I'm trying to eliminate (or at least minimize) startup/warmup times for my .NET applications. I'm not really sure on how to do this even though it's a common concern.
There's a ton of questions about slow startup of .NET applications. These are easily explained by pool recycles, worker process startup, dynamic compilation of .aspx files, JIT etc. In addition, there are more things that may need to be initialized within the application such as EntityFramework and application caches.
I've found alot of different solutions such as:
ASP.NET Precompilation
IIS 8 Application Initialization (and for IIS 7.5)
Auto-Start ASP.NET Applications
However, I'm not entirely satisfied with any of the solutions above. Furthermore I'm deploying my applications to Azure Websites (in most cases) so I have limited access to the IIS.
I know that there are some custom "warmup scripts" that uses various methods for sending requests to the application (e.g. wget/curl). My idea is to create a "Warmup.aspx" page in each of my ASP.NET applications. Then I have a warmup service that sends an HTTP GET to the Warmup.aspx of each site every ... 5 minutes. This service could be a WorkerRole in Azure or a Windows Service in an on-premise installation. Warmup.aspx will will then do the following:
Send an HTTP GET to each .aspx-file within the application (to
dynamically compile the page)
This could be avoided by precompiling the .aspx pages using aspnet_compiler.exe
Send a query to the database to
initialize EntityFramework
Initialize application caches etc
So, my final question is whether there are better alternatives than my "Warmup.aspx" script? And is it a good approach or do you recommend some other method? I would really like some official method that would handle the above criteria.
Any and all suggestions are welcome, thanks!
Did you try this IIS Auto-Start feature described here ?
https://www.simple-talk.com/blogs/2013/03/05/speeding-up-your-application-with-the-iis-auto-start-feature/
You could have two instances of the site. When you need to deploy a new version, and therefore suffer a startup cycle, remove one instance out of load balancer rotation, deploy and start it, set it in and do the same for instance 2. A rolling deployment.
Related
I have an asp.net web api application should I use Self Hosting or should I host it on IIS. I am looking for better performance and security. Which one should I be using?
I just show the answer from here.
What I've found (basically just pros for IIS hosted):
You lose all of the features of IIS (logging, application pool scaling, >throttling/config of your site, etc.)...
You have to build every single feature that you want yourself HttpContext?
You lose that since ASP.NET provides that for you. So, I could see that making things like authentication much harder WebDeploy?
IIS has some nice specific features in 8 about handling requests and warming up the service (self-hosted does not)
IIS has the ability to run multiple concurrent sites with applications and virtual directories to advanced topics like load balancing and remote deployments.
And this
Self-hosting is good when you're not on a server -- for example, you want a desktop app to be able to listen for API requests.
But I think you would be able to achive am faster performing and more stable server if it is worth your time. But you need to be carefull not to make basic security mistakes like public accessable configuration files or ddos.
I am looking to implement hangfire into my asp.net web api and asp.net MVC website projects.
The way I have structured my solution is as follows:
Solution - My Solution
1: Model - (Project containing Entity Framework Objects and classes)
2: Services (Where I implement all my> business logic, changes etc.) This is where I will most likely make use of HangFire.
3: Web API (my asp.net api project)
4: Web UI ( mvc 5 Admin interface website)
Both project 3 and 4 make use of the 2:Services project to do work and call services which execute business logic. This is where most tasks will be spun off.
How would I go about implementing hangfire, so that they respective iis sites can both make use of the same "instance" of hangfire. but it will obviously run on the associated app pools?
or maybe it cant work like that and I have to have it running in one place?
What are my options, and furthermore what is the recomendd approach?
The biggest take-away for me was that HangFire will not continue past a work pool shutdown (i.e., idle timeout), which is my core problem anyway, and recommends altering the server configuration to never shut down work pools. If your app is going to be in constant use 24/7, then this shouldn't be an issue for you although your work pool could still be recycled for various reasons, but for an app that will experience peaks and troughs in users then you may want to consider an out-of-process HangFire server.
The approach I'm taking is the later. I'm building a proof-of-concept that has a Windows service (built using Topshelf - highly recommended for this) that hosts the HangFire server (and dashboard), a shared core library, and a client (which will be my WebAPI in production, but is a WPF app for the PoC). The client enqueues a job using a class instance from the shared library, which the HangFire server also has access to.
