Hosting and Servers
|
|
 |
|
n.podbielski wrote: I suspect this is dependent from complexity of code, so let's assume that it is complex and not optimal.
It's also dependent on the hardware (server and network), some IIS-settings, the "size" of your average file, and the general state of your servers' OS.
n.podbielski wrote: But there have be some kind of queue of connections and when this queue will be adding more requests then server can handle it's gonna shut itself down eventually, right?
AFAIK, it doesn't shut down. If the client doesn't get a response within a set time, he'll get a time-out. Just like in a DDOS-attack, so to speak. The server processes what it can, within the limits of it's hardware.
n.podbielski wrote: I heard about 10k problem
I didn't, so I'm gonna shut up and hope that some other reader can contribute some insight into the topic.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
Please read this for IIS Connection :
By default IIS7 has a limit of handling 12 concurrent requests per CPU and will queue requests above this limit. If you have some significant web load and many AJAX style requests to your server – this setting maybe very restrictive and it is hard to find out the root of the problem when you server performance is suddenly degraded.
See this post to get the picture how it can cause performance issues on your server.
Some relevant info about asp.net thread usage on IIS7 here:
asp.net thread usage on IIS7 and IIS6
Thomas Marquardt advice is to change this default limit. Recommended settings:
“All of this may be a little confusing, but for nearly everyone, my recommendation is that for ASP.NET 2.0 you should use the same settings as the defaults in ASP.NET v4.0; that is, set maxConcurrentRequestsPerCPU = “5000″ and maxConcurrentThreadsPerCPU=”0″.
This is done by adding DWORD MaxConcurrentRequestsPerCPU to the registry under
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\ASP.NET\2.0.50727.0
called MaxConcurrentRequestsPerCPU (DWORD). This key doesn’t exist by default. Or/and in aspnet.config section which overrides registry setting (also doesn’t exist by default) aspnet.config is here on windows 64bit:
%windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v2.0.50727\aspnet.config
You need to add the following section under “configuration” section (here I used default values) – don’t forget change maxConcurrentRequestsPerCPU to 5000.
< system.web>
< applicationPool
maxConcurrentRequestsPerCPU="12"
maxConcurrentThreadsPerCPU="0"
requestQueueLimit="5000" />
< /system.web>
|
|
|
|
|
Thx for the answer.
Just have one question: your post seems like should have some links, urls inside but it does not. Did CP editor cut this off?
No more Mister Nice Guy... >: |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am planning to purchase Windows Server 2012. I want to ask is it possible to have the same server contains two servers (one actual and virtual) or this feature is only available in Enterprise and dataCenter edition? and if it's possible, is it advisable? and what about the performance for both servers if I am going to have Windows Server 2012 running a Dell R720 with two processors?
Thanks,
Jassim[^]
Technology News @ www.JassimRahma.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jassim Rahma wrote: I want to ask is it possible to have the same server contains two servers (one actual and virtual) or this feature is only available in Enterprise and dataCenter edition?
You can have to virtual machines with one Standard-Licence. There is no Enterprise-Licence for Windows 2012 only:
Standard, Datacenter, Essential and Foundation
------------------------------
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
|
|
|
|
|
two VM + plus the physical server? means I will have 3 running servers?
Technology News @ www.JassimRahma.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am planning a Windows Server 2012 for my company. It's an average of 100 users. Server will have MySQL, SQL Server and some file sharing.
Do you recommend to go for standard edition or enterprise edition?
Technology News @ www.JassimRahma.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jassim Rahma wrote: I am planning a Windows Server 2012 for my company. ...
Do you recommend to go for standard edition or enterprise edition?
If I'm not wrong there is no enterprise edition. There are licence-fees per every 2 processor-sockets.
The datacenter might be cheaper for you if you want to run mutiple virtual machines.
------------------------------
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
|
|
|
|
|
Enterprise
Enterprise for Mission Critical & Applications Data Warehousing
Advanced high availability with AlwaysOn
High performance data warehousing with ColumnStore
Maximum virtualization (with Software Assurance)
Inclusive of Business Intelligence edition's capabilities
Business Intelligence
Business Intelligence for Premium Self-Service and Corporate
Business Intelligence
Rapid data discovery with Power View
Corporate and scalable reporting and analytics
Data Quality Services and Master Data Services
Inclusive of the Standard edition's capabilities
Standard
Standard continues to offer basic database, reporting and analytics capabilities
So, i think you should choose Standard.......
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have just got my Windows Server 2012 Enterprise and I want to have an endpoint anti virus for it so I can manage all clients from the server.
I am not interested to go for Microsoft Security Solution.
I checked the market and following solutions available:
1. EST
2. Mcafee
3. Symantec
4. Kaspersky
if you had to choose from above, which one you'll decide?
Thanks,
Jassim[^]
Technology News @ www.JassimRahma.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've used McAfee on Windows Server 2008 R2 ... for five plus years. That's two (complete?) turns of McAfee "development" cycle and although each time they've changed something in their final production interface that managed to knock something out of whack on this system, I've now grown so familiar with readjustment that using it is really easy.
For instance, filtering IPs (comes wth a firewall replacement for the windows native).
There's not a lot of bell and whistle to it ("SAas" with firewall) like say, latest Norton Antivirus (on Vista 32-bit). But at the time, McAfee was the only vendor coming through for 64-bit personal use. So, it's served me well. To date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
