I have an IIS hosted WCF webservice.
It has a method on it (let's call it "ConfirmOrder"). When this method is called, I want to
1. Do some quick stuff to the database, resulting in an OrderId
2. Start a new thread that will do some slow work (e.g. generate an email and send it)
3. Return the OrderId from 1. synchronously to the client.
4. Eventually, when it's finished, the new thread created in 2. will have done all the rest of the processing and sent the email.
Questions:
(1) I did have code like:
// do printing and other tasks
OrderConfirmedThreadHelper helper = new OrderConfirmedThreadHelper(userSession, result);
// some things first (like generating barcodes) in this thread
Logger.Write(basket.SessionId, String.Format("Before ConfirmOrderSync"), LogCategoryEnum.Sales, System.Diagnostics.TraceEventType.Verbose);
helper.ConfirmOrderSync();
Logger.Write(basket.SessionId, String.Format("After ConfirmOrderSync"), LogCategoryEnum.Sales, System.Diagnostics.TraceEventType.Verbose);
// slower things (like rendering, sending email) in a separate thread
Thread helperThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(helper.ConfirmOrderAsync));
helperThread.Start();
return result;
but it seemed to cause problems; at least, the service kept locking up. Is this a bad thing to do?
(2) I tried changing it to
// slower things (like rendering, sending email) in a separate thread
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(helper.ConfirmOrderAsync));
but the ThreadPool thread seems to be being killed as soon as the main thread has finished, because it's a Background thread.
Is there a better way of doing this - short of writing a whole new windows service to communicate with?
If the second thead finishes after the request thread (the one that comes from the browser) you're in problems, since it'll get reclaimed by the runtime and terminated.
If you can afford to wait (if it's only going to send an email i'll be a couple of seconds) you can use ManualResetEvent to synchronize one thread to wait for the other to finish and clean up gracefully.
If you can't wait, well the best choice in this case for the mail process is one of the following
A Windows Service.
An .ashx you can call from your client code with a jquery ajax call passing the necessary data to send the mail.
A batch job (a scheduled task, a sql server job, etc) that reads pending mails to be sent from the DB and sends them. It would run every X minutes, so you wouldn't have to worry
Hope that helps!
Related
Do I need to do anything to make all requests asynchronous or are they automatically handled that way?
I ran some tests and it appears that each request comes in on its own thread, but I figure better to ask as I might have tested wrong.
Update: (I have a bad habit of not explaining fully - sorry) Here's my concern. A client browser makes a REST request to my server of http://data.domain/com/employee_database/?query=state:Colorado. That comes in to the appropriate method in the controller. That method queries the database and returns an object which is then turned into a JSON structure and returned to the calling app.
Now let's say 10,000 clients all make a similar query to the same server. So I have 10,000 requests coming in at once. Will my controller method be called simultaneously in 10,000 distinct threads? Or must the first request return before the second request is called?
I'm not asking about the code in my handler method having asynchronous components. For my case the request becomes a single SQL query so the code has nothing that can be handled asynchronously. And until I get the requested data, I can't return from the method.
No REST is not async by default. the request are handled synchronously. However, your web server (IIS) has a number of max threads setting which can work at the same time, and it maintains a queue of the request received. So, the request goes in the queue and if a thread is available it gets executed else, the request waits in the IIS queue till a thread is available
I think you should be using async IO/operations such as database calls in your case. Yes in Web Api, every request has its own thread, but threads can run out if there are many consecutive requests. Also threads use memory so if your api gets hit by too many request it may put pressure on your system.
The benefit of using async over sync is that you use your system resources wisely. Instead of blocking the thread while it is waiting for the database call to complete in sync implementation, the async will free the thread to handle more requests or assign it what ever process needs a thread. Once IO (database) call completes, another thread will take it from there and continue with the implementation. Async will also make your api run faster if your IO operations take longer to complete.
