Hi Erland
Thanks for responding. The second of the links is very interesting. It led
me to a Microsoft page where it describes the problem I'm having, and says
that it particularly afflicts the Broadcom 5708 chipset, which our Dell
servers use in the NetXtreme II NICs. Dell have updated system BIOS, NIC
firmware and drivers, but I now have a dilemma. The servers are remote and I
can't physically get to them without a day's round-trip. I'm naturally very
wary of updating any of these items remotely because I might lose contact
and not be able to get it back.
Although the updates look promising I think they will have to wait for now.
I might try disabling the chimney offload feature in the meantime.
Cheers
Charles
"Erland Sommarskog" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9C8BC2EEB17BCYazorman@127.0.0.1...
> "Charles" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> I'm using SSMS to connect remotely to a SQL Server 2005 SP3 instance,
>>> running on Windows Server 2003 x64 SP2. The client is Windows XP SP3 and
>>> the server is a two-node Windows cluster.
>>>
>>> I connect to the database in SSMS and execute a query that returns one
>>> row. I can execute it again and again and all is well. I leave it for a
>>> few minutes and execute again. This time I get
>>>
>>> "Msg 10054, Level 20, State 0, Line 0
>>> A transport-level error has occurred when receiving results from the
>>> server. (provider: TCP Provider, error: 0 - An existing connection was
>>> forcibly closed by the remote host.)"
>>>
>>> I have installed MS Network Monitor V3.3 and can see that every 30
>>> seconds the client and server exchange TCP Keep Alive packets. So long
>>> as each receives a Keep Alive ACK then the connection remains good. But
>>> after a while I see that the client sends five Keep Alive packets in
>>> succession and doesn't get an ACK to any of them. The server does not
>>> appear to send out its Keep Alive packet either. If I then execute my
>>> query it gives the error above without fail.
>>>
>>> I have checked with others who also connect to the same SQL Server
>>> instance and they do not get this problem. It's just me, and it didn't
>>> always do this, although it has done for the past few months.
>
> My guess is that you have some flaky network component somewhere.
> Searching
> on "forcibly closed by the remote host", I found these two blogposts,
> that may be informative:
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/...ckprotect.aspx
>
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/...e-chimney.aspx
>
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP,
>
> Links for SQL Server Books Online:
> SQL 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/cc514207.aspx
> SQL 2005: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb895970.aspx
> SQL 2000:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
>