Does anyone use more than 256 worker threads ?

Hi Hassan
I suggest that you increment this value in stages until you stop getting the
error! You can then monitor the effect that the give value has on your syste
m.
John
"Hassan" wrote:

> If so, why and how much more than 256 have you set or recommend to set
> without causing too much of a performance degradation ? I am thinking 384
> for our environment due to the fact that we have a lot of transactions/sec
> and at times we run out of worker threads as we cannot connect to SQL
>
>Check out Ken Henderson's blog on max worker threads:
http://blogs.msdn.com/khen1234/arch.../07/489778.aspx
Be especially careful because if the underlying issue is that your server is
undersized for the workload, you will make matters much worse by trying to
do more. You might be better off doing some query tuning upgrading
hardware.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3qbSYkkGHA.1000@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If so, why and how much more than 256 have you set or recommend to set
> without causing too much of a performance degradation ? I am thinking 384
> for our environment due to the fact that we have a lot of transactions/sec
> and at times we run out of worker threads as we cannot connect to SQL
>|||If so, why and how much more than 256 have you set or recommend to set
without causing too much of a performance degradation ? I am thinking 384
for our environment due to the fact that we have a lot of transactions/sec
and at times we run out of worker threads as we cannot connect to SQL|||Hi Hassan
I suggest that you increment this value in stages until you stop getting the
error! You can then monitor the effect that the give value has on your syste
m.
John
"Hassan" wrote:

> If so, why and how much more than 256 have you set or recommend to set
> without causing too much of a performance degradation ? I am thinking 384
> for our environment due to the fact that we have a lot of transactions/sec
> and at times we run out of worker threads as we cannot connect to SQL
>
>|||Check out Ken Henderson's blog on max worker threads:
http://blogs.msdn.com/khen1234/arch.../07/489778.aspx
Be especially careful because if the underlying issue is that your server is
undersized for the workload, you will make matters much worse by trying to
do more. You might be better off doing some query tuning upgrading
hardware.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Hassan" <Hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3qbSYkkGHA.1000@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> If so, why and how much more than 256 have you set or recommend to set
> without causing too much of a performance degradation ? I am thinking 384
> for our environment due to the fact that we have a lot of transactions/sec
> and at times we run out of worker threads as we cannot connect to SQL
>