I got a dedicated server running both IIS 7.5 and SQL Server 2010. Server CPU load is often near 100%. The SQL server does not take too much but the w3wp process is taking a significant amount of CPU (often 70+%).
I'd like to find out, what is causing this pressure:
* Too many requests of static files (a CDN could be added)
* Too many ajax requests (I am thinking about comet/web sockets anyways)
* Single asp.net pages consuming too much processing power (should be easy to optimize)
Where would you start looking to find out where to start optimizing?
The easiest possible way is to profile the app in production. Not sure if that is possible in your case. Some options:
look into the logs and look at the duration of the requests. Long requests are likely to put load on the system
Remote debug w3wp with Visual Studio and pause the debugger 10 times to see where it stops most. That is the hot spot
Use XPerf or PerfView to capture (managed) stacks. This has almost no impact on production performance
A good starting point would be to fire up the development tools (F12 in IE / Chrome) and look at the timings under the network tab. That will show you a waterfall-style diagram for how the page has loaded and should help you identify any particularly slow-loading static files which might be sensibly moved off to a cdn, any unnecessary requests being made, how much time is being spent getting the actual page itself, etc.
After that, profile the application with a performance profiler. A good profiler like ANTS Performance Profiler will let you look at things like execution time / hit counts for different methods, as well as what database queries are being run and how long they’re taking. A new version of ANTS (currently in EAP) will also group that activity by http request so you can see if specific pages need optimisation or are being hit too many times.
You'd also do well to check that caching is working as you intend it so that users aren’t unnecessarily re-requesting pages.
There's also a nice article on ASP.NET performance which you might want to read at http://aspalliance.com/1533_ASPNET_Performance_Tips.7.
Disclaimer: I work for Red Gate which makes ANTS.
I found an easy way to see what's going on on the server.
Nevertheless, the professional way is probably to go and use a profiling tool.
What did I do?
In IIS Console you can get a list of all current worker threads and if you choose one you can see what this thread is working on. So I was able to see that the thread was handling 100 requests in parallel, 70 of those were tracing back to the same ajax call.
The immediate solution was to reduce the frequency of that call (from every 10 to every 30 seconds). The next step will be to further optimize the call on the server side since I do have other ajax calls with the same frequency (every 10 seconds) which nearly never showed up in the active requests list since they were so fast.
Probably the easiest way to figure it out would be to install New Relic on the server. The trial lasts 30 days I think so it should give you enough time to get to the bottom of this. It'll show you long-running SQL queries, .NET methods, as well as just about everything else you can think of. It makes it very easy to identify bottlenecks.
By the way, I suggested New Relic because it sounds like your problem is in a production environment. New Relic isn't an incredibly detailed profiler. It gathers enough information to be helpful, but not so much as to slow down the server. That makes it well suited to this purpose.
If, however, you could reproduce the problem in a development environment you might try something like the free Eqatec profiler.
Related
I need some information from you.I have used session.TimeOut=540 in application.Is that effects on my Application performance after some time.When number of users increases its getting very slow. response time nearly more that 2 minutes for a button click also.This is hosted in server in Application pool .I don't know about Application pool much.If Session Timeout is the problem i will remove it.Please suggest me the way to for more users.
Job Numbers,CustomerID,Tasks will come from one database.when the user click start Button then the data saved in another Database.I need this need to be faster for more Users
I think that you have some page(s) that make some work that takes time, or for some reason or a bug is keep open for more time than the usual.
This page is keep lock the session and hold the rest page from response because the session holds all the pages.
Now, together with the increase of the timeout this page is lock everything and here is you response time near to 2 minutes.
The solution is to locate the page that have the long running problem and fix it or make it faster by optimize the process, or if this page must keep the long time running, then disable the session for that one.
relative:
Web app blocked while processing another web app on sharing same session
What perfmon counters are useful for identifying ASP.NET bottlenecks?
Replacing ASP.Net's session entirely
Trying to make Web Method Asynchronous
Does ASP.NET Web Forms prevent a double click submission?
