Hi I am facing a strange situation where I am trying to set a set of tasks as complete all concurrently.
The first one goes through and second one goes through sometimes (rarely) but mostly doesnt go through.
When I do these individually they work.
Something to do with database locking I feel. Is there some workaround or code for executing task and variable updates concurrently ?
Do they belong to the same process instance?
And yes, there will be a db locking mechanism in place, because when you complete each task a process instance will need to move forward.
Can you please clarify what are you trying to solve? what is your business scenario?
Cheers
Activiti uses pre-emptive locking and this can cause problems for parallel tasks.
Typically if you use the "exclusive" flag the problems go away (https://www.activiti.org/userguide/#exclusiveJobs).
Keep in mind that jobs never actually run in parallel, the job engine selects jobs to run and if there are multiple they will be run sequentially (which appears to be parallel to the user).
Related
I have old xamarin android jobintentservice I'm replacing to support android 12.0.
I now inherit Worker instead of JobIntentService, and use WorkManager to enqueue its job.
Couple of questions:
Is there a way use await inside DoWork override method?
Is it better to inherit ListenableWorker instead in order to use await? Do I lose
anything if I switch to it?
If I Task.Factory.StartNew(LongRunning) from Worker's DoWork, and immediately that follow with return success result, will my long running task run to completion, or all work associated will be terminated?
I think you can know more about WorkManager first.
From document Schedule tasks with WorkManager we know that:
WorkManager is the recommended solution for persistent work. Work is persistent when it remains scheduled through app restarts and system reboots. Because most background processing is best accomplished through persistent work, WorkManager is the primary recommended API for background processing.
WorkManager handles three types of persistent work:
Immediate: Tasks that must begin immediately and complete soon. May
be expedited.
Long Running: Tasks which might run for longer, potentially longer
than 10 minutes.
Deferrable: Scheduled tasks that start at a later time and can run
periodically.
And from the Work chaining of Features,we know
For complex related work, chain individual work tasks together using an intuitive interface that allows you to control which pieces run sequentially and which run in parallel.
WorkManager.getInstance(...)
.beginWith(Arrays.asList(workA, workB))
.then(workC)
.enqueue();
For each work task, you can define input and output data for that work. When chaining work together, WorkManager automatically passes output data from one work task to the next.
Note:
If you still have any problem, get back to me.
The ASP.NET runtime is meant for short work loads that can be run in parallel. I need to be able to schedule periodic events and background tasks that may or may not run for much longer periods.
Given the above I have the following problems to deal with:
The AppDomain can shutdown due to changes (Web.config, bin, App_Code, etc.)
IIS recycles the AppPool on a regular basis (daily)
IIS itself might restart, or for that matter the server might crash
I'm not convinced that running this code inside ASP.NET is not the right thing to do, becuase it would allow for a simpler programming model. But doing so would require that an external service periodically makes requests to the app so that the application is keept running and that all background tasks are programmed with utter most care. They will have to be able to pause and resume thier work, in the event of an unexpected error.
My current line of thinking goes something like this:
If all jobs are registered in the database, it should be possible to use the database as a bookkeeping mechanism. In the case of an error, the database would contain all state necessary to resume the operation at the next opportunity given.
I'd really appriecate some feedback/advice, on this matter. I've been considering running a windows service and using some RPC solution as well, but it doesn't have the same appeal to me. And I'd instead have a lot of deployment issues and sycnhronizing tasks and code cross several applications. Due to my business needs this is less than optimial.
This is a shot in the dark since I don't know what database you use, but I'd recommend you to consider dialog timers and activation. Assuming that most of the jobs have to do some data manipulation, and is likely that all have to do only data manipulation, leveraging activation and timers give an extremely reliable job scheduling solution, entirely embedded in the database (no need for an external process/service, not dependencies outside the database bounds like msdb), and is a solution that ensures scheduled jobs can survive restarts, failover events and even disaster recovery restores. Simply put, once a job is scheduled it will run even if the database is restored one week later on a different machine.
Have a look at Asynchronous procedure execution for a related example.
And if this is too radical, at least have a look at Using Tables as Queues since storing the scheduled items in the database often falls under the 'pending queue' case.
I recommend that you have a look at Quartz.Net. It is open source and it will give you some ideas.
