number of total connections in SQL Express 2005

number of connectios tcp/ip..........I have a 3 person but the 4 does not connect?If you are working on XP Home you will have a 5 connection limitation (This is implemented on WIndows not on SQL Server). So behind the scenes , there are 5 users connected to some ressources (not necessary SQL Server). If you want to remove the restrictions I would suggest moving to at minimum Windows XP Prof.

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.desql

Number of SQL Client is . . .

SQLServer 10Client; the number 10 is:
- a physical limit of connections (ADODB.Connection)?
- a licences limit ?
- a PCs limit?
- a number of processes limit?
- a number of served query and the next queries are queued?
Some ideas?
Tnx in advance.
Sorry for my bad english...
Alfredo.A licenses limit.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Alfredo Volpari" <alfredo@.siam.it> wrote in message
news:bq4jds$r8n$1@.fata.cs.interbusiness.it...
> SQLServer 10Client; the number 10 is:
> - a physical limit of connections (ADODB.Connection)?
> - a licences limit ?
> - a PCs limit?
> - a number of processes limit?
> - a number of served query and the next queries are queued?
> Some ideas?
> Tnx in advance.
> Sorry for my bad english...
> Alfredo.
>

Number of current connections?

How do you find out the current number of connections to a SQL Server 2005 instance in SQL Server Managment Studio? I need to see if my number of connections is exceeding my Maximum Worker Threads.

Thanks,

Joe

You can use execute "EXEC sp_who" or "EXEC sp_who2" and look for the information about which application is using the connection. This is also built into the management studio under Management -> Activity Monitor.

Also there is a system monitor (sysmon.exe) you can use on your system to monitor the number of concurrent connections, the number of connection pools, etc.

--Nathan Zaugg

|||

This will work:

-- Get SQL users that are connected and how many sessions they have

SELECT login_name,count(session_id)as session_count

FROMsys.dm_exec_sessions

GROUPBY login_name

Number of connections to a database

Is there any way to know the number of current connections to an SQL Server Database? Also how can one change the max pool size (for the number of connections allowed to the database)?
Thanks.FROM Books ONLINE
----------
@.@.CONNECTIONS
Returns the number of connections, or attempted connections, since Microsoft SQL Server was last started.

Syntax
@.@.CONNECTIONS

Return Types
integer

Remarks
Connections are different from users. Applications, for example, can open multiple connections to SQL Server without the user observing the connections.

To display a report containing several SQL Server statistics, including connection attempts, run sp_monitor.

Examples
This example shows the number of login attempts as of the current date and time.

SELECT GETDATE() AS 'Today's Date and Time',
@.@.CONNECTIONS AS 'Login Attempts'

Here is the result set:

Today's Date and Time Login Attempts
-------- -----
1998-04-09 14:28:46.940 18

See Also

Configuration Functions

sp_monitor

1988-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

----------
Originally posted by Big Bubba
Is there any way to know the number of current connections to an SQL Server Database? Also how can one change the max pool size (for the number of connections allowed to the database)?

Thanks.

Number of connections in XP Pro

We are planning multiple remote sites, each running 5 XP Pro or XP Embedded
which will logon to a Windows Server 2003 machine at Head Office via a WAN.
Each XP machine in the site will be replicating its single db to the 4
others via Merge Replication. We will also be using MSMQ 3 for
communication between 2 computers in any site.
I am unsure of how replication (and MSMQ) affects the 10 connections limit
of XP Pro. In replication, would there only be 1 incoming connection on
each machine? (i.e. The Publisher)
I bump into this limit all the time when running pro. The short answer is
you need to bypass this by using SQL Authentication and use a pull
subscription with FTP.
You may have to disable MSMQ, reboot, then ensure that the first thing you
do when you come up is download the snapshot. Then start up MSMQ.
After the snapshot is deployed you shouldn't have to use NT authentication
any more. You should be good from there.
"Chris" <chris.spamhater@.ihatespam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OSXzqUPXEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We are planning multiple remote sites, each running 5 XP Pro or XP
Embedded
> which will logon to a Windows Server 2003 machine at Head Office via a
WAN.
> Each XP machine in the site will be replicating its single db to the 4
> others via Merge Replication. We will also be using MSMQ 3 for
> communication between 2 computers in any site.
> I am unsure of how replication (and MSMQ) affects the 10 connections limit
> of XP Pro. In replication, would there only be 1 incoming connection on
> each machine? (i.e. The Publisher)
>
>