To be honest, your question is not very clear. If you are making an HTTP GET using HttpClient, say the GetAsync method, request is fired and you can do whatever you want in your thread until the time you get the response back. So, this request is asynchronous. If you are asking about the server side, which handles this request (assuming it is ASP.NET Web API), then asynchronous or not is up to how you implemented your web API. If your action method, does three things, say 1, 2, and 3 one after the other synchronously in blocking mode, the same thread is going to the service the request. On the other hand, say #2 above is a call to a web service and it is an HTTP call. Now, if you use HttpClient and you make an asynchronous call, you can get into a situation where one request is serviced by more than one thread. For that to happen, you should have made the HTTP call from your action method asynchronously and used async keyword. In that case, when you call await inside the action method, your action method execution returns and the thread servicing your request is free to service some other request and ultimately when the response is available, the same or some other thread will continue from where it was left off previously. Long boring answer, perhaps but difficult to explain just through words by typing, I guess. Hope you get some clarity.
UPDATE:
Your action method will execute in parallel in 10,000 threads (ideally). Why I'm saying ideally is because a CLR thread pool having 10,000 threads is not typical and probably impractical as well. There are physical limits as well as limits imposed by the framework as well but I guess the answer to your question is that the requests will be serviced in parallel. The correct term here will be 'parallel' but not 'async'.
Whether it is sync or async is your choice. You choose by the way to write your action. If you return a Task, and also use async IO under the hood, it is async. In other cases it is synchronous.
Don't feel tempted to slap async on your action and use Task.Run. That is async-over-sync (a known anti-pattern). It must be truly async all the way down to the OS kernel.
No framework can make sync IO automatically async, so it cannot happen under the hood. Async IO is callback-based which is a severe change in programming model.
This does not answer what you should do of course. That would be a new question.
I have a web service that receives requests from users and returns some json. I need to save the json string in the database so for the moment, the write query occurs before the response is sent back.
Is there a way to send the response first and then do the write query, after the response left the web service?
Thanks.
There's a couple of different options here - they all have tradeoffs, though, and would be pretty esoteric. You don't mention why you want to do this, so I'm guessing performance. If that's the case, I think you're barking up the wrong tree - a simple write is almost certainly not your performance problem.
So, off the top of my head:
Queuing, as Ragesh mentions, would be a nice approach. This gets you similar semantics of a transaction, while off loading the write. You still have to write to the queue, though, which may be about the same overhead as writing to the DB.
You could spawn a new thread (using either the ThreadPool or System.Threading.Thread - there's some debates about which is preferable in ASP.NET) to handle the write. This can generally work, but you may have issues with unhandled exceptions, app domain restarts, etc.
You could store the JSON data into a static or Application variable, then use a Timer to periodically write them to the DB. This will be multithreaded code, so you will need to synchronize read/writes to the collection.
Similar to #3, store the JSON data into Cache and use the invalidation callback to write to the DB.
Lots of variations on store somewhere (memory, disk, flat DB table, etc.), process later (ASP.NET, scheduled task, Windows Service, Sql Agent, etc.).
#frenchie says: a response starts by reading the json string from the db and ends with writing it back. In other words, if the user sends a request, the json string that's going to be read must be the one that was written in the previous response.
That complicates things, since inherent in async work is not knowing when something is done. If you require the async portion (writing back to the DB) to be done before handling the next request, you'll have to execute a wait to make sure it actually completed. In order to do that, you'll need to keep server side state on the client - not exactly a best practice as far as services go (though, it sounds like you're already doing that with these JSON request/response pairs).
Given the complications, I would make sure that you've done your profiling and determined it is indeed a performance problem.
You can do schedule a query work like
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state =>
this.AsynchronousExecuteReference());
// and run
static void AsynchronousExecuteReference()
{
// run here your sql update
}
One other example using Thread inside an class and you can pass parameters to it.
public class RunThreadProcess
{
// Some parametres
public int cProductID;
// my thread
private Thread t = null;
// start it
public Thread Start()
{
t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.work));
t.IsBackground = true;
t.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.MTA);
t.Start();
return t;
}
// actually work
private void work()
{
// do thread work
all parametres are available here
}
}
And here is how I run it
var OneAction = new RunThreadProcess();
OneAction.cProductID = 100;
OneAction.Start();
Do not worry about memory, CG knows that this process is used until the thread ends, so I have check it and CG not delete it and wait the thread to ends.
