I understand that having one app pool per app helps isolate errors in one app from impacting other apps.
However, sometimes apps are configured to share the same pool.
Is there any benefit to this, other than having the (memory?) overhead of one-app-per-pool?
Does this configuration permit scenarios not possible in one-app-per-pool?
Maybe in-pool inter-process communication? (Or rather, inter-app communication, since the apps share the same w3wp worker process)
To my knowledge there is no inter-app communication benefit (specifically, if you have two applications in the same pool which both happen to load the exact same dll file, it will still load it twice, you're not saving there).
The advantage is in managing resource limitations. Letting two apps share 500MB is more flexible than each app getting its own 250MB (or my personal favourite way of describing this, you're better off with 2 bathrooms for 4 people, than 1 bathroom for 2 people). You lose isolation, but you gain some headroom on resources (assuming the two applications peak at different times).
Related
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.
I would like to ask you what is the best setup for a following application:
ASP.NET 3.5 Web site - used as a presentation layer, a lot of AJAX and JS. Will not hit the server a lot.
ASP.NET WCF - sevice providing all data to the application. It's responsible for validation, data modeling / preparing and communication with the DB Server.
Database - SQL Server 2005 Std, some logic is coded on the server side as stored procedures. Some of the logic can be a bit time consuming. In my opinion it's the most resource consuming part of the app.
The website can have up to 1000 users per minute. We can have up to 4 servers in the following configuration: Intel Bi Xeon Quad 8x 2.00+ GHz, 16 GB RAM, SSD or RAID drives.
What is the best way to place parts of the application on the physical servers? Will they handle this kind of load?
The less scalable place in any application is database server, you can add more web and application servers but you can't replicate DB with the same ease so you will benefit in a long run if DB will not contain any logic especially any long running logic. In a lot of the applications limiting factor is not cpu but memory think about user sessions if you store 1mb of data per user you applications will be able to support 64,000 silmantanius user sessions with you machines it may be sufficient or not. Both problems can be mitigated by using application level caching but this can cause it own set of problems because now you faced with stale data. To scale session based sites you will need to use smart load balancer solution that supports sticky sessions, for your loads most likely you will need hardware load balancer.
In the application you describe, I suspect that thread management is going to be a big issue. Throwing hardware at the problem may not be the best approach.
In terms of partitioning, it depends on whether you can leverage things like caching and cache notifications. If every call to the app has to hit the DB and run a lengthy stored procedure, then you may want to have more DB machines and fewer front-end web servers.
This is a big subject. In an attempt to provide a reasonably comprehensive answer to exactly this kind of question, I ended up writing a book about it: Ultra-Fast ASP.NET: Build Ultra-Fast and Ultra-Scalable web sites using ASP.NET and SQL Server.
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.
My Company is running several international websites for selling insurance products.
Our current setup is a Webfarm with multiple Loadbalanced Webservers hosting our ASP.NET applications. The backend is a single - yet powerful - SQL Server. (all in one data center)
Our network admins want to move to virtual servers running on VMWare.
Scenarios could be
Webfarm: Multiple standard webservers, Loadbalanced (current setup), Session state on SQL Server
Virtual Webfarm: Multiple virtual servers, loadbalanced on one physical VMWare Host, Session state on SQL Server
2.a same as above but with multiple physical hosts
Single Virtual Webserver: One big powerful virtual webserver, no loadbalancing required, session state can be kept in process
There is a big hype around virtualization and I can see the benefits, but have no experience with this. I cannot tell what issues we will face and to what we should pay special attention.
Does anyone have experience with such a virtual setup?
What are general recommendations?
I tend towards 2a. I am afraid of having all webservers on one single physical machine.
Many thanks in advance to share your thoughts.
There are three reasons to use more than one webserver for an application:
Scaling - More grunt is required than one machine can provide
Reliability - Website should keep running in case of failure (a. hardware b. software)
Prioritization - One of the webservers takes on heavy work (perhaps scheduled tasks) leaving the other to respond to client requests quickly.
Marrying that up to you scenarios:
Scenario 1 provides 1, 2, 3
Scenario 2 provides 2b (perhaps 2a if it is fully hardware redundant (doubt it))
Scenario 2a provides 1, 2
Scenario 3 provides none of the above
Advantages of Virtual Hosting:
Lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) on big cluster serving multiple purposes is cost effective
New servers can be created quickly if needed
Redundant hardware is easier to justify if the cost is shared among many applications
Disadvantages:
Other virtual machines may suck away your CPU/Disk IO capacity
IMHO there is little point to load balancing multiple virtual machines on the same virtual server.
Robert's pretty much covered it all, I'm mostly just adding a note to say that at least one of our clients is currently running with option 2a.
So we have multiple loadbalanced web servers running on a couple of VM hosts, talking to a non-virtualised SQL cluster - this works quite well for them.
One other advantage of virtualisation is that it allows you to more fully utilise your hardware - however, you need to be aware that if you're running your virtual host at around 90% capacity with multiple VMs, you've not got a lot of spare capacity for any traffic spikes - if you're not expecting any, then great, but if you are, you'll need to have something in place to cope.
I agree with all of the above answers, and I actually work at a webhost. :-) If you're using multiple load-balanced webservers now then I can only assume the reason for it is either
Hardware Redundancy: If a single app server fails then those sessions are lost, but the app keeps running on the other servers and users can immediately re-connect.
or
Application Load Distribution (it's late so I can't think of a better name): Your traffic dictates that you have multiple app servers since all of your users would crash a single app server.
If #1 is the reason, then going to VMWare defeats the purpose since you only have one server supporting everything, and in case of hard drive crash, etc, you are down while it is repaired. If #2 is the reason then a VMWare based solution MAY work, however keep in mind that the hardware you'd use would almost necessarily be of a higher caliber than what you're currently using. So you maybe get more bang for your buck, but you STLL lose the redundancy that multiple physical machines gave you.