Number of connections guideline

Is there any resource that gives a guideline for the number of connections
that a server should have open?
Does it even matter as long as you're getting the performance you need?Each connection takes around 37KB, SQL is limited to a maximum of 32767
connections, as long as you have loads of memory you should be ok.
HTH
Ryan Waight, MCDBA, MCSE
"Dan W." <Dan2@.phatguys.com> wrote in message
news:OHdCjPFfDHA.1828@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is there any resource that gives a guideline for the number of connections
> that a server should have open?
> Does it even matter as long as you're getting the performance you need?
>

number of connections and performance

we have a SQL Adv Server 2000 box with 100 to 200 concurrent connections at
pick times.
We have some performance issue on that box (P4 2.6GHz, 2GB RAM).
The CPU usage averages around 6% with picks at 20-30% (no problem there)
Our RAM usage (Bytes Commited) keeps on increasing until it reaches the 2GB
limit (SQL server uses 1.7Gb)
I've been told that 100 to 200 connection was a lot but not enough to bug
the server down.
We have the opportunity to work on the main app connecting to that box to
bring the number of connections down (and we will do it no matter what) but
before we invest time in it we want to know if this could be the main thing
creating the performance issue.
What do you think?
Does the number of connection seem to be my problem here?
ThanksThere is obviously no issue with the cpu's and the ram usage is normal in
that it will continue to increase as long as there is newly read data and
there is ram left. 200 users should not be an issue in itself but if the
app is written poorly and you have lots of blocking it will only get worse
with more users. What are your disk queues and cache hit ratio like? Have
you checked for blocking?
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZiXUnWrDHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> we have a SQL Adv Server 2000 box with 100 to 200 concurrent connections
at
> pick times.
> We have some performance issue on that box (P4 2.6GHz, 2GB RAM).
> The CPU usage averages around 6% with picks at 20-30% (no problem there)
> Our RAM usage (Bytes Commited) keeps on increasing until it reaches the
2GB
> limit (SQL server uses 1.7Gb)
> I've been told that 100 to 200 connection was a lot but not enough to bug
> the server down.
> We have the opportunity to work on the main app connecting to that box to
> bring the number of connections down (and we will do it no matter what)
but
> before we invest time in it we want to know if this could be the main
thing
> creating the performance issue.
> What do you think?
> Does the number of connection seem to be my problem here?
> Thanks
>|||in many places we were retrieving data from the DB using datareaders but we
are changing that to return datasets instead... that should reduce the
number of locks (I think)
What do you mean by blocking? Did you mean DB locks?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23iFKh1XrDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> There is obviously no issue with the cpu's and the ram usage is normal in
> that it will continue to increase as long as there is newly read data and
> there is ram left. 200 users should not be an issue in itself but if the
> app is written poorly and you have lots of blocking it will only get worse
> with more users. What are your disk queues and cache hit ratio like?
Have
> you checked for blocking?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ZiXUnWrDHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > we have a SQL Adv Server 2000 box with 100 to 200 concurrent connections
> at
> > pick times.
> > We have some performance issue on that box (P4 2.6GHz, 2GB RAM).
> > The CPU usage averages around 6% with picks at 20-30% (no problem there)
> > Our RAM usage (Bytes Commited) keeps on increasing until it reaches the
> 2GB
> > limit (SQL server uses 1.7Gb)
> >
> > I've been told that 100 to 200 connection was a lot but not enough to
bug
> > the server down.
> > We have the opportunity to work on the main app connecting to that box
to
> > bring the number of connections down (and we will do it no matter what)
> but
> > before we invest time in it we want to know if this could be the main
> thing
> > creating the performance issue.
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Does the number of connection seem to be my problem here?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>|||Blocking is fundamentally caused by incompatible locks. For instance, if one
user is in the middle of updating a row, another user trying to update the
same row would have to wait. The second user is said to be blocked by the
first user. Blocking is normal in a relational database, and is the price
you pay to get the appearance of concurrency. But sustained blocking can
degrade the user response time, is often (not always) a sign of poor design,
and should be avoided.
--
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com
"Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OwsHL9XrDHA.1444@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> in many places we were retrieving data from the DB using datareaders but
we
> are changing that to return datasets instead... that should reduce the
> number of locks (I think)
> What do you mean by blocking? Did you mean DB locks?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23iFKh1XrDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > There is obviously no issue with the cpu's and the ram usage is normal
in
> > that it will continue to increase as long as there is newly read data
and
> > there is ram left. 200 users should not be an issue in itself but if
the
> > app is written poorly and you have lots of blocking it will only get
worse
> > with more users. What are your disk queues and cache hit ratio like?
> Have
> > you checked for blocking?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23ZiXUnWrDHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > we have a SQL Adv Server 2000 box with 100 to 200 concurrent
connections
> > at
> > > pick times.
> > > We have some performance issue on that box (P4 2.6GHz, 2GB RAM).
> > > The CPU usage averages around 6% with picks at 20-30% (no problem
there)
> > > Our RAM usage (Bytes Commited) keeps on increasing until it reaches
the
> > 2GB
> > > limit (SQL server uses 1.7Gb)
> > >
> > > I've been told that 100 to 200 connection was a lot but not enough to
> bug
> > > the server down.
> > > We have the opportunity to work on the main app connecting to that box
> to
> > > bring the number of connections down (and we will do it no matter
what)
> > but
> > > before we invest time in it we want to know if this could be the main
> > thing
> > > creating the performance issue.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > > Does the number of connection seem to be my problem here?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||A datareader is pretty efficient and I doubt you will get less locks by
moving from them if you are using them correctly. Is this a read only
database? It is usually not the reads that block others but more the
updates. How are you updating the data?
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OwsHL9XrDHA.1444@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> in many places we were retrieving data from the DB using datareaders but
we
> are changing that to return datasets instead... that should reduce the
