Configuration :: Trigger IE9 To Render In Compatibility Mode Negatively Affect Performance On The Server?
Mar 17, 2011
Would adding "X-UA-Compatible: IE=EmulateIE7" as an http header to trigger IE9 to render in compatibility mode negatively affect performance on the server? I made the change today, adding it, but now some areas of our site are behaving sluggishly, though we did have a large number of changes come in overnight. I know that we can't single out this as the problem, but my boss seems to think it is.
I am developing a site similar to forums. I allow users to Post articles and upload files regarding the articles. I am not storing the Attachments contents in DB instead i store only the path of the attachment file and store the actual file in physical folder in the Project directory. WHat i want to knw is if the size of the physical folder increase will it affect the performance of my application.
I have a dataset that comprises of multiple tables (about 20) linked together with constraints to reflect the relational database. My question(s):
1) Will having multiple tables affect performance? I'm asking this as there are often times I would not need to get data for all the tables, but only for specific tables.
2) If it does affect performance, would breaking up the tables into their own datasets be the best solution. It seems to me that by doing that, you would lose the ability to apply constraints among tables and tables that might exist in multiple datasets will be subjected to replication.
I would like to have everything in one dataset as I get a view of the related tables and their relationships and also because the Fill method allow me to fill tables, maintaining the hierarchy of the data, but performance is still a key factor.
When I attempt to add the <httpProtocols> sections into the <system.web> I get Parser Error Message: Unrecognized configuration section system.web/httpProtocol.
I ideally need to be able to add customHeaders through the IIS6 web.config (I however am assuming this won't work)
I have created an intranet site that has a reorder list.IE8 defaults to running intranet sites in compatibility mode. My reorderlist does not like this. Basically the drag/drop function goes away.
Now, i have tried adding the <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=8" /> but it does not fix it. It fixes most of my issues, but not the drag/drop.If i tell the browser to NOT use compatibility mode, everything seems to work as intended, but there is no way i can force all the users to disable it.
We have a problem that in IE8 some of table rows (made by Reporting Services) are cut if compatibility mode of a browser is set to on (exactly a page is cut on bottom and left side and it is not visible). So we have to explain at every customer to disable compatibility mode. Does exist any way to display report page correctly even if a compatibility mode is on? Is this a bug?
To begin with I work on the large application, that has a WinForms client and server. Server in our case is the set of WCF services. There is one service that is responsible for authentication of users. The logic of authentication is custom and complex and authentication service uses different membership providers.
We want to protect the access to server services for non-authenticated users. The users must firstly authenticate and than use other services (users in this case are the other systems, services, WinForms client, etc.). On this basis, we decided to use the ASP.NET Url/File Authorization feature.
So, I set on the ASP.NET compatibility mode, allowed cookie in all binding configurations, added AspNetCompatibilityRequirements attribute to our services and added the followingconfigurations to config:
In the authenticate method of our authentication service I add the following code: public AuthenticationResult AuthenticateUser(string username, string password) { AuthenticationResult result = new AuthenticationResult(); result = Authenticate(username, password); if (result.IsAuthenticated) FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(username, true); return result; }
Next, I wrote the following code:
var authClient = new AuthenticationServiceClient(); var result = authClient.AuthenticateUser("user", "password"); var otherClient = new OtherServiceClient(); var temp = otherClient.DoSomething();
But after authentication I can't access to OtherServiceClient...
So, how can I share the call context between the WCF services calls? Could anybody provide some useful articles about this question?
I have a table with 3 rows, each with an ASP.NET panel with a gridview in it. For some reason, this is causing IE8 to go into compatibility view mode. If I change the table to 3 seperate divs, this works but if I use divs some functionality (i.e. max height) doesn't work as it does on tables. I've also tried 3 seperate tables but to no avail.
