|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |
||
| |||||||||
![]() |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
Free Web 2.0 Code Generator! Generate data entry and reporting .NET Web apps in minutes. Quickly create visually stunning, feature-rich apps that are easy to customize and ready to deploy. Download Now!
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Windows 2003 Server
My new host runs Windows 2003 server. My old host was Windows 2000.
I am using ASP/ADO and an Access database. My site is on a shared server, and recently has been experiencing down time. After looking at my scripts, I realized I neglected to explicitly close my Database connections after the scripts are executed. When I asked them, they said that the issue was indicative of a memory leak. In order to keep the site running, they had to set the "recycle" time of the server to every two hours. I ran on the old server with a lot of spots that were worse about object clean-up, the old server also saw much more traffic than the new one does and the old server never had this issue. My question is, does anyone know if Windows 2003 server has a problem with memory clean-up? Why does this server seem to be more touchy? I understand it really is my fault, and I didn't really follow good coding standards when writing some of those scripts. I want to know if it will ever change. I went through my scripts AGAIN, and made sure I was cleaning everything up. I asked them to increase the recycle time to 6 hours, just as a test, and the site was brought to it's knees within a few hours. I am going to go through my scripts again, but I am wondering if I should just find a new host. I know Access is not recommended for heavy traffic sites, but the only database that every page even comes close to accessing is a small database, and I open and close the connection almost immediately. There is not a lot of data transfer between that database and the website. If anyone can shed some light on this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this! Last edited by awar90 : September 4th, 2004 at 07:58 PM. Reason: mispelled word |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
From what I've heard W2003 doesn't handle access db's all that well.
__________________
====== Doug G ====== I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. --Mark Twain |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
From my experience (I run a 2003 web host and also develop many applications on win2k and 2k3)
SQL Server and Access databases (ADO/RDO etc.) all work just fine. Make sure that you have the latest service packs and such installed if you want it to work. --- For the original message. Access works just fine. (2000 + preferred on a 2k3 serv) Questions? Reply. Quote:
|
![]() |
| Viewing: ASP Free Forums > Programming > Visual Basic Programming > Windows 2003 Server |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|