I am developing an ASP.NET application that will be hosted as an Azure web app. Part of the app will continuously record multiple web-based cameras by retrieving a snapshot every N seconds. I would like to design the app so that the processes that record the cameras can be run on multiple instances. I would like it to load balance between all instances, but not duplicate effort for any one camera.
For example, if I have 100 cameras, and am running on 2 instances, I want each instance to get 50 cameras to process. If I have 5 instances, each instance should get 20 cameras to process. As I add cameras or scale instances up/down I would like for the system to load balance the work evenly.
If it's feasible, I would rather not spin up dedicated VMs just for processing cameras, due to increased cost.
I'm somewhat familiar with Akka.NET, Hangfire, and WebJobs, but am unclear if these will help in this scenario. I have used Hangfire and WebJobs to do background processing, but not with this sort of load-balancing requirement. Will these or some other framework or tool help me load balance these background tasks evenly across Azure Web App Instances? How should I go about setting up these or another framework to do this?
I honestly don't think you want to try to "balance" the servers. I think you just want to make sure the work is well distributed. If I were you, I would use a queue system like SQS to queue up all of the cameras that need a snapshot and let each instance worker dequeue one at a time and process it.
A good approach could be to have a master server responsible for queueing up the snapshots, and then have all of your workers servers simply work out of this shared queue. Even if one server happens to process more than the others, that is fine since the others were working out of the same queue. It just means that this server was able to process its jobs more quickly than the others.
To be honest, there are a lot of ways to approach this. You could do something as simple as just having a shared list of your cameras, with a timestamp for the last snapshot, and use this to work off of. Each server would request a camera, they would look at the list and find one that was stale, and then update the timestamp and perform the snapshot for the camera. The downside to something like this is you are going to struggle with non-atomic operations and the possibility of multiple workers making the request at the same time and both working on the same server. These are the type of things that a queue system will help you with, because as soon as one of those queue items are in flight, they will no longer be available. And also, because each server is responsible for invalidating their items once they are finished, if a server were to crash mid-snapshot, this work would simple go back into the queue.
No matter which solution you choose, it is going to boil down to having a central system/list for serving up stale cameras.
The Azure WebJob SDK uses the Storage Account you set up to balance the work between the various instances that are running your Jobs. You can gain finer control by using a Queue to divide up the work that needs doing and then scale your App Service Plan based on the Queue length.
Here's a rough picture of that architecture:
Related
My stack is uWSGI, flask and nginx currently. I have a need to store data between requests (basically I receive push notifications from another service about events to the server and I want to store those events in the server memory, so client can just query server every n milliseconds, to receive latest update).
Normally this would not work, because of many reasons. One is a good deployment requires you to have several processes in uwsgi in production (and even maybe several machines to scale this out). But my case is very specific: I'm building a web app for a piece of hardware (You can think of your home router configuration page as a good example). This means no need to scale. I also do not have a database (at least not a traditional one) and probably normally 1-2 clients simultaneously.
if I specify --processes 1 --threads 4 in uwsgi, is this enough to ensure the data is kept in the memory as a single instance? Or do I also need to use --threads 1?
I'm also aware that some web servers clear memory randomly from time to time and restart the hosted app. Does nginx/uwsgi do that and where can I read about the rules?
I'd also welcome advises on how to design all of this, if there are better ways to handle this. Please note that I do not consider using any persistant storage for this - this does not worth the effort and may be even impossible due to hardware limitations.
Just to clarify: When I'm talking about one instance of data, I'm thinking of my app.py executing exactly one time and keeping the instances defined there for as long as the server lives.
If you don't need data to persist past a server restart, why not just build a cache object into you application that can do push and pop operations?
A simple array of objects should suffice, one flask route pushes new data to the array and another can pop the data off the array.
Since this question is from a user's (developer's) perspective I figured it might fit better here than on Server Fault.
I'd like an ASP.NET hosting that meets the following criteria:
The application seemingly runs on a single server (so no need to worry about e.g. session state or even static variables)
There is an option to scale storage, memory, DB size and CPU-power up and down on demand, in an "unlimited" way
I researched but there seems not to be such a platform, that completely abstracts the underlying architecture away and thus has the ease of use of a simple shared hosting but "unlimited" scalability.
"Single server" and "scalability" are mutually exclusive, I'm afraid. But a good load-balancer will apply affinity to requests so you don't need to needlessly double-cache data on multiple servers.
However, well-designed web applications are easy to port to a multiple-server scenario.
I think your best option is something like Windows Azure Websites (separate from Azure Web Workers) which run on a VM you don't have access to. The VM itself provides enough power as-is necessary to run your website, so you don't need to worry about allocating extra CPU power or RAM.
Things like SQL Server are handled separately, but is very cheap to run, and you can drag a slider to give yourself more storage space.
This can be still accomplished by using a cloud host like www.gearhost.com. Apps live in the cloud and by default get 1 node worker so session stickiness is maintained. You can then scale that application larger workers to accomplish what you need, all while maintaining HA and LB. Even further you can add multiple web workers. Each visitor is tied to a particular node to maintain session state even though you might have 10 workers for example. It's an easy and cheap way to scale a site with 100 visitors to many million in just a few clicks.
Our client requirement is to develop a WCF which can withstand with 1-2k concurrent website users and response should be around 25 milliseconds.
This service reads couple of columns from database and will be consumed by different vendors.