> number of locks (I think)
> What do you mean by blocking? Did you mean DB locks?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23iFKh1XrDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > There is obviously no issue with the cpu's and the ram usage is normal
in
> > that it will continue to increase as long as there is newly read data
and
> > there is ram left. 200 users should not be an issue in itself but if
the
> > app is written poorly and you have lots of blocking it will only get
worse
> > with more users. What are your disk queues and cache hit ratio like?
> Have
> > you checked for blocking?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23ZiXUnWrDHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > we have a SQL Adv Server 2000 box with 100 to 200 concurrent
connections
> > at
> > > pick times.
> > > We have some performance issue on that box (P4 2.6GHz, 2GB RAM).
> > > The CPU usage averages around 6% with picks at 20-30% (no problem
there)
> > > Our RAM usage (Bytes Commited) keeps on increasing until it reaches
the
> > 2GB
> > > limit (SQL server uses 1.7Gb)
> > >
> > > I've been told that 100 to 200 connection was a lot but not enough to
> bug
> > > the server down.
> > > We have the opportunity to work on the main app connecting to that box
> to
> > > bring the number of connections down (and we will do it no matter
what)
> > but
> > > before we invest time in it we want to know if this could be the main
> > thing
> > > creating the performance issue.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > > Does the number of connection seem to be my problem here?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||this is not a read only DB. We are updating the data using stored procedures
accessed from the application.
How can I find out if there is a lot of blocking using the Performance
monitor?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:enqScqerDHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> A datareader is pretty efficient and I doubt you will get less locks by
> moving from them if you are using them correctly. Is this a read only
> database? It is usually not the reads that block others but more the
> updates. How are you updating the data?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OwsHL9XrDHA.1444@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > in many places we were retrieving data from the DB using datareaders but
> we
> > are changing that to return datasets instead... that should reduce the
> > number of locks (I think)
> >
> > What do you mean by blocking? Did you mean DB locks?
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23iFKh1XrDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > There is obviously no issue with the cpu's and the ram usage is normal
> in
> > > that it will continue to increase as long as there is newly read data
> and
> > > there is ram left. 200 users should not be an issue in itself but if
> the
> > > app is written poorly and you have lots of blocking it will only get
> worse
> > > with more users. What are your disk queues and cache hit ratio like?
> > Have
> > > you checked for blocking?
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Andrew J. Kelly
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%23ZiXUnWrDHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > we have a SQL Adv Server 2000 box with 100 to 200 concurrent
> connections
> > > at
> > > > pick times.
> > > > We have some performance issue on that box (P4 2.6GHz, 2GB RAM).
> > > > The CPU usage averages around 6% with picks at 20-30% (no problem
> there)
> > > > Our RAM usage (Bytes Commited) keeps on increasing until it reaches
> the
> > > 2GB
> > > > limit (SQL server uses 1.7Gb)
> > > >
> > > > I've been told that 100 to 200 connection was a lot but not enough
to
> > bug
> > > > the server down.
> > > > We have the opportunity to work on the main app connecting to that
box
> > to
> > > > bring the number of connections down (and we will do it no matter
> what)
> > > but
> > > > before we invest time in it we want to know if this could be the
main
> > > thing
> > > > creating the performance issue.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > Does the number of connection seem to be my problem here?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||You can look at the lock counters to see how many locks you have but your
better off using something like
http://www.algonet.se/~sommar/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
to see who is blocking who.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OYWVthhrDHA.2676@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> this is not a read only DB. We are updating the data using stored
procedures
> accessed from the application.
> How can I find out if there is a lot of blocking using the Performance
> monitor?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:enqScqerDHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > A datareader is pretty efficient and I doubt you will get less locks by
> > moving from them if you are using them correctly. Is this a read only
> > database? It is usually not the reads that block others but more the
> > updates. How are you updating the data?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:OwsHL9XrDHA.1444@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > in many places we were retrieving data from the DB using datareaders
but
> > we
> > > are changing that to return datasets instead... that should reduce the
> > > number of locks (I think)
> > >
> > > What do you mean by blocking? Did you mean DB locks?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%23iFKh1XrDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > There is obviously no issue with the cpu's and the ram usage is
normal
> > in
> > > > that it will continue to increase as long as there is newly read
data
> > and
> > > > there is ram left. 200 users should not be an issue in itself but
if
> > the
> > > > app is written poorly and you have lots of blocking it will only get
> > worse
> > > > with more users. What are your disk queues and cache hit ratio
like?
> > > Have
> > > > you checked for blocking?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Andrew J. Kelly
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Benoit Martin" <bmartin_hpu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:%23ZiXUnWrDHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > we have a SQL Adv Server 2000 box with 100 to 200 concurrent
> > connections
> > > > at
> > > > > pick times.
> > > > > We have some performance issue on that box (P4 2.6GHz, 2GB RAM).
> > > > > The CPU usage averages around 6% with picks at 20-30% (no problem
> > there)
> > > > > Our RAM usage (Bytes Commited) keeps on increasing until it
reaches
> > the
> > > > 2GB
> > > > > limit (SQL server uses 1.7Gb)
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been told that 100 to 200 connection was a lot but not enough
> to
> > > bug
> > > > > the server down.
> > > > > We have the opportunity to work on the main app connecting to that
> box
> > > to
> > > > > bring the number of connections down (and we will do it no matter
> > what)
> > > > but
> > > > > before we invest time in it we want to know if this could be the
> main
> > > > thing
> > > > > creating the performance issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > Does the number of connection seem to be my problem here?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

