I need to count sequential timeout exceptions from SqlBulkCopy. To test this, I use an external app to start a transaction & lock up the target table.
Only on the first call does SqlBulkCopy throw a timeout exception when expected. We've tried using an external connection & transaction, as well as using a connection string and internal transaction. With the external connection & transaction, the infinite wait was never in opening the connection or beginning or committing the transaction, but always at .WriteToServer()
.
Is there some approach to this whereby SqlBulkCopy.WriteToServer()
will reliably throw a timeout exception when it has reached its .BulkCopyTimeout
limit?
public void BulkCopy(string connectionString, DataTable table, int bulkTimeout)
{
using (SqlBulkCopy bulkCopy = new SqlBulkCopy(
connectionString,
SqlBulkCopyOptions.UseInternalTransaction))
{
bulkCopy.BulkCopyTimeout = bulkTimeout;//e.g. 120 sec.
//... fill with data, map columns...
bulkCopy.WriteToServer(table);
// ^^^^ waits indefinitely, doesn't throw until *after*
// the lock is released.
}
}
I prefer to let exceptions bubble up rather than handle them in the scope of the using
block, but I can always rethrow. Thanks much for any insight.
Update 1:
Still no resolution. Interesting behavior discovered though -- a normal SqlCommand will throw a TimeoutException as expected during the same lock that makes the SqlBulkCopy.WriteToServer method hang indefinitely.
Here are approaches that we've tried -- and that have failed -- to get SqlBulkCopy.WriteToServer to consistently throw timeouts when expected:
- MARS (Multiple Active Result Sets) on/off
- TableLock on vs. off
- Destination as heap table vs. indexed table
- Longer/shorter BulkTimeout values (10 seconds to 5 minutes)
- Internal vs external transaction
For now, as a workaround, I'm alternating between a) putting the WriteToServer call in an asynchronous wrapper so I can time it myself, and b) only calling WriteToServer once; after timeouts, wait until a regular SqlCommand succeeds before trying WriteToServer again. Using these approaches, I'm at least able to stay in control of the execution flow.