>>>>The second link gives the best description of what is going on.
>>>
>>>I am trying to understand this concept. Right now, I open a connection when the Web site hit starts. During the hit, it can process from 1 to x number of SQL requests. Then, at the end of the hit, I close the connection.
>>>
>>>So, basically, a connection does not remain opened after the hit. Using a connection pool seems to mean that we add a concept of reusing active database connections instead of creating a new connection with every request. Well, if I close them at each hit, how can it be reused?
>>
>>In this context 'Close' doesn't mean it is actually closed - just returned to the pool. Likewise 'Open' doesn't neccessarily mean a connection is opened- most often an existing connection from the pool is used. So the overhead for opening and closing after each query is not that large.
>
>So, basically, on the first connection we do, this might take a little longer. Then, on all upcoming hits, doing the same command, the .Open(), will be faster as it reuses something already in memory. So, if I understand correctly, the only thing I would have to change would be to adjust for connection pooling parameters in my connection string. But, if this is to resolve or help at the maximum pool message I got yesterday, I am wondering why doesn't Microsoft make it as a default in the connection string.
>
>Do you have a connection pooling definition in your connection string? If yes, what setting are you using. We are talking here at about 55,000 hits a day, on the server where it happens. Concurrent hits are happening on a regular basis during the day.

I thought connection pooling was the default behaviour for ADO.NET (and, IIRC, the default number of connections is 100).
I also thought that you wouldn't get the problem if you were *not* using a connection pool since in that case there is no limit (except memory limits) on the number of connections.

To me it sounds as if you *are* using connection pooling but, somewhere, not closing a connection and thus ending up with a 'connection leak'......