number of connections

Hi All,
where can I find the information about number of connections to the particular database?
thankssp_who
sp_who2
sp_whodunnit :rolleyes:|||Thank you.|||tom,

what is sp_whodunnit? I just googled it and all I got was some wierd page in German.|||Sean

sp_whodunnit is a seldom used stored procedure primary utilized by covert security personnel to discover the perpetrator of nefarious acts upon the public databases.

In other words, it's a small attempt at humor ... twisted humor, but humor nevertheless.

:D

edit: Captain, we've got one here. He took it hook, line, and sinkersql

number of connections

How can I know the number of open connections to a database from a client application (via ADO)?To find out how many users are connected:

select count(*)
from master..sysprocesses
where uid <> 1

The 'uid <> 1' excludes system connections.|||select count(*)
from master..sysprocesses
where dbid = db_id('dbname')
and hostname = 'appname'

You will have to check the hostname in sysprocesses to find how the application connects.
You can also log all connects and disconnects to a table or text file using the profiler.

Number of connections

Hi Gurus,
Is there any way which I can know the number of connections to SQL Server
2000?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Lurc
Use the sp_who and sp_who2 system procedures.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"lurc" <lurchot@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230wXk2ixEHA.3668@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Gurus,
> Is there any way which I can know the number of connections to SQL Server
> 2000?
> Thanks.
> --
> Best regards,
> Lurc
>
|||Thanks.
A further question: is it possible to detect the ip address that attached to
a given SQL Server 2000?
Best regards,
Lurc
"lurc" <lurchot@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230wXk2ixEHA.3668@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Gurus,
> Is there any way which I can know the number of connections to SQL Server
> 2000?
> Thanks.
> --
> Best regards,
> Lurc
>
|||Hi lurc,
"lurc" <lurchot@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OP9JkGjxEHA.2016@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Thanks.
> A further question: is it possible to detect the ip address that attached
> to
> a given SQL Server 2000?
If your clients are connected from a web application: get the ip address
from the Server Variables in asp / asp.net
Otherwise you can ping the hostname of client via xp_cmdshell and parse the
output.
Personally I retrieve info from client with:
select USER_NAME() + ', SysUser:' + SYSTEM_USER
+ ', App:' + APP_NAME() + ', Machine:' + HOST_NAME()
+ ' @. ' + cast(getdate() as varchar(20))
as myInfo
HTH,
Andrea

