I've created web application that has a sub that builds a contacts list. This sub fetches phone numbers and email address from a contacts db based on ids that are provided by a user. At it's fastest, the application will process about four ids per second. With 200-300 ids at any given time, the completion time is long.
Time is not really the problem, it's end user status updates. I've created a very crude web service that reads the "CurrentRecordNumber" that is stored in a session variable as the app loops through the ids. I intend to use javascript to call the webmethod from the app periodically to update status.
My problem is that when debugging, the webmethod call will complete successfully, but not until the app is finished processing.
This seems like a very simple problem. I must not be using the right terms because my results seem overly complicated.
I'm very new to asynchronous features of ASP.NET so please forgive. I have, however, written some Winforms that incorporate multiple threads so I have a basic understanding of threading.
This is due to the way ASP.NET treats session. You haven't said whether you are using webforms or MVC, but MVC has a quick workaround for this.
First, the problem:
SessionState is designed to be accessed by one request at a time, in the order received by the server. Think of this as a queue at the bank with only one bank teller available. The first person in line is the first to be helped (though this is on a per-session basis, not a per-user).
ASP.NET locks all other requests that require SessionState from executing until the previous one is done.
I haven't tried to correct this problem in web forms, but the easiest way I know of would be to not require SessionState on your progress check.
In MVC, there's a SessionState attribute that can be applied to the controller or method, indicating that there's no chance of a call to that method overwriting SessionState. As long as your call is read-only, you can make your controller code use this attribute to allow multiple async requests simultaneously:
<SessionState(SessionStateBehavior.ReadOnly)>
Public Class MyController
Related
I am trying to understand the various ways of storing and instantiating Application (i.e. objects available to every user) and Session level (objects created and available to users only for their session) variables. Also, how does OWIN fit into all of this?
Global.asax.cs - This can contain a bunch of different methods. I believe that Application_Start is only called during the first request. However, there are a few candidates here for methods to populate session level variables (e.g. Session_Start and Application_BeginRequest). What is the standard way of doing this?
There is also the Startup class used by OWIN. I get that OWIN lets you store Application level variables, but why wouldn't you just use the HttpApplicationState Application variable accessible from Global.asax.cs to accomplish this? Also - can OWIN handle Session variables?
"I believe that Application_Start is only called during the first
request."
Only for the first request after calling the web application. For instance, this is the case after deploying, ApplicationPool Recycling, restarting or coming out of sleep.
Let's assume 3 users visit your web application. Application_Start will only be called for one of them, specifically the first one that visits it. Therefore it is not suited for populating user-specific session values.
However, there are a few candidates here for methods to populate session level variables (e.g. Session_Start and Application_BeginRequest). What is the standard way of doing this?
In the past I've worked with Session_Start to initialize user-specific session values (like default values) on numerous projects and never had an issue with it.
I'm really not sure what the question is, as I said in the comments. I'm going to ignore the OWIN stuff since I don't know, frankly.
Firstly, try not to store state at all. Design to pass state back and forth between server and client in models, or the URL, even in the HTML on the client such as in the URLs in the <a> tags your rendering, or (rarely) in cookies, rather than keep things in memory. Stateless designs are way more scalable.
Storing state isn't "usually" done in the Global.asax but then what's usual? I store state as and when I need it, load it or otherwise come by that data. For me in MVC, that's usually downstream of a Controller action, maybe while logging someone in, or reading some data received in a model, like a customer clicking 'add to cart'.
Application state I rarely use, though I store long-lived and shared data within normal fields and properties in long-lived static classes. These die when the app is recycled, but I don't usually care since the apps are designed to work without it, stateless; its usually cached bits of data.
Also, Session_Start only fires when a new browser/agent hits the site. You don't know the user at that point.
The methods in the Global.asax were not specifically designed for 'bootstrapping' state-loading, they're just convenient events for doing whatever you want with. You don't have to use them at all, mine usually just contain logging so I know when sessions start etc.!
I don't know if this helps.
Once you have a plan, come back and ask a targeted question about the OWIN stuff.
I have an asp.net 3.5 web application which generates alot of audit related data. Since that data isn't immediately relevant to the user, I'd like to be able to save it to the MSSQL database asynchronously and let the user go onto the next page without waiting. I'm using Nhibernate as my ORM.
I've looked into PageAsyncTasks and as far as I can tell they simply allow you to perform page operations in parallel, but all operations still have to complete before the page finishes loading. Is there an alternative, fairly lightweight method to have asynchronous processing that will continue on without affecting page load? Is simply spinning up a new thread manually an acceptable process?
You could create a web service within your solution and when your server-side code is finished and ready to move the user on to the next page it could call your web service to do the auditing as a fire and forget type thing.
Not sure if the NHibernate session is threadsafe so if you create a new thread be careful with the context.
Ideally you could use queues and a servicebus to deal with this sort of thing safely and async but that involves architectural changes.
Not sure if this is possible but if the auditing is actually noticeably slowing the UI down maybe you'd be better off to improve that process and keep it synchronous. Either way, good luck.
