Should array length be stored into a local variable in C#?

Is there any impact in execution performance because of using array.Length directly as for exit condition? Which one of following methods will excute faster?

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
public int WithoutVariable() {
    int sum = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++) {
        sum += array[i];
    }
    return sum;
}

public int WithVariable() {
    int sum = 0;
    int length = array.Length;
    for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
        sum += array[i];
    }
    return sum;
}

Dmitry Yudakov concludes through digging into the IL code generated by JIT compiler for both methods:

… both methods will compile into the exact same code, but the first one is written faster, even though there isn’t any benefit in terms of execution time.

ASP.NET 2.0, 1 Database Server, 1 IIS 6.0 Web Server and 32,000 Concurrent Connections!

Markus Frind has posted his experience of using ASP.NET 2.0 for one of largest dating site PlentyOfFish.com in Canada. In his post, Markus is telling how he has addressed concurrency issues by switching to ASP.NET 2.0:

At this point there were a lot of concurrency issues, the site would slooow down and just keep getting slower as more people came on. After switching to asp.net 2.0 all those problems went away. Now when there are over 32,000 concurrent connections at peak the site does not slow down. There are however still problems. I find that once you pass 100 Pageviews/second threads timers start to not get called for no reason.

Link:
Microsoft ASP.NET 2.0 Performance

He Interestingly didn’t use any kind of caching to render pages. Every page call actually pulls content from the database.