Number of connections

Hi Gurus,
Is there any way which I can know the number of connections to SQL Server
2000?
Thanks.
Best regards,
LurcUse the sp_who and sp_who2 system procedures.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"lurc" <lurchot@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230wXk2ixEHA.3668@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Gurus,
> Is there any way which I can know the number of connections to SQL Server
> 2000?
> Thanks.
> --
> Best regards,
> Lurc
>|||Thanks.
A further question: is it possible to detect the ip address that attached to
a given SQL Server 2000?
Best regards,
Lurc
"lurc" <lurchot@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230wXk2ixEHA.3668@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Gurus,
> Is there any way which I can know the number of connections to SQL Server
> 2000?
> Thanks.
> --
> Best regards,
> Lurc
>|||Hi lurc,
"lurc" <lurchot@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OP9JkGjxEHA.2016@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Thanks.
> A further question: is it possible to detect the ip address that attached
> to
> a given SQL Server 2000?
If your clients are connected from a web application: get the ip address
from the Server Variables in asp / asp.net
Otherwise you can ping the hostname of client via xp_cmdshell and parse the
output.
Personally I retrieve info from client with:
select USER_NAME() + ', SysUser:' + SYSTEM_USER
+ ', App:' + APP_NAME() + ', Machine:' + HOST_NAME()
+ ' @. ' + cast(getdate() as varchar(20))
as myInfo
HTH,
Andrea

number of connections

Hi,
I would like to know if I can over the limit of user connection using the
sqlserver 2005, that is 32,767 user connections(I know that I need some
hardware resource as memory, etc).
Thanks,
Serge
"Serge" <Serge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:160EB448-A632-423D-BF14-7A372277BBF3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know if I can over the limit of user connection using the
> sqlserver 2005, that is 32,767 user connections(I know that I need some
> hardware resource as memory, etc).
>
I don't know of anyway.
But I'd be surprsied if you ever really needed to. That would be a MASSIVE
system that required that many simultaneous connections.
I'm curious what you're end-goal is.

> Thanks,
> Serge
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

number of connections

Hi,
I would like to know if I can over the limit of user connection using the
sqlserver 2005, that is 32,767 user connections(I know that I need some
hardware resource as memory, etc).
Thanks,
Serge"Serge" <Serge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:160EB448-A632-423D-BF14-7A372277BBF3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know if I can over the limit of user connection using the
> sqlserver 2005, that is 32,767 user connections(I know that I need some
> hardware resource as memory, etc).
>
I don't know of anyway.
But I'd be surprsied if you ever really needed to. That would be a MASSIVE
system that required that many simultaneous connections.
I'm curious what you're end-goal is.

> Thanks,
> Serge
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.htmlsql

number of connections

Hi,
I would like to know if I can over the limit of user connection using the
sqlserver 2005, that is 32,767 user connections(I know that I need some
hardware resource as memory, etc).
Thanks,
Serge"Serge" <Serge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:160EB448-A632-423D-BF14-7A372277BBF3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know if I can over the limit of user connection using the
> sqlserver 2005, that is 32,767 user connections(I know that I need some
> hardware resource as memory, etc).
>
I don't know of anyway.
But I'd be surprsied if you ever really needed to. That would be a MASSIVE
system that required that many simultaneous connections.
I'm curious what you're end-goal is.
> Thanks,
> Serge
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Number of Concurrent Queries

Hi,
I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE has
been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL Server
2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
--
Aravind MelaturHi
Are you sure you connected to the CTP version and not MSDE?
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Aravind Melatur" <AravindMelatur@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6302E6AB-027D-4051-9F5C-8B402AFA69B2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I am developing an application that may required up to 68 concurrent
> connections to the database. I was using MSDE 2000 until now. Since MSDE
> has
> been optimized for 8 concurrent queries, I am planning to upgrade to SQL
> Server Workgroup edition. When I was testing my application using SQL
> Server
> 2005 CTP Workgroup Edition I got the same error (8 concurrent queries). Is
> this a limitation of SQL Server Workgroup edition or the CTP edition?
> --
> Aravind Melatur