Using the database as a state-keeping mechanism is a completely valid idea. How complex it will be depends on how far you want to take it. In many cases you will ended up pairing your database logic with a Windows service to achieve the desired result.
FWIW, it is typically not a good practice to manually use the thread pool inside an ASP.Net application, though (contrary to what you may read) it actually works quite nicely other than the huge caveat that you can't guarantee it will work.
So if you needed a background thread that examined the state of some object every 30 seconds and you didn't care if it fired every 30 seconds or 29 seconds or 2 minutes (such as in a long app pool recycle), an ASP.Net-spawned thread is a quick and very dirty solution.
Asynchronously fired callbacks (such as on the ASP.Net Cache object) can also perform a sort of "behind the scenes" role.
I have faced similar challenges and ultimately opted for a Windows service that uses a combination of building blocks for maximum flexibility. Namely, I use:
1) WCF with implementation-specific types OR
2) Types that are meant to transport and manage objects that wrap a job OR
3) Completely generic, serializable objects contained in a custom wrapper. Since they are just a binary payload, this allows any object to be passed to the service. Once in the service, the wrapper defines what should happen to the object (e.g. invoke a method, gather a result, and optionally make that result available for return).
Ultimately, the web site is responsible for querying the service about its state. This querying can be as simple as polling or can use asynchronous callbacks with WCF (though I believe this also uses some sort of polling behind the scenes).
I tell you what I have do.
I have create a class called Atzenta that have a timer (1-2 second trigger).
I have also create a table on my temporary database that keep the jobs. The table knows the jobID, other parameters, priority, job status, messages.
I can add, or delete a job on this class. When there is no action to be done the timer is stop. When I add a job, then the timer starts again. (the timer is a thread by him self that can do parallel work). I use the System.Timers and not other timers for this.
The jobs can have different priority.
Now let say that I place a job on this table using the Atzenta class. The next time that the timer is trigger is check the query on this table and find the first available job and just run it. No other jobs run until this one is end.
Every synchronize and flags are done from the table. In the table I have flags for every job that show if its |wait to run|request to run|run|pause|finish|killed|
All jobs are all ready known functions or class (eg the creation of statistics).
For stop and start, I use the global.asax and the Application_Start, Application_End to start and pause the object that keep the tasks. For example when I do a job, and I get the Application_End ether I wait to finish and then stop the app, ether I stop the action, notify the table, and start again on application_start.
So I say, Atzenta.RunTheJob(Jobs.StatisticUpdate, ProductID); and then I add this job on table, open the timer, and then on trigger this job is run and I update the statistics for the given product id.
I use a table on a database to synchronize many pools that run the same web app and in fact its work that way. With a common table the synchronize of the jobs is easy and you avoid 2 pools to run the same job at the same time.
On my back office I have a simple table view to see the status of all jobs.
I would like to know the best way to deal with long running processes started on demand from an ASP.NET webpage.
The process may consist of various steps (like upload files to the server, run SSIS packages on them, execute some stored procedures etc.) and sometimes the process could take up to couple of hours to finish.
If I go for asynchronous execution using a WCF service, then what happens if the user closes the browser while the process is running, how the process success or failure result should be displayed to the user? To solve this, I choose one-way WCF service calls, but the problem with this is I need to create a process table and store the result (and error messages if it fails in any of the steps and which steps have completed successfully) in that table which is an additional overhead because there are many such processes with various steps that the user can invoke from the web page and user needs to be made aware of the progress (in simplest case, the status can be "process xyz running") and once it is done, the output needs to be displayed to the user (for example by running a stored procedure).
What is the best way to design the solution for this?
As I see it, you have three options
Have a long running page where the user waits for the response. If this is several hours, you're going to have many usability problems, so I wouldn't even consider it.
Create a process table to store the results of operations. Run service functions asynchronously and delegate logging the results to the service. There can be a page that the user refreshes which gets the latest results of this table.
If you really don't want to create a table, then store all the current process details in the users' session state, and have a current processes page as above. You have the possible issue that the session might timeout, or the web app might restart and you'll lose all this.
I can't see that number 2 is such a great hardship. You could make the table fairly generic to encompass all types of processes: process details could just be encoded as binary or xml and interpreted by the web application. You then have the most robust solution.
I cant say what the best way would be but using Windows Workflow Foundation for such long running processes is definitely one way to go about it.