You should look at using message queues like MSMQ, ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ to do this. When you receive your request, you'll put the relevant data in to the queue, and send your response to the client. At the other end of the queue, you'll have some process that reads from the queue and inserts data in to your database.
this is missing the point of a request/response. unless you want to get into async commands like a service bus, but that's pub/sub, not request/response. the point of request/response is to do the work on the server after receiving the request and before sending the response. even if the work is sending an async message to a service bus.
You could try moving your web service URL to an ASPX page where the lifecycles come in to play.
In the code-behind, call your routine that does the main portion of the work in Page_Load or Page_Prerender (or whenever is appropriate prior to the response being sent) and then do your DB work in the Page_Unload event which occurs after the response has been sent (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/ms178472.aspx).
I'd like to start using asynchronous processing in IIS. Edit: I'm talking about using the task parallel library.
For example, on certain page loads I want to log a bunch of crap, send an email, update some tables, etc. But I don't want to make the user wait for me to log all that crap.
So normally what I do is I have a static Queue that I push the log info onto, and then I have a cron job that calls a special page every 10 minutes whose OnLoad flushes out the queue. This works, but it's kind of clunky to setup, especially when you want to log 50 things. I'd rather do this:
Task.CreateNew(() => Log(theStuff));
However I'm terrified of running tasks in IIS because one slip up and your entire website goes down.
So now I have
SafeTask.FireAndForget(() => Log(theStuff));
This wraps the delegate in some try/catch and passes it into Task.CreateNew. So if someone changes something that affects something else that generates an exception somewhere else that accidentally gets thrown on the task thread, we get a notification instead of a crashed website. Also, the error notification inside the catch is also inside its own try/catch, and the catch for that also has a try/catch that tries to log in a different way.
Now that I can safely run stuff asynchronously in IIS, what other things do I need to worry about before I can start using my SafeTask class?
Every request in IIS and .net is processed in one thread by default. This thread comes from a thread pool called the "Application Pool". Existing threads are reused so you can't really use them for thread state unless you clear or set it every time. You define the size of this thread pool using a formula from MSDN in the machine.config or even your web.config.
Now, every async function call is put on a different thread. This includes async web service calls, async page functions, async delegates, etc. This thread comes from the "application pool" thus reducing the number of thread available for IIS to service new requests.
Most likely, your application will work just fine while using async function calls. In case you are worried or you have a lot of async tasks then you may want to create your own thread pool or look at SmartThreadPool on codeplex.
Hope this helps.
Consider using the page's OnUnload event. Read about it here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178472.aspx
This event fires after the content is sent to the user (so the user isn't blocked while you do work), and should completely satisfy your requirement without introducing additional threads.
Specific to your question, you should be concerned about thread pool exhaustion only if your load and performance testing suggests you're running up against thread limits. If you're not then what you propose is certainly reasonable.
I'm not talking about asynchronous pages or asynchronous handlers, I just want to know if I should be afraid of any side effect when I invoke an asynchronous method that will end after the page is finished rendering.
Example given: Each time that a user do login, I have to launch a heavy and time consuming SQL operation, but the user doesn't need to know the result of that operation, so I can execute the query using BeginExecuteNonQuery without pass any callback, and finish rendering the page.
My concern is, what happen if the HTTP call ends (because the page is served) and whatever I've executed asynchronously is already running? is ASP.NET or IIS going to cut, destroy, void anything?
Cheers.
That operation will run, even when the request has finished. However, please note that the ASP.NET host aggressively kills threads. When IIS has any reason for unloading or recycling the AppDomain, your background thread will be killed. Unloading happens in several situations. For instance when no new requests have come in for a certain period of time. Or when too many exceptions are fired from the application within a certain period of time. Or when the memory pressure gets too high.
If you need the guarantee, that the operation will finish, I think there are three things you can do:
Speed up the operation so that it can run synchronously, or
Move that that heavy operation to a Windows Service and let that execute it, or
You can hook onto the HostingEnvironment.RegisterObject method (as Phill Haack explains here) (demands full trust) to prevent the AppDomain to go down while that thread is running.