About server
Now from the other hand, if your server suffer from hardware, or bad setup then here is one other answer with points that you need to check to make it faster.
Find out where the time is spent
add the StopWatch in the method which you said "more that 2 minutes for a button click". you can find which statment spent the most time.
If it is a query on DB that cost time. Check your sql statement.
are you using "SELECT Count(*)" instead of "SELECT Count(Id)"? the * is always slower. also, don't try "SELECT * FROM...."
Use cache.
there are many ways to do cache. both in ASPX pages and your biz layer.
the OutputCache is the most easy way.
and also, cache the page (for example a blog post) on the first time when a user visit it.
Did you use memory paging?
be careful when doing paging on gridview or other list. If you just call DataSource=xxx and DataBind(), even with PagedDataSource, this is likely a memory paging. It cost a lot of performance. Please use stored procedures to do paging.
Check your server environment
where did you deploy the website? many ISP will limit brandwide and IIS connection count and also CPU time to your account.
if you have RD access to your server. you can watch CPU and memory usage to see if they are high when many user comes to your site. If the site is slow and neither CPU nor memory useage is high, it may be a network brandwide problem.
Here are some simple steps to narrow down the issue -
1) Get HTTPWatch (theres a free Basic version) available and check whats really taking time from an end user perspective. Look at number of requests, number of resources downloaded, and the payload. If there is nothing to worry move on to next
2) If its not client, then its usually the processing time on the server. Jump on to DB first - since this is quite easier to eliminate quickly. Look at how many DB calls are made (run profiler in staging or dev) and see if there are any long running queries, missing indexes or statistics, and note the IO. If all is well, move on
3) Check your app code. You could get on with VS.NET in build profiler or professional tools such as Ants. If code is fine then its your network or external calls that you make, check your network bandwidth. If you still cannot narrow down, check your environment/hardware
The best way to get to it is to apply load - You could use simple tools such as ab.exe (that comes as part of Apache Web server) to have concurrent hits on your server and run the App, DB profilers in the background to get to the issue.
Hope this helps!
I am just getting in to the more intricate parts of web development. This may not be in the best place. However, when is it best to get load balancing for a web project? I understand that it depends on good design/bad design as to how many users you can get to visit a site without it REALLY effecting the performance. However, I am planning to code a new project that could potentially have a lot of users and I wondered if I should be thinking off the bat about load balancing. Opinions welcome; thanks in advance!
I should not also that the project most likely will be asp.net (webforms or mvc not yet decided) with backend of mongodb or pgsql(again still deciding).
Load balancing can also be a form of high availability. What if your web server goes down? It can take a long time to replace it.
Generally, when you need to think about throughput you are already rich because you have an enormous amount of users.
Stackoverflow is serving 10m unique users a month with a few servers (6 or so). Think about how many requests per day you had if you were constantly generating 10 HTTP responses per second for 8 hot hours: 10*3600*8=288000 page impressions per day. You won't have that many users soon.
And if you do, you optimize your app to 20 requests per second and CPU core which means you get 80 requests per second on a commodity server. That is a lot.
Adding a load balancer later is usually easy. LBs can tag each user with a cookie so they get pinned to one particular target. You app will not notice the difference. Usually.
Is this for an e-commerce site? If so, then the real question to ask is "for every hour that the site is down, how much money are you losing?" If that number is substantial, then I would make load balancing a priority.
One of the more-important architecture decisions that I have seen affect this, is the use of session variables. You need to be able to provide a seamless experience if your user ends-up on different servers during their visit. Session variables won't transfer from server to server, so I would avoid using them.
I support a solution like this at work. We run four (used to be eight) .NET e-commerce websites on three Windows 2k8 servers (backed by two primary/secondary SQL Server 2008 databases), taking somewhere around 1300 (combined) orders per day. Each site is load-balanced, and kept "in the farm" by a keep-alive. The nice thing about this, is that we can take one server down for maintenance without the users really noticing anything. When we bring it back, we re-enable our replication service and our changes get pushed out to the other two servers fairly quickly.
