Change sql server connections from 32767 to 60000 or more

Is that possible ?
BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with SQL ?
Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000 connections.
Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
capacity.
But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken account
of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify 60,000 as max
user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?The largest SQL Server systems in the world do not use that many connections
and I am sure you won't either. That does not mean you can't have more than
32K users connected. The key is to use connection pooling. With proper use
of connection pooling you can service many more users than you have actual
connections since rarely are they all actually busy at the same time.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBpYCy96FHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is that possible ?
> BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with SQL
> ? Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000 connections.
> Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
> capacity.
> But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken
> account of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify 60,000
> as max user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?
>|||I understand all of that Andrew and was only curious to know if I can have
more than 32767 connections and if so, can i increase it using sp_configure
?
Also, where can i read more about connection pooling
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uwFzKf$6FHA.3588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The largest SQL Server systems in the world do not use that many
> connections and I am sure you won't either. That does not mean you can't
> have more than 32K users connected. The key is to use connection pooling.
> With proper use of connection pooling you can service many more users than
> you have actual connections since rarely are they all actually busy at the
> same time.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eBpYCy96FHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>|||In general when the specifications in BooksOnLine states that something is
the Maximum you can be pretty sure you can not exceed that<g>. As for
Connection Pooling I would do a Google search and be sure to specify what
type of drivers you are using to connect.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eLDIS0A7FHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I understand all of that Andrew and was only curious to know if I can have
>more than 32767 connections and if so, can i increase it using sp_configure
>?
> Also, where can i read more about connection pooling
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uwFzKf$6FHA.3588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>

Change sql server connections from 32767 to 60000 or more

Is that possible ?
BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with SQL ?
Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000 connections.
Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
capacity.
But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken account
of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify 60,000 as max
user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?
The largest SQL Server systems in the world do not use that many connections
and I am sure you won't either. That does not mean you can't have more than
32K users connected. The key is to use connection pooling. With proper use
of connection pooling you can service many more users than you have actual
connections since rarely are they all actually busy at the same time.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBpYCy96FHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is that possible ?
> BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with SQL
> ? Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000 connections.
> Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
> capacity.
> But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken
> account of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify 60,000
> as max user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?
>
|||I understand all of that Andrew and was only curious to know if I can have
more than 32767 connections and if so, can i increase it using sp_configure
?
Also, where can i read more about connection pooling
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uwFzKf$6FHA.3588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The largest SQL Server systems in the world do not use that many
> connections and I am sure you won't either. That does not mean you can't
> have more than 32K users connected. The key is to use connection pooling.
> With proper use of connection pooling you can service many more users than
> you have actual connections since rarely are they all actually busy at the
> same time.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eBpYCy96FHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||In general when the specifications in BooksOnLine states that something is
the Maximum you can be pretty sure you can not exceed that<g>. As for
Connection Pooling I would do a Google search and be sure to specify what
type of drivers you are using to connect.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eLDIS0A7FHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I understand all of that Andrew and was only curious to know if I can have
>more than 32767 connections and if so, can i increase it using sp_configure
>?
> Also, where can i read more about connection pooling
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uwFzKf$6FHA.3588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>

Change sql server connections from 32767 to 60000 or more

Is that possible ?
BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with SQL ?
Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000 connections.
Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
capacity.
But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken account
of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify 60,000 as max
user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?The largest SQL Server systems in the world do not use that many connections
and I am sure you won't either. That does not mean you can't have more than
32K users connected. The key is to use connection pooling. With proper use
of connection pooling you can service many more users than you have actual
connections since rarely are they all actually busy at the same time.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBpYCy96FHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Is that possible ?
> BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with SQL
> ? Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000 connections.
> Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
> capacity.
> But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken
> account of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify 60,000
> as max user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?
>|||I understand all of that Andrew and was only curious to know if I can have
more than 32767 connections and if so, can i increase it using sp_configure
?
Also, where can i read more about connection pooling
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uwFzKf$6FHA.3588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The largest SQL Server systems in the world do not use that many
> connections and I am sure you won't either. That does not mean you can't
> have more than 32K users connected. The key is to use connection pooling.
> With proper use of connection pooling you can service many more users than
> you have actual connections since rarely are they all actually busy at the
> same time.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eBpYCy96FHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Is that possible ?
>> BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with
>> SQL ? Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000
>> connections.
>> Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
>> capacity.
>> But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken
>> account of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify 60,000
>> as max user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?
>>
>|||In general when the specifications in BooksOnLine states that something is
the Maximum you can be pretty sure you can not exceed that<g>. As for
Connection Pooling I would do a Google search and be sure to specify what
type of drivers you are using to connect.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eLDIS0A7FHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I understand all of that Andrew and was only curious to know if I can have
>more than 32767 connections and if so, can i increase it using sp_configure
>?
> Also, where can i read more about connection pooling
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uwFzKf$6FHA.3588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> The largest SQL Server systems in the world do not use that many
>> connections and I am sure you won't either. That does not mean you can't
>> have more than 32K users connected. The key is to use connection
>> pooling. With proper use of connection pooling you can service many more
>> users than you have actual connections since rarely are they all actually
>> busy at the same time.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Hassan" <hassanboy@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eBpYCy96FHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Is that possible ?
>> BOL states that max user connections is 32767. Is that hard coded with
>> SQL ? Or can I increase that to 60000 and have SQL open 60000
>> connections.
>> Yes you may ask, why do I need and i understand that it all depends on
>> capacity.
>> But my question is fairly simple and assuming load,etc are all taken
>> account of, i want to open say 60,000 connections and if i specify
>> 60,000 as max user connections using sp_configure, will it work ?
>>
>>
>

Change ntext to nvarchar(max) in a live database

I have a live SQL 2005 database that has ntext fields, when the ntext fields go over 4000 chars the record can no longer be edited. It throws a string or binary data would be truncated error. I tried turning text in row OFF, but it did not work. Can anyone forsee any problems with changing the ntext fields to nvarchar(max) in the live database? Also, I came across sp_tableoption N'MyTable', 'large value types out of row', 'ON', does this work for ntext also? sp_tableoption N'MyTable', 'text in row', 'OFF' did not do anything.

Any help would be appreciated.

Have you set TEXTSIZE option for the connection? Check this using:

DBCC USEROPTIONS

|||

Where and how do I do this? Also I changed the ntext fields in the database to NVarChar(MAX), so now I can modify the values in the database directly, but when I do it through the application and the VarChar(MAX) fields are over 4000 it does not save the changes, but does not return an error either. It returns as if the stored procedure executed successfully.

|||

I'm not sure why you felt the need to create yet another thread, but the answer remains the same (and the 3rd time I'm giving it to you):

The problem is more likely that the parameters are being declared as either the wrong type, or you are not declaring the type at all, and letting it default. Make sure your ntext parameters are declared as such.

|||

Actually it was a problem upgrading a SQL 2000 database to SQL 2005 then modifying it, I had to recreate the table. Once I recreated the table and did a Select Into, the problem was resolved.

And I created another thread because I wanted to change the datatypes from ntext to nvarchar(max) in a live database and wanted to know if it was going to have any ill effects. In my experience, when you ask a different question in an existing thread, you do not get an answer for both questions, so I wanted to keep them separated.