Is it possible to cache a page render on an iis web server, but still receive and write query string values (that don't affect output) to the database? So that the page render does not have to wait for the database trip to execute in order to serve the page? If possible, how do I implement?
For example, we track various affiliate and search marketing data via query strings, and in the master page code behind, we write the given query string data to the database. The output of the page doesn't change at all for the user (however we may set a cookie based off the qs parameter).
My understanding is that the page render has to wait for the database trip to fully execute in order to render the page. Is that even true?
Yes in general though it can depend on how one handles the caching.
First, you should move that tracking stuff to where it belongs -- a HttpModule. Page need not concern itself. Second, what you probably want to look into is some sort of fire and forget service call or message queueing. This makes the database write a non-blocking operation rather than a blocking operation.
Some options for making the operation non-blocking:
if you are actually writing to a web service, there is an underappreciated [OperationContract(IsOneWay = true)] decoration. Tells the generated proxy to fire and forget the call, will not wait for a response.
Another option would be to use the Asynchronous ADO.NET bits, especially BeginExecuteNonQuery. If you don't handle the callback this should just execute off your thread.
You could always just spawn a thread and deal with it in a non-blocking manner yourself. Just be real careful about handling errors on this thread -- unhandled exceptions will take out the app domain.
I have a web service that executes a task that may take hours to finish (asynchronously)
I would like to share the status of that task by all the clients that connects to the server (I'm using a web application for this)
For example, the first client that calls the page http://localhost/process.aspx
will instantiate the web service and it will call a method to start executing the task. A percentage number will be displayed showing the status of completion. I can do this by polling the web service using AJAX.
If there is another client that tries to opens that page, it should get the same percentage information so no new instances of the web service are created.
How is the best way of doing this?
I thought about different solutions but sooner or later I find new problems.
These are some of the possible alternatives:
Create an static object of the Web service.
Create the object in the global.asax file.
Do you guys have any other ideas? I'm not too familiar designing web sites and this is driving me crazy. I would appreciate if you guys could provide some code snippets.
Thanks
The issue is ensuring that the information pertaining to the single instance of a process is stored in exactly one place.
Your initial thinking can be applied, for instance, by using the Application object, but that will break down in a clustered IIS scenario.
I am not posative that a database is the absolute best solution, but I believe it would give you what you want.
If 100 clients try to start the process at the same time, only one can succeed, right? The databases locking facility will help you make that happen.
There's a method (I'm assuming WCF for the web service) that allows you to have exactly one instance of the service run... link
I think this is what you are trying to accomplish.
Assuming I have understood your requirements correctly. Your webservice should not be creating the instance of the “worker” object.
Your webservice request should log to either a database (as the other poster noted) or a messagequeue of somesort. At this point your “worker” processer (probably some type of service) should take over the job as it requires.
Basically you want to break up your application into something like this
| Webservice | ---------- | Datastore |-----------| Worker |
Any further requests regarding the batch should be managed by the webservice querying the datastore.
Remember webservices are NOT DESIGNED TO DO WORK.
I have an ASP.NET application that starts a long running operation during the Event Handler phase in the ASP.NET Page life cycle. This occurs when the end user pushes a button a bunch of queries are made to a database, a bunch of maps are generated, and then a movie is made from jpeg images of the maps. This process can take over a minute to complete.
Here's a link to the application
http://maxim.ucsd.edu/mapmaker/cbeo.aspx
I've tried using a thread from the threadpool, creating and launching my own thread and using AsyncCallback framework. The problem is that the new thread is run under a different userid. I assume the main thread is run under ASPNET, the new thread is run under AD\MAXIM$ where MAXIM is the hostname. I know this because there is an error when it tries to connect to the database.
Why is the new thread under a different userid?
If I can figure out the userid issue, what I'd like to do is check if the movie making process has finished by examining a Session variable in a Page_Load method, then add a link to the page to access the movie.
Does anyone have any good examples of using concurrency in a ASP.NET application that uses or creates threads in an EventHandler callback?
Thanks,
Matt
Did you read this?: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163725.aspx
Quoting one relevant portion from that link (you should read the whole thing):
A final point to keep in mind as you build asynchronous pages is that you should not launch asynchronous operations that borrow from the same thread pool that ASP.NET uses.
Not addressing the specific problem you asked about, but this is likely to come up soon:
At what point is this video used?
If it's displayed in the page or downloaded by the user, what does the generated html that the browser uses to get the video look like? The browser has to call that video somewhere using a separate http request, and you might do better by creating a separate http handler (*.ashx file) to handle that request, and just writing the url for that handler in your page.
If it's for storage or view elsewhere you should consider just saving the information needed to create the video at this point and deferring the actual work until the video is finally requested.
The problem is that the new thread is run under a different userid. I assume the main thread is run under ASPNET, the new thread is run under AD\MAXIM$ where MAXIM is the hostname.
ASPNET is a local account, when the request travels over a network it will use the computer's credentials (AD\MAXIM$).
What may be happening, is that you're running under impersonation in the request - and without in the ThreadPool. If that's the case, you might be able to store the current WindowsIdentity for the request, and then impersonate that identity in the ThreadPool.
Or, just let the ThreadPool hit the DB with Sql Authentication (username and password).