Named Pipe Quota problem

I have a problem transmitting a file-sized thingy through WCF which uses the named pipe binding

<netNamedPipeBinding>
    <binding name="largeMessage" 
             maxBufferPoolSize="524288000" 
             maxReceivedMessageSize="655360000" 
             maxBufferSize="655360000" >
        <readerQuotas maxStringContentLength="655360000" 
                      maxArrayLength="2000001" 
                      maxBytesPerRead="2000001" 
                      maxNameTableCharCount="2000001" />
    </binding>
</netNamedPipeBinding>

and this is the service definition

  <service name="BusinessService.TaskService"
       behaviorConfiguration="BusinessService.TaskServiceBehavior">
    <endpoint 
        address="" 
        behaviorConfiguration="customEndPointBehavior" 
        binding="netNamedPipeBinding" 
        bindingConfiguration="largeMessage" 
        contract="BusinessServiceContracts.Services.ITaskService">
      <identity>
        <dns value="localhost" />
      </identity>
    </endpoint>
  </service>

as can be seen, i've set quite large values for all quotas i've been able to find, and still, i get the "The maximum message size quota for incoming messag开发者_如何学Ces (65536) has been exceeded. To increase the quota, use the MaxReceivedMessageSize property on the appropriate binding element." error in the WCF trace files.

I'm fresh out of ideas where to look next, so has anyone else run into the same or similar problem?

The client configuration was (more or less) the same, but the darn thing just wouldn't work. But, after I opened the server .config with the WCF Configuration Editor, made no changes, and saved, it magically started working, so my guess is that I had some sort of tag mix-up in the file.

Sorry to bother you.

You probably have two configuration files: one from service implementation, and another for your client application; Can you please post both configurations?

Besides, please read this article: Making Sense of Transport Quotas

OK, you've posted the server-side configuration with the <services> node - look fine to me. How about the client-side configuration? You would have to have something in the <client> node as well - does that reference the same binding configuration as well?

Marc