title: ASP.Net MaxPoolSize configuration issues
body: <p>I don't know much about .Net Application Scalability and I'm sure some SO users know more about it and could help me out.</p>
  
  <p>I know some questions have already been asked in the past, about having Connection Pool Overflows. Most of the time, it ends up talking about "How to close your connections properly" (which I highly think it's not my case, since all of my LinqToSQL queries are <code>Disposed</code> accordingly, using this kind of code):</p>
  
  <pre><code>using (MyDataContext context = new MyDataContext())
  {
      return (from o in context.t_Orders
              where o.order_id.Equals(_id)
              select o).ToList();
  }
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Also, most of the answers I've read end up saying "A website should not require many concurrent connections, even for hundreds of users". But I'm talking about a massive WebApp, having over 500 concurrent users (who might be logging in in the same 2 minute range). Also, every page access is logged in a table (so consider multiple reads and inserts).</p>
  
  <p>Now, I wonder if the default <code>MaxPoolSize</code> of 100 connections is enough or could be a risk? If it might represent any risk, how should I modify the Connection Pooling settings?
  Should I increase the <code>MaxPoolSize</code> to a certain % of the concurrent users. Would it have any negative effect? Or should I increase the <code>ConnectionTimeout</code> in order to prevent any <code>InvalidOperationException</code>? </p>
  
  <p>By the way, I entirely red William Vaughn's article "<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa175863%28SQL.80%29.aspx" rel="nofollow">The .NET Connection Pool Lifeguard -
  Prevent pool overflows that can drown your applications</a>", but I'm still pretty worried.</p>