I'm assuming from your description that the WebAPI controller actions call corresponding methods in class from the service layer? If this is the case, then I would opt for a similar solution to mine, with the HangFire Windows service having access to your services and models as required.
If your app is going to be heavily trafficked and work pool recycles don't bother you, then I'd host the HangFire server in your WebAPI directly.
I'm brand new to C#/.NET
Why does ASP.NET have so many different choices of projcets? (Web Application, Web API, Web Site, MVC ect). I just want to listen on a tcp port, and a way to send a response. If there are libraries to help me do routine stuff like constructing the HTTP request, parsing the header, ect - then cool. But I don't want a super opinionated framework that tries to do everything under the sun.
Why do I need IIS at all?
Addressing your points in reverse order, first - why do I need IIS?
The answer is, maybe you don't. If you are doing a simple listener that won't be exposed to the public internet, then you don't need it.
If you are doing a web application that needs to scale, be robust and easy to manage then it can help you with:
Logging
Operating in a multi-server environment for scale/high availability
Handling multiple requests in an isolated way
Serving multiple applications from the same host with sandboxing to ensure each application has guaranteed resources (memory, CPU)
Application lifecycle management
IP address restrictions
support for FTP, CGI, WebDAV
URL rewriting
Response header manipulation
Failed request tracing
Protection against some DoS exploits like slow HTTP attacks
Etc.
In short, it is an industrial strength, real world web server that will keep your application up reliably in a hostile world and scale as your application grows. it is certainly overkill for some cases if you don't need this kind of scale/high availability/management capability. In those cases you have the option to self host ASP.Net in a Windows Service or even a console app. This might sound complicated, but it has been made pretty simple by OWIN - Open Web Interface for .Net. This is an abstraction of the interface used by Asp.Net to communicate with its hosting server.
There is a very good tutorial on how to self host web API in a console app here
http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/hosting-aspnet-web-api/use-owin-to-self-host-web-api
It does exactly what you ask for in your comment:
You create a console app project
You add references to the right assemblies (the tutorial uses NuGet to download the assembly packages)
You code up your web operation logic
You compile
You run the resulting exe
That's it!
On your second point about ASP.Net - it is a framework that has gone through a lot of evolution trying to keep up with very rapid changes in the web development world. This meant it got a bit bloated and lost some of its coherence, but recently the developers have been focussed on making it more lightweight, more modular and simpler. Scott Guthrie summarises it in his blog:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/introducing-asp-net-5
Why does ASP.NET have so many different choices of projcets? (Web Application, Web API, Web Site, MVC ect). I just want to listen on a tcp port, and a way to send a response. etc...
Because each project has its own purpose.
If you want to just listen on a TCP port then you could go learn Microsoft's Katana OWIN (but I highly doubt if this is what you want).
Katana OWIN
Briefly going through each projects purpose:
"Web Application" actually opens up another window and lets you choose from the following:
Web API is for exposing RESTful services or JSON data.
Web Forms is for making web pages that use Web Form components.
(A bit like Windows Forms, but Web)
MVC is for making Model-View-Controller web applications. This is where you build components with a separation of concerns. Model for data. View for what the user sees. Controller for controlling how your page behaves.
Why do I need IIS at all?
IIS is for serving .NET applications.
Without it, it would be quite hard to serve .NET applications.
I'll start with 2 then move on to your first question. IIS will run whatever the .NET web service you need, be it a monstrous WCF service, an ASP.NET application or the most basic http handler.
To my knowledge, ISS is the most straightforward way to use .NET web services. If you are used to PHP, it's basically LAMP or WAMP for .NET, which means it is sort of necessary. There are alternatives, as Mike Goodwin points out, but I have to admit I am not familiar with those third parties. Since replacing a layer for another doesnt mean much, I would stick to the "normal" procedure.
Since you dont want the framework to do a truckload of operations for you, your best bet might be along those lines:
Create a basic ASP.NET projet
Remove the default ASP.Net page because it seems you dont want it
Add a Generic Handler to your project. This will result in a myFile.ashx, which handles http requests and let you build any response you want
Of course, if you dont want to bother with IIS configurations, you'll need someone to setup an URL on IIS and map it against your handler repository.