Now, you could always combine the two by having multiple physical machines all running VMWare, but that adds a level of complexity to things that you may not necessarily want either.
It doesn't sound like there would be any tangible benefit from running multiple virtual servers on the same physical host, you're just adding overhead. Unless I'm missing something with the way you've described the setup, there wouldn't be any benefit at all from moving to VMware - unless you're looking at taking advantage of features such as VMotion
VMware is most useful for consolidating underutilized hardware. If your hardware is running at near-capacity during peak periods then you don't want to run multiple VMs on the one machine.
There are benefits to Virtualization but your network admins need to prove that there is a benefit for your company before you even consider switching. I would say if you have multiple apps running on dedicated servers with low traffic (i.e. each app has it's own physical server) then sure, Virtualize. If you have one app over many servers, then don't.
You should be able to use virtual machine hosts with multiple vm per host and load balance across all of them.
Microsoft is doing this with msdn and technet http://virtualization.info/en/news/2008/05/microsoft-migrates-msdn-and-technet-on.html.
I'm working on a .net portal which would be having lots of concurrent users.
so scalability,performance need to be addressed in the design and architecture.
We plan to use load balancing in the application.
Keeping this in mind,what would be the best way of communicating between IIS web server(hosting aspx,aspx.cs files) and application server (hosting .net assemblies like business logic and data access layer)?
Should it be .net remoting or soap web service?or is there any other approach?
Thanks.
Is there another approach? Yes - don't distribute your objects.
The most scalable approach is to NOT to distribute your objects away from each other. Ask yourself, why do you want to deploy one flavor of code to an "app server" while another flavor of code goes to a "web server"? The communication that goes on between those two layers, if they are distributed, will be much much much much (etc etc) more expensive than a local call.
With today's 64-bit servers, with all of that memory, and the hot CPUs, and with ASP.NET's superior memory management, why not put your business logic and DAL on the same physical machine as the ASPX files? Why not?
If you need to scale, add more servers. Simple.
There are good reasons, of course, to distribute. The most common good reasons have to do with domains of ownership - along several axes: security management, or even budget and control. In other words, to take the latter case, if team is responsible for running the business logic and a separate team is responsible for building and running the web layer -then it may make sense to distribute those two things to allow independence of management. Most of the good reasons for distributing computer code, have their origins in the structures of the human organizations using or developing the code.
There is no good technical reason why a web page should not run on the same CPU, sharing the same CLR VM and memory heap, as the database access layer.
Regardless what you do with distribution, it would be unwise to architect your system with less-than-formal interfaces defining the connections between the layers. If you keep formal interfaces, then it should be no problem for you to measure the perf and efficiency of a distributed approach versus a co-located approach.
Do you really need an app server? Just how big are you talking exactly? For example Stackoverflow.com has ~50k uniques a day and doesn't have an app server so I assume you are talking much bigger than that? Most performance bottle necks come down to database issues so I would concentrate on that.
I suggest you take a look at the Patterns and Practices groups guidelines for performance, more specifically Chapter 6 - Improving ASP.NET Performance of the guideline. I agree with Cheeso that you should seriously consider NOT physically splitting your application layer and UI layer if you can. The P&P guideline has the following notes:
Avoid Unnecessary Process Hops
Although process hops are not as expensive as machine hops, you should avoid process hops where possible. Process hops cause added overhead because they require interprocess communication (IPC) and marshaling. For example, if your solution uses Enterprise Services, use library applications where possible, unless you need to put your Enterprise Services application on a remote middle tier.
Understand the Performance Implications of a Remote Middle Tier
If possible, avoid the overhead of interprocess and intercomputer communication. Unless your business requirements dictate the use of a remote middle tier, keep your presentation, business, and data access logic on the Web server. Deploy your business and data access assemblies to the Bin directory of your application. However, you might require a remote middle tier for any of the following reasons:
You want to share your business logic between your Internet-facing Web applications and other internal enterprise applications.
Your scale-out and fault tolerance requirements dictate the use of a middle tier cluster or of load-balanced servers.
Your corporate security policy mandates that you cannot put business logic on your Web servers.
If you absolutely have to split the application logic up anyways, you could use WCF as a transport mechanism. I'm not sure how it stacks up against remoting when it comes to performance. However, I seem to remember that this is the guideline Microsoft is pushing.
Clemens Vasters (Technical Lead for the Microsoft .NET Service Bus) talks about WCF vs. Remoting in this answer on MSDN forums.
Learn to write asynchronously.
Explore the CCR runtime for example.
Each thread that is blocked waiting for IO responses is one less available to your system.
Turn off 'idealised logging' leave the ability to switch it back on via admin console. But logging is often a hidden bottle neck.
CACHE CACHE CACHE!
If it was expensive to get the data the first time, don't pay for it the second!
Avoid ASP.net's Session State - This can seriously bloat and lead to a large slow down in page responsiveness.
Modify the http headers to specify short browser caching (5sec - 20sec) (Depends on the nature of the content)
Utilise GZIP while you are at it!
AND USE LOTS OF RAM
Here are my tips
1)Move all your static files - images , css, js to a load balancer like nginx. This will greatly reduce the load on IIS server and it will have enough free resources to serve the main request.
2)Think about caching and avoiding database access altogether.
3)Try to implement REST principles are far as possible.
4)Keep session state to a bare minimum - if possible avoid it altogether.
There are some good performance and scalability points in these articles from Omar Al Zabir.
10 ASP.NET Performance and Scalability Secrets
and
99.99% available ASP.NET and SQL Server SaaS Production Architecture
(also check out his book Building a Web 2.0 Portal with ASP.NET 3.5)