> >>
> >> --
> >> ____________________________________
> >> William (Bill) Vaughn
> >> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> >> Microsoft MVP
> >> INETA Speaker
> >> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> >> www.betav.com
> >> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> rights.
> >> __________________________________
> >> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> >> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> >> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> "Hicky" <hi***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> news:44865CCD-903A-4994-A9B8-2A1EF5D03618@microsoft.com...
> >> > On one of our test servers I've just seen this counter spike to almost
> >> > 1
> >> > billion then drop down to zero.
> >> >
> >> > Has anyone seen this behaviour?
> >> >
> >> > Is it a consequence of something in the code or a bug in the counter?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>