EDIT:
"Abstraction layers" would be the very definition of frameworks, for good or ill, so you're stucked with it.
Now, since you have a low level background a not-so-intrusive way to work with the .NET web services would probably be the three steps I suggested earlier. You are still stucked with IIS though, in order handles the communications (i.e. manages sockets/requests). That's the way the framework works.
STILL, THERE IS HOPE. If you have complete control over your server (which is not my case, some other IT team manages the web servers), you certainly could build a windows service that listens to some socket and work the requests accordingly. It is a most unusal solution if you want to serve web pages, but would work rather well if you only want to push some data through http requests. If you go down this path, I suggest you take a look at the System.Net namespaces, you'll find some classes like "Socket" there. Combined with a console application or a windows service, you could work something out.
One of my coworkers is former microcontroller designer, I know exactly what kind of feeling you have towards the .NET framework. You'll go through some frustrations at times, but most of the time there are work arrounds. Feel free to request more details if you need some.
Can I convert a non-MVC asp.net application to be Azure compatible ? Or If i want to create an Azure web application, should it be MVC one ?
The other answers answered your question about converting your app to MVC for deployment to Azure (you don't need to).
If you're creating a new web application and go with ASP.NET MVC (which I'd recommend), just remember if you go with MVC3, you may have to make some of the MVC3 DLL's CopyLocal for your deployment, as it won't be part of your web role instance. At least that's how I still understand it. The 1.4 SDK of the Azure SDK doesn't have a MVC3 Web Role template yet.
See this post on steps to get your MVC3 app Azure-ready.
Hope this helps.
You may take a look at the following blog post for migrating an existing ASP.NET application to Azure. It should not necessarily be an ASP.NET MVC application. Any ASP.NET application will work.
azure has 2 roles
1. a webrole
2. worker role
web role is nothing but an asp.net app. so no need to convert it into an MVC app just any asp.net thing will do fine
Yes, you can. But you need to be aware of certain limitations too, none of which were mentioned in the answers already given:
Your application should be stateless, unless you are running a single instance (for most apps 99,9% reliability is OK, but there are some where you want 99,95%, so you need at least two instances + it gives you additional benefits of a load balancer, etc.). The reason for this is that if you have more than one instance, the load balancer will deliver the request to a different instance. You can use AppFabric Cache to solve this.
You don't have a file system - this is not entirely true, but in reality you should never rely on having local files. All you image uploads (e.g. user profile pictures) should be uploaded to a blob storage and linked to there. How you do this is another matter, and one that can be approached differently depending on the architecture of your existing application. You can get away with files, by using Azure Drive, but it's slow as hell.
No Event Log / RDP - this is also only partially true, but you should rely on other ways of getting diagnostics information from your role. While you can RDP to your role instance, there are better ways (e.g. Azure Diagnostics storage).
Database should be chosen carefully. Sure, you have SQL Azure available, but it's expensive (1 GB = 10 USD/ month). If you can get away with stuff like Table Storage, you may save on some costs. Again, this depends a lot on the architecture.
As for the second part of your answer. MVC as a pattern is nice. It saves you a lot of time, it's much more adapt for the Web as WebForms ever will be. The event based system was designed for Desktop applications, and it was forced onto the web. However, going to Azure does not imply a requirement to go to MVC. What I suggest you do however, is treat it as a nice jump-start opportunity to look into MVC and see how it could help you write your apps better & faster.
As with any other case involving architecture of apps, it depends. If you used common patterns (e.g. IOC, Repository), you will have a really easy time moving any app to Azure.
I have an ASP.NET MVC application that also employs the typical NHibernate / Castle stack. On startup, the application's memory footprint sits around 190Mb and I wish to be able to run multiple isolated AppPools, each of which will serve a different domain. This is before really hitting anything serious in the database or putting anything in the ASP.NET Cache.
How would you go about reducing the standing footprint of the app?
I've looked at this article here on CodeProject which talks about sharing common DLLs in a specific AppDomain. Does anyone have any experience using this technique on ASP.NET?
One simple way would be to use a shared web service (WCF) that will perform the data access so that each application wouldn't bother with it.