<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Client (TCP and Named Pipe) Connection Pooling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173</link>
	<description>Kenny Wolf</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:21:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Are connections pools shared between ChannelFactories? &#171; Sajay.com</title>
		<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/comment-page-1#comment-217506</link>
		<dc:creator>Are connections pools shared between ChannelFactories? &#171; Sajay.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennyw.com/indigo/173#comment-217506</guid>
		<description>[...] can find out about the connection Pool settings here and you can check Kenny&#8217;s post on how connection pooling works.    Tags: indigo, perf, pooling. 0 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] can find out about the connection Pool settings here and you can check Kenny&#8217;s post on how connection pooling works.    Tags: indigo, perf, pooling. 0 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Konstantin</title>
		<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/comment-page-1#comment-198070</link>
		<dc:creator>Konstantin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:25:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennyw.com/indigo/173#comment-198070</guid>
		<description>There is a forum post http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/wcf/thread/770ba6c2-cc19-4336-bc09-53d5750105d3, leading to your article. It refers to the problem of WCF error logs, while there is no obvious error from user perspective. I&#039;ve tried using custom binding with both IdleTimeout and LeaseTimeout being larger on server than on client and numerous other options, but the error persisted. Is there any other way to diagnose the problem?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a forum post <a href="http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/wcf/thread/770ba6c2-cc19-4336-bc09-53d5750105d3" rel="nofollow">http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/wcf/thread/770ba6c2-cc19-4336-bc09-53d5750105d3</a>, leading to your article. It refers to the problem of WCF error logs, while there is no obvious error from user perspective. I&#8217;ve tried using custom binding with both IdleTimeout and LeaseTimeout being larger on server than on client and numerous other options, but the error persisted. Is there any other way to diagnose the problem?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kenny</title>
		<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/comment-page-1#comment-194384</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennyw.com/indigo/173#comment-194384</guid>
		<description>@Shashi: you can disable this feature by either setting TcpTransportBindingElement.ConnectionPoolSettings.MaxOutboundConnectionsPerEndpoint to zero or TcpTransportBindingElement.ConnectionPoolSettings.IdleTimeout to TimeSpan.Zero.

@Rajeev: There is a nominal cost to CF.CreateChannel (a few allocations if all you have is TCP or the out of the box NetTcpBinding). Note that if you are using Security or WS-RM sessions then you will be establishing a new security/RM session for each channel, as they don&#039;t cache their sessions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Shashi: you can disable this feature by either setting TcpTransportBindingElement.ConnectionPoolSettings.MaxOutboundConnectionsPerEndpoint to zero or TcpTransportBindingElement.ConnectionPoolSettings.IdleTimeout to TimeSpan.Zero.</p>
<p>@Rajeev: There is a nominal cost to CF.CreateChannel (a few allocations if all you have is TCP or the out of the box NetTcpBinding). Note that if you are using Security or WS-RM sessions then you will be establishing a new security/RM session for each channel, as they don&#8217;t cache their sessions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rajeev</title>
		<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/comment-page-1#comment-193280</link>
		<dc:creator>Rajeev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennyw.com/indigo/173#comment-193280</guid>
		<description>Does this mean that there ChannelFactory.createChannel() and other such calls are not expensive and can be done repeatedly ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does this mean that there ChannelFactory.createChannel() and other such calls are not expensive and can be done repeatedly ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shashi</title>
		<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/comment-page-1#comment-182486</link>
		<dc:creator>Shashi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennyw.com/indigo/173#comment-182486</guid>
		<description>Hi Kenny,

Thanks for the description of connection pooling. 

I&#039;m a novice user of WCF. Forgive me if my question is silly.

Is there a way to disable the &quot;connection pooling&quot; feature for buffered channels?

I&#039;m interested in creating a unique tcp connection for each channel. Is there an alternative way to tell the framework to create a new TCP connection for every new channel? Specifically, any attributes/members in the netTCPBinding that I can tweak to achieve this?

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Kenny,</p>
<p>Thanks for the description of connection pooling. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m a novice user of WCF. Forgive me if my question is silly.</p>
<p>Is there a way to disable the &#8220;connection pooling&#8221; feature for buffered channels?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m interested in creating a unique tcp connection for each channel. Is there an alternative way to tell the framework to create a new TCP connection for every new channel? Specifically, any attributes/members in the netTCPBinding that I can tweak to achieve this?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: More details on MaxConnections at kennyw.com</title>
		<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/comment-page-1#comment-51897</link>
		<dc:creator>More details on MaxConnections at kennyw.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:44:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennyw.com/indigo/173#comment-51897</guid>
		<description>[...] TCP is not a hard and fast limit, but rather a knob on the connections that we will cache in our connection pool. That is, if you set MaxConnections=2, you can still open 4 client channels on the same factory [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] TCP is not a hard and fast limit, but rather a knob on the connections that we will cache in our connection pool. That is, if you set MaxConnections=2, you can still open 4 client channels on the same factory [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yuri Kozlov</title>
		<link>http://kennyw.com/work/indigo/173/comment-page-1#comment-42833</link>
		<dc:creator>Yuri Kozlov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennyw.com/indigo/173#comment-42833</guid>
		<description>Hallo Kenny,

I have one question concerning porting Remoting to WCF. 

I my Remoting-based application i used now and then the Remoting&#039;s capabilities to immediately marshal interfaces; this means, i can pass interface of client&#039;s object to the server, store this interface reference at server side in some variable, and later call back from server to the client through this interface refernece. All i need is to derive client&#039;s class from MarshalByRefObject and normally to overwrite InitializeLifetimeService() so that the latter returns null. 

What is the best way to port this code to WCF? I notice that i cannot pass the interface reference as remote method&#039;s parameter in WCF : WCF ignores MarshalByRefObject and tries to serialize the client&#039;s object whose refernce is passed. All my server objects are SingleCall activated and i want this to stay, which means i cannot do WCF sessions. Do i need Duplex functionality for this or is there some other way to marshal interfaces&#039; references? 

Thank you in advance.

Yu. Kozlov</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hallo Kenny,</p>
<p>I have one question concerning porting Remoting to WCF. </p>
<p>I my Remoting-based application i used now and then the Remoting&#8217;s capabilities to immediately marshal interfaces; this means, i can pass interface of client&#8217;s object to the server, store this interface reference at server side in some variable, and later call back from server to the client through this interface refernece. All i need is to derive client&#8217;s class from MarshalByRefObject and normally to overwrite InitializeLifetimeService() so that the latter returns null. </p>
<p>What is the best way to port this code to WCF? I notice that i cannot pass the interface reference as remote method&#8217;s parameter in WCF : WCF ignores MarshalByRefObject and tries to serialize the client&#8217;s object whose refernce is passed. All my server objects are SingleCall activated and i want this to stay, which means i cannot do WCF sessions. Do i need Duplex functionality for this or is there some other way to marshal interfaces&#8217; references? </p>
<p>Thank you in advance.</p>
<p>Yu. Kozlov</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