Can you suggest any architecture or any extra efforts that I need to take while developing. And how do we calculate server hardware configuration to cope up with.
Thanks in advance.
Hardly possible. You need network connection to service, service activation, business logic processing, database connection (another network connection), database query. Because of 2000 concurrent users you need several application servers = network connection is affected by load balancer. I can't imagine network and HW infrastructure which should be able to complete such operation within 25ms for 2000 concurrent users. Such requirement is not realistic.
I guess if you simply try to run the database query from your computer to remote DB you will see that even such simple task will not be completed in 25ms.
A few principles:
Test early, test often.
Successful systems get more traffic
Reliability is usually important
Caching is often a key to performance
To elaborate. Build a simple system right now. Even if the business logic is very simplified, if it's a web service and database access you can performance test it. Test with one user. What do you see? Where does the time go? As you develop the system adding in real code keep doing that test. Reasons: a). right now you know if 25ms is even achievable. b). You spot any code changes that hurt performance immediately. Now test with lots of user, what degradation patterns do you hit? This starts to give you and indication of your paltforms capabilities.
I suspect that the outcome will be that a single machine won't cut it for you. And even if it will, if you're successful you get more traffic. So plan to use more than one server.
And anyway for reliability reasons you need more than one server. And all sorts of interesting implementation details fall out when you can't assume a single server - eg. you don't have Singletons any more ;-)
Most times we get good performance using a cache. Will many users ask for the same data? Can you cache it? Are there updates to consider? in which case do you need a distributed cache system with clustered invalidation? That multi-server case emerging again.
Why do you need WCF?
Could you shift as much of that service as possible into static serving and cache lookups?
If I understand your question 1000s of users will be hitting your website and executing queries on your DB. You should definitely be looking into connection pools on your WCF connections, but your best bet will be to avoid doing DB lookups altogether and have your website returning data from cache hits.
I'd also look into why you couldn't just connect directly to the database for your lookups, do you actually need a WCF service in the way first?
Look into Memcached.
In my ASP.NET MVC application I have a number of threads that wait for a certain length of time and wake up to do some clean tasks over and over. I have not deployed this application to a production server yet but on my dev machine they seem to work as expected. For these threads to work the same on IIS7 do I need to look out for anything? Will IIS7 keep my threads alive indefinitely? are there implications to worry about?
Also I want to queue, lets say 50 objects that were created through various requests and process them all in one go. I'd like to maintain them inside a list and then process the list which means that the list object has to be kept alive indefinitely. I'd like to avoid serializing my objects into the DB in order to maintain this queue. What is the correct way of achieving this?
Will IIS7 keep my threads alive
indefinitely?
No, if the application pool recycles (if there's a long inactivity or some memory threshold is hit) those threads will be stopped as the application will be unloaded from memory. If those objects are so much precise I wouldn't recommend you keeping them in memory but rather serialize them to some persistent storage so that they could be processed later in case of failure.
The design you describe is fine when you don't mind losing cached commands in the queue. Otherwise it would be better to go with a different design. ASP.NET isn't suited for this type of processing, because IIS can recycle the process. When that happens you lose your in-memory queue. IIS could also decide to unload the AppDomain because no new requests are coming in. In that case your threads will also stop running which means that pending operations will still not been cached, even when you use a persisted queue.
You'd probably be better of with some sort of transactional queue, such as MSMQ or a custom table in the database (or look at the open source NServiceBus). Adding operations to the queue can be done by your web application and processing items can be done within a Windows service application that will not be recycled and can process the queue in a transactional way.
Since you're talking about multiple threads: when using a Windows service you can build it in such way that it can run multiple threads or make it single threaded and run several instances of the same thread. This is a very flexible design that I used successfully in the past to distribute CPU and disk intensive operations over multiple machines.
I have two diffrent web services(running on local machine) and pointing to one application pool(1.Can I do that?Is it any performance concern?).I have not much knowledge about how the applicationpool will works.
the other .Net application is using two webservices,but frequently one webservice is not responding which internally calling by ssis package with in the .Net application.
what might be the reason and how to make sure it responds all the time, is there any better way to improve the performance?
if am missing or any further information, Comments Welcome
Yes you can have multiple web applications using to the same application pool.
Is it a performance concern? If it is really high traffic or is faulty code, then perhaps.
Application pools allow pushing sites to different processes, reducing the risk of each affecting the other. If one app pool contains an application/web application that has a memory leak, the leak will only affect that particular process, at least directly. Each process can be recycled either by time or system parameters, which mitigates risks of having something in a bad state.
Performance? Another benefit to app pools is the ability to have multiple instances running simultaneously (a similar thing when putting each app in its own pool). The benefit of this is that more request can be handled at a time. The down-side is that you cannot use in-process session state and your application state will be duplicated for each instance of the process. You would need to consider how much 'stuff' you keep in session and how your caching scheme would be effected, but, it has potential for giving a web application more scalability.
You mention call SSIS... I am assuming that is a long-running service, so you would probably want to push the call to that process to some sort of queue that can process outside of the web service request. MSMQ might work for you. If using a queue as such, you would initiate the running of the code, then have a way of checking on the status of the call to see if it is done.
I agree with Greg Ogle but one more point I think is worth mentioning. Splitting the applications into multiple app pools will also give you an added benefit when it comes to troubleshooting if there are any issues. If you have the various applications split out, you can tell specifically what app pool is related to what w3wp.exe process in the time of need. Like say when that w3wp.exe process is taking 98% of your cpu.