So yes, I would recommend giving a solution like that some thought.
The parameters here that may affect the one the other and slow down the performance are.
Bandwidth
Processing
Synchronize
Have to do with how many user you have, together with the media you won to serve.
So if you have to serve a lot of video/files to deliver, you need many servers to deliver it. Let say that you do not have, what is the next think that need to check, the users and the processing.
From my experience what is slow down the processing is the locking of the session. So one big step to speed up the processing is to make a total custom session handling and your page will no lock the one the other and you can handle with out issue too many users.
Now for next step let say that you have a database that keep all the data, to gain from a load balance and many computers the trick is to make local cache of what you going to show.
So the idea is to actually avoid too much locking that make the users wait the one the other, and the second idea is to have a local cache on each different computer that is made dynamic from the main database data.
ref:
Web app blocked while processing another web app on sharing same session
Replacing ASP.Net's session entirely
call aspx page to return an image randomly slow
Always online
One more parameter is that you can make a solution that can handle the case of one server for all, and all for one :) style, where you can actually use more servers for backup reason. So if one server go off for any reason (eg for update and restart), the the rest can still work and serve.
As you said, it depends if/when load balancing should be introduced. It depends on performance and how many users you want to serve. LB also improves reliability of your app - it will not stop when one system goes crashing down. If you can see your project growing to be really big and serve lots of users I would sugest to design your application to be able to be upgraded to LB, so do not do anything non-standard. Try to steer away of home-made solutions and always follow good practice. If later on you really need LB it should not be required to change your app.
UPDATE
You may need to think ahead but not at a cost of complicating your application too much. Do not go paranoid and prepare everything to work lightning fast 'just in case'. For example, do not worry about sessions - session management can be easily moved to SQL Server at any time and this is the way to go with LB. Caching will also help if you hit some bottlenecks in the future but you do not need to implement it straight away - good design (stable interfaces), separation and decoupling will allow for the cache to be added later on. So again - stick to good practices, do not close doors but also do not open all of them straight away.
You may find this article interesting.
I'm looking to create a webpage that will reflect the status of one of my company's servers automatically. Frequently there will be a minor error that only lasts 2-3 minutes, and it would be great to have this reflected on a self-generated page, which might prevent 50-60 unhappy clients from calling in simultaneously and asking what's wrong.
I'm not quite sure where to begin - would anyone have a suggestions for good resources to study? Programming examples? I'm not referring to the basics of writing an ASP.NET page, of course, but rather process interaction in Windows.
Thanks.
To pull this off, you'd need a separate page that essentially runs server diagnostics, otherwise the page wouldn't know if it was up or down. Also, the page would need to be isolated from the sort of problems that are kill other people's requests, such as cache hit problems, memory starvation, high CPU usage, insufficient bandwidth. So ideally the diagnostics would run in a separate app-pool, separate virtual directory, separate machine.
Many of the interesting diagnostics would require a WMI call, but some you can get from the My.Computer namespace.
Also, are you going to do this on every server, or do you want one web server to display the status of several different servers?
It also depends on the type of errors your servers are encountering.
If they are going down completely, or are losing internet connection, then pinging them after an interval of time will let you know if they are up or not.
If you have a specific process running on a server that becomes unavailable, that can be a little more tricky.
Your best bet is to find a way to do a simple request from the services/applications that are important and see if you get a response, if you do, the server is likely up, if not, then it is likely not.
Anything you can do to reduce the number of support calls you get is a good idea, but I'd also focus some time and try to figure out why your servers are going down so often.
Also, telling your users that the server is down, but not giving a reason why may not give the effect you are looking for. Users will still be confused and frustrated when they can't get their work done.
I know you were looking to build a webpage to display the server diagnostics, but there are plenty of server monitoring tools that produce webpages for an easy dashboard view of the history.
A quick google returned the following link:
http://www.webdesignbooth.com/10-really-useful-server-monitoring-tools/
I was wondering if anyone had experience they