I have a need to run an application in classic mode for backwards compatibility with a specific application, and am trying to understand what kind of impact that will have on the performance of an MVC application that is running on the site. If we put a few static file maps (for .js, .css, .png, etc) above the ASP.NET wildcard map to reduce the amount of processing by the ASP.NET handler, will we be approaching the integrated mode in terms of performance?
The thing i'm primarily concerned with is any effect this might have on output caching. I understand that integrated mode might (?) allow for the output cache to handle non ASP.NET content, but that isn't really a concern. We're more interested in ensuring that the MVC application has full use of the output cache. Empirically i've found that the two configurations operate on par when things go well, but if the page references resources that are not available, the integrated mode tends to fail much more quickly than the classic mode (e.g. 500 ms vs 10 seconds), reducing 'hang time' on the page load.
I'm using ASP.NET to have a panel that can expand downwards to a certain point, at which point the user can scroll within the panel, both vertically and horizontally (horizontally because one GridView has a lot of columns which would be impossible to display without horizontal scrollbars in the panel/div)Problem is, if I set the panel (asp:Panel control) that holds the GridView to have Scrollbars="Both", and have a max-height set on the panel, IE8 refreshes into compatibility mode. If I remove the max height, or have only vertical scrollbars, it works fine. Any workarounds for this?
I have developed a website in asp.net framework 2 . This website is being hosted in two different servers without any change in code. My issue is about the performance of these 2 sites. One website is taking much time for inserting datas to the DB (SQL server 2005). 2 websites are having different DB server.
I think the issue is for the DB server. How can we rectify the DB performance while insertion and Is there any other cause for this permance issue?
We are developing a web application that will be used exclusively on intranets. We are designing the site to work on IE8 and have come across an issue where IE7 mode (or compatibility mode) really screw everything around. Is there a way to force IE8 to display in IE8 mode and not allow the user to override this?I have tried using the following:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN"> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=8" >
I'm not sure if I'm placing this in the right spot but since it has to do with Entity Framework I put it here. Here's the deal. I have a FormView bound to an EntityDataSource. The FormView is a part of a user control. In design view on the user control, the formview and the entity datasource show up as expected. However once I put the user control in an aspx page, the formview won't show up. The entity datasource shows, but the formview doesn't.
Instead I get this message in design view: "There was an error rendering the control. Value cannot be null. Parameter name: owner" I don't have any parameters in my datasource or formview called owner. Is it talking about the database owner. By way of comparison, I put a SqlDatasource on the page and tied it to a formview. It showed in design view on both the user control and the aspx page. So that led me to believe it has something to do with the formview being bound to the entity datasource.
I have a page that displays a grid view based on a query string. When I click the edit button I need to send the grid view into edit mode based on the query string. I have this so far:
[Code]....
When I requested the page the first time, the grid view displayed properly, and when I clicked the edit link button, it did trigger the update mode. However, I can't get the cancel mode to operate properly; in other words, cancel never sends it back to normal mode, as a result, with each new page request, I'm always stuck on the last edited record.
I'm trying to execute a schema file on a SQL Server machine. I currently have both SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008 installed. When I try to execute the .sql file (meant to execute on the 2008 version) I get the following error.
Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ConnectionFailureException: Failed to connect to server . ---> Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ConnectionFailureException: This SQL Server version (10.0) is not supported
Is there a way to specify which version the Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.dll looks at when you execute the program or some other workaround other than uninstalling the 2005 version?
Why am I not able to login using my login control if I set the sql server database option for Recursive Triggers Enabled to "True"? Whenever I attempt to do so, I receive an error message on attempting to login that states "Your attempt to log in was not successful..."?
We have a webfarm using a SQL Server 2000 database to store our session state.
On the same SQL server are our databases for the rest of the websites. The databases are separate but on the same server.
Recently I found that one of our developers is using the session very inefficiently. He is storing large datatables within the session for users when he could accomplish the same thing through other methods.
Can this inefficient use of the session state (when stored in SQL Server) affect the performance of our main database when they are on the same server?
The answer seems to be yes, to some degree. However, I cannot find any documentation to back me up.