You can do tracking of the process to see what stage it is at, even persist it if you have steps where it is awaiting user input etc.
WF provides a lot of features out of the box (especially if your storage medium is SQL Server) and may be a good option to consider.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WF/WF4Extensions.aspx might help give you some more insight into the same.
I think you are in the right track. You should run the process asynchronously, store the execution somewhere (a table), and keep status of the running process in there.
Your user should see a pending display label while the process is executing, and a finished label with the result when the process finished. If the user closed the browser, she will see the result of her running process next time she logs in.
I've seen a lot of other developers refer to threads in ActionScript functions. As a newbie I have no idea what they are referring to so:
What is a thread in this sense?
How would I run more than one thread at a time?
How do I ensure that I am only running one thread at a time?
Thanks
~mike
Threads represent a way to have a program appear to perform several jobs concurrently. Although whether or not the jobs can actually occur simultaneously is dependent on several factors (most importantly, whether the CPU the program is running on has multiple cores available to do the work). Threads are useful because they allow work to be done in one context without interfering with another context.
An example will help to illustrate why this is important. Suppose that you have a program which fetches the list of everyone in the phone book whose name matches some string. When people click the "search" button, it will trigger a costly and time-consuming search, which might not complete for a few seconds.
If you have only a single-threaded execution model, the UI will hang and be unresponsive until the search completes. Your program has no choice but to wait for the results to finish.
But if you have several threads, you can offload the search operation to a different thread, and then have a callback -- a trigger which is invoked when the work is completed -- to let you know that things are ready. This frees up the UI and allows it to continue to respond to events.
Unfortunately, because ActionScript's execution model doesn't support threads natively, it's not possible to get true threading. There is a rough approximation called "green threads", which are threads that are controlled by an execution context or virtual machine rather than a larger operating system, which is how it's usually done. Several people have taken a stab at it, although I can't say how widespread their usage is. You can read more at Alex Harui's blog here and see an example of green threads for ActionScript here.
It really depends on what you mean. The execution model for ActionScript is single-threaded, meaning it can not run a process in the background.
If you are not familiar with threading, it is essentially the ability to have something executed in the background of a main process.
So, if you needed to do a huge mathematical computation in your flex/flash project, with a multi-threaded program you could do that in the background while you simultaneously updated your UI. Because ActionScript is not multi-threaded you can not do such things. However, you can create a pseudo-threading class as demonstrated here:
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui/pseudothread/PseudoThread.as
The others have described what threading is, and you'd need threading if you were getting hardcore into C++ and 3D game engines, among many other computationally-expensive operations, and languages that support multi-threading.
Actionscript doesn't have multi-threading. It executes all code in one frame. So if you create a for loop that processes 100,000,000 items, it will cause the app to freeze. That's because the Flash Player can only execute one thread of code at a time, per frame.
You can achieve pseudo-threading by using:
Timers
Event.ENTER_FRAME
Those allow you to jump around and execute code.
Tween engines like TweenMax can operate on 1000's of objects at once over a few seconds by using Timers. You can also do this with Event.ENTER_FRAME. There is something called "chunking" (check out Grant Skinner's AS3 Optimizations Presentation), which says "execute computationally expensive tasks over a few frames", like drawing complex bitmaps, which is a pseudo-multi-threading thing you can do with actionscript.
A lot of other things are asynchronous, like service calls. If you make an HTTPService request in Flex, it will send a request to the server and then continue executing code in that frame. Once it's done, the server can still be processing that request (say it's saving a 30mb video to a database on the server), and that might take a minute. Then it will send something back to Flex and you can continue code execution with a ResultEvent.RESULT event handler.
So Actionscript basically uses:
Asynchronous events, and
Timers...
... to achieve pseudo-multi-threading.
a thread allows you to execute two or more blocks of actionscrpt simultaniously by default you will always be executing on the same default thread unless you explcitly start a new thread.
I know there's a bunch of APIs out there that do this, but I also know that the hosting environment (being ASP.NET) puts restrictions on what you can reliably do in a separate thread.
I could be completely wrong, so please correct me if I am, this is however what I think I know.
A request typically timeouts after 120 seconds (this is configurable) but eventually the ASP.NET runtime will kill a request that's taking too long to complete.