If you have a callback registered, the process will comeback to notify the callback otherwise it will still complete the job. AFAIK - neither ASP.NET or IIS will cut/destroy or void anything as the execution was already ordered and it has to complete.
Is it possible to use BackGroundWorker thread in ASP.NET 2.0 for the following scenario, so that the user at the browser's end does not have to wait for long time?
Scenario
The browser requests a page, say SendEmails.aspx
SendEmails.aspx page creates a BackgroundWorker thread, and supplies the thread with enough context to create and send emails.
The browser receives the response from the ComposeAndSendEmails.aspx, saying that emails are being sent.
Meanwhile, the background thread is engaged in a process of creating and sending emails which could take some considerable time to complete.
My main concern is about keeping the BackgroundWorker thread running, trying to send, say 50 emails while the ASP.NET workerprocess threadpool thread is long gone.
If you don't want to use the AJAX libraries, or the e-mail processing is REALLY long and would timeout a standard AJAX request, you can use an AsynchronousPostBack method that was the "old hack" in the .net 1.1 days.
Essentially what you do is have your submit button begin the e-mail processing in an asynchronous state, while the user is taken to an intermediate page. The benefit to this is that you can have your intermediate page refresh as much as needed, without worrying about hitting the standard timeouts.
When your background process is complete, it will put a little "done" flag in the database/application variable/whatever. When your intermediate page does a refresh of itself, it detects this flag and automatically redirects the user to the "done" page.
Again, AJAX makes all of this moot, but if for some reason you have a very intensive or timely process that has to be done over the web, this solution will work for you. I found a nice tutorial on it here and there are plenty more out there.
I had to use a process like this when we were working on a "web check-in" type application that was interfacing with a third party application and their import API was hideously slow.
EDIT: GAH! Curse you Guzlar and your god-like typing abilities 8^D.
You shouldn't do any threading from ASP.NET pages. Any thread that is long running is in danger of being killed when the worker process recycles. You can't predict when this will happen. Any long-running processes need to be handled by a windows service. You can kick off these processes by dropping a message in MSMQ, for example.
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegateThatSendsEmails)
or on System.Net.Mail.SmtpServer use the SendAsync method.
You want to put the email sending code on another thread, because then it will return the the user immediately, and will just process, no matter how long it takes.
It is possible. Once you start a new thread asynchronously from page, page request will proceed and send the page back to the user. The async thread will continue to run on the server but will no longer have access to the session.
If you have to show task progress, consider some Ajax techniques.
What you need to use for this scenario is Asynchronous Pages, a feature that was added in ASP.NET 2.0
Asynchronous pages offer a neat
solution to the problems caused by
I/O-bound requests. Page processing
begins on a thread-pool thread, but
that thread is returned to the thread
pool once an asynchronous I/O
operation begins in response to a
signal from ASP.NET. When the
operation completes, ASP.NET grabs
another thread from the thread pool
and finishes processing the request.
Scalability increases because
thread-pool threads are used more
efficiently. Threads that would
otherwise be stuck waiting for I/O to
complete can now be used to service
other requests. The direct
beneficiaries are requests that don't
perform lengthy I/O operations and can
therefore get in and out of the
pipeline quickly. Long waits to get
into the pipeline have a
disproportionately negative impact on
the performance of such requests.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163725.aspx
If you want using multitheading in your ASP page, you might using simple threading model like this:
{
System.Threading.Thread _thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Activity_DoWork));
_thred.Start();
}
Activity_DoWork()
{
/*Do some things...
}
This method is correct working with ASP pages. The ASP page with BackgroundWorker will not start while BackgroundWorker will finish.
5 years later, but problems the same… If you want to perform fire-and-forget operations from your application and forget about all difficulties related to background job processing in ASP.NET applications, you can use http://hangfire.io.
It does not loose your jobs on recycling process, because it uses persistent storage to keep information about background jobs.
It automatically retries your background jobs that were aborted or failed due to transient exception (SMTP Server connectivity errors).
It allows you to easily debug background jobs through the integrated web interface.
It is very easy to install/configure/use HangFire.
There is also tutorial Sending Mail in Background with ASP.NET MVC for using HangFire with Postal.