Named Pipes vs TCP/IP

Named Pipes vs TCP/IP

Post by Bill Colfle » Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:57:55

A couple of years ago we found SQL Server connections delivered faster
throughput via TCP/IP.  With SQL2000 on W2k, we are finding Named
Pipes to be faster.

The question is, what did Microsoft change that is causing this . . .
and where did they make the change - in SQL2000, in W2k, or both?


1. Named Pipes vs TCP/IP

SqlServer 7.0 - Windows NT Server
Hello Everybody

I have a client VB application which reads a flat file and inserts rows
into a 6 different tables in SqlServer 7.0 Database.  The VB App uses
ADO to connect to the SqlServer databse.  And also the VB application
uses TCP/IP to connect to sqlserver.  There are 400+ fields in the flat
file which needs some preprocessing before inserting into SqlServer
tables.  We are having some performance issue.  The insertion process
starts pretty well.  As the number of rows getting increased the
performance is going down.  For example for a give 10,000 records the
first 1000 records takes 1 minutes where as the last 1000 records takes
4 minutes.  I am in the process of reviewing the code for possible
memory leaks etc.  I would like to know in this situation, is it better
to have client network protocol as Named Pipes or TCP/IP.  Does any one
experienced these issues before.  We share the network with Novel and
most of the client logs into the network using Novel Client.  The
client VB App mostly runs on win95/NT4.0 workstation.  Any advice in
this regard would be appreciated.


Sent via

2. request

3. Name Pipe vs TCP/IP

4. Becoming another user

5. Named Pipes vs TCP/IP (setting automatically during app install or within app)

6. clusterd & backup

7. automated tests for database applications

8. Named Pipes vs TCP/IP

9. Named pipes vs TCP/IP

10. Named Pipes vs TCP/IP

11. Named Pipes vs TCP/IP in SQL 2000

12. Named Pipes VS. TCP/IP