i just made the switch from OLEDB to SqlClient in my .Net apps.

now with SqlClient often my db calls throw the following exception:

System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: A transport-level error has occurred
when sending the request to the server. (provider: TCP Provider, error: 0 -
An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host.) at
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.OnError(SqlExc eption exception, Boolean
breakConnection) at...

this happens when the load (or call rate) increases. I don't think its
anything I am doing unless I am missing a connect option.

my production environment is:
client side
Windows Server 2003 sp2
..net 2.0

server side
Windows Server 2003 sp2
Sql Server 2005 sp2

Also, on my development machine running Vista, it does not appear that this
happens.

Some associated links:
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/...4053&SiteID=17

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=239593


This is what someone else who had this issue did:
Configuration -> Protocols and disabled Shared Memory and made the TCP/IP
protocol #1 in order. Then just restarted the Sql Service and it all
started
working!
<<

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"pb" <pb (AT) newsgroups (DOT) nospam> wrote

Hi,

May be this can help also

http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/...eShooting.aspx

Thanks
Omar

"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

I saw that post regarding flipping off Shared Memory. I tried it and it
seems to work.

I wonder:
-does Microsoft know about this?
and
-Why aren't more people seeing it?

The box that runs my SQL Server instance also runs a series of processes
that access the db, these processes might automatically use the shared memory
model vs. TCP (although I am not changing the connectstr, I still specify
TCP). Perhaps my situation is more stressful than others causing this bug to
appear.


"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

Yes generally the applications on the same box will use shared memory when
they can and if you have a lot of activity here it may be the issue.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP

"pb" <pb (AT) newsgroups (DOT) nospam> wrote