Number of allowed connections for SQL Server 2005 Standard on XP P

I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can
concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running on.
If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005
Standard have?
Michael
I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS that
I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for
connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why would
you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be limited by
the amount of memory and the hardware.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@.microsoft.com...
>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can
> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running
> on.
> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005
> Standard have?
> --
> Michael
|||Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL Server
will generate to handle the operations.
Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application architecture.
____________________________________
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)
------
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS
>that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for
>connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why
>would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be
>limited by the amount of memory and the hardware.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@.microsoft.com...
>
|||I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some of
my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance.
The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a
spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box.
Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the
database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users,
but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I want.
What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server platform
in such a situation?
Respectfully,
Michael
"William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:

> Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL Server
> will generate to handle the operations.
> Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application architecture.
> --
> ____________________________________
> 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)
> ------
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||The other thing to keep in mind is that regardless of any SQL Server
limitations, Windows XP only has 10 TCP/IP connections so supporting 30
concurrent users might not be possible. XP is tuned to give preference to
UI foreground application and not IO and memory intensive applications like
SQL Server so performance often isn't what you expect.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some
>of
> my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance.
> The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a
> spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box.
> Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the
> database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users,
> but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I
> want.
> What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server
> platform
> in such a situation?
> Respectfully,
>
> --
> Michael
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
|||Roger brings up several very good points that you should take into
consideration. XP just isn't geared for the types of work that SQL Server
may demand. If you have 30 concurrent connections I would not call that
trivial and if you want to do it right I would look at a server OS.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I did think about this for a bit, so, my answer will probably expose some
>of
> my ignorance on the subject. My apologies in advance.
> The reason I want to use XP Pro is that I already own a copy running on a
> spare machine. The machine belongs to a domain managed on another box.
> Nothing else running on the XP box. Nothing about the operation of the
> database is really mission critical. I may have 10 - 30 concurrent users,
> but, that's about it. I can put as much memory and storage space as I
> want.
> What would I really get by running SQL Server 2005 on an MS server
> platform
> in such a situation?
> Respectfully,
>
> --
> Michael
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" wrote:
|||Roger brings up a good point. However, it's possible (and legal) to alter
the number of connections by using the metadata editor to bump the number of
connections to (a maximum of) 40.
____________________________________
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)
------
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" <rwolter@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C5831CD-59BC-4948-95BA-D2513BCDF3A8@.microsoft.com...
> The other thing to keep in mind is that regardless of any SQL Server
> limitations, Windows XP only has 10 TCP/IP connections so supporting 30
> concurrent users might not be possible. XP is tuned to give preference to
> UI foreground application and not IO and memory intensive applications
> like SQL Server so performance often isn't what you expect.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:212C8757-2AE9-4D70-B57C-986F384BB85C@.microsoft.com...
>

Number of allowed connections for SQL Server 2005 Standard on XP P

I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can
concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running on.
If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005
Standard have?
MichaelI believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS that
I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for
connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why would
you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be limited by
the amount of memory and the hardware.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@.microsoft.com...
>I assume that the number of connections that SQL Server 2005 Standard can
> concurrently have will be limited by the operating system it is running
> on.
> If that OS is XP Pro, how many concurrent connections can SQL Server 2005
> Standard have?
> --
> Michael|||Yup... and the amount of CPU time you can dedicate to the threads SQL Server
will generate to handle the operations.
Let's hear more about your connection strategy and application architecture.
____________________________________
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)
----
---
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OSgPZMRiHHA.4596@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I believe that is a wrong assumption. There is no limit based on the OS
>that I know of other than the fact that 64 bit can support more memory for
>connections. But if you are worried about lots of connections then why
>would you want to use XP Pro? The # of connections will ultimately be
>limited by the amount of memory and the hardware.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "michael" <michael@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0EA3B57E-6583-4A59-B38B-FB4C89AB5D74@.microsoft.com...
>

number of active connections

Hi.
I have to buy a license for MS SQL Server 2000 and I need to know how many active connections I will need.
I could try by running the application with multiple users and see how many connections there are.

The questions is: How can I know the number of active connections to the Server?

Thanks!sql server is licensed per seat or per proccessor. small to medium sized business with no web exposure usually do per seat. a bigger company or a web exposed app using sql server usually goes per processor.|||this one is helpfull, cant find the active connection yet
Hope this servers well

SELECT GETDATE() AS 'Today Date and Time', @.@.CONNECTIONS AS 'Login Attempts'
SELECT @.@.MAX_CONNECTIONS