The hosting environment, typically IIS, employs process recycling and can at any point decide to recycle your app. When this happens all threads are aborted and the app restarts. I'm however not sure how aggressive it is, it would be kind of stupid to assume that it would abort a normal ongoing HTTP request but I would expect it to abort a thread because it doesn't know anything about the unit of work of a thread.
If you had to create a programming model that easily and reliably and theoretically put a long running task, that would have to run for days, how would you accomplish this from within an ASP.NET application?
The following are my thoughts on the issue:
I've been thinking a long the line of hosting a WCF service in a win32 service. And talk to the service through WCF. This is however not very practical, because the only reason I would choose to do so, is to send tasks (units of work) from several different web apps. I'd then eventually ask the service for status updates and act accordingly. My biggest concern with this is that it would NOT be a particular great experience if I had to deploy every task to the service for it to be able to execute some instructions. There's also this issue of input, how would I feed this service with data if I had a large data set and needed to chew through it?
What I typically do right now is this
SELECT TOP 10 *
FROM WorkItem WITH (ROWLOCK, UPDLOCK, READPAST)
WHERE WorkCompleted IS NULL
It allows me to use a SQL Server database as a work queue and periodically poll the database with this query for work. If the work item completed with success, I mark it as done and proceed until there's nothing more to do. What I don't like is that I could theoretically be interrupted at any point and if I'm in-between success and marking it as done, I could end up processing the same work item twice. I might be a bit paranoid and this might be all fine but as I understand it there's no guarantee that that won't happen...
I know there's been similar questions on SO before but non really answers with a definitive answer. This is a really common thing, yet the ASP.NET hosting environment is ill equipped to handle long-running work.
Please share your thoughts.
Have a look at NServiceBus
NServiceBus is an open source
communications framework for .NET with
build in support for publish/subscribe
and long-running processes.
It is a technology build upon MSMQ, which means that your messages don't get lost since they are persisted to disk. Nevertheless the Framework has an impressive performance and an intuitive API.
John,
I agree that ASP.NET is not suitable for Async tasks as you have described them, nor should it be. It is designed as a web hosting platform, not a back of house processor.
We have had similar situations in the past and we have used a solution similar to what you have described. In summary, keep your WCF service under ASP.NET, use a "Queue" table with a Windows Service as the "QueueProcessor". The client should poll to see if work is done (or use messaging to notify the client).
We used a table that contained the process and it's information (eg InvoicingRun). On that table was a status (Pending, Running, Completed, Failed). The client would submit a new InvoicingRun with a status of Pending. A Windows service (the processor) would poll the database to get any runs that in the pending stage (you could also use SQL Notification so you don't need to poll. If a pending run was found, it would move it to running, do the processing and then move it to completed/failed.
In the case where the process failed fatally (eg DB down, process killed), the run would be left in a running state, and human intervention was required. If the process failed in an non-fatal state (exception, error), the process would be moved to failed, and you can choose to retry or have human intervantion.
If there were multiple processors, the first one to move it to a running state got that job. You can use this method to prevent the job being run twice. Alternate is to do the select then update to running under a transaction. Make sure either of these outside a transaction larger transaction. Sample (rough) SQL:
UPDATE InvoicingRun
SET Status = 2 -- Running
WHERE ID = 1
AND Status = 1 -- Pending
IF ##RowCount = 0
SELECT Cast(0 as bit)
ELSE
SELECT Cast(1 as bit)
Rob
Use a simple background tasks / jobs framework like Hangfire and apply these best practice principals to the design of the rest of your solution:
Keep all actions as small as possible; to achieve this, you should-
Divide long running jobs into batches and queue them (in a Hangfire queue or on a bus of another sort)
Make sure your small jobs (batched parts of long jobs) are idempotent (have all the context they need to run in any order). This way you don't have to use a quete which maintains a sequence; because then you can
Parallelise the execution of jobs in your queue depending on how many nodes you have in your web server farm. You can even control how much load this subjects your farm to (as a trade off to servicing web requests). This ensures that you complete the whole job (all batches) as fast and as efficiently as possible, while not compromising your cluster from servicing web clients.
Have thought about the use the Workflow Foundation instead of your custom implementation? It also allows you to persist states. Tasks could be defined as workflows in this case.
Just some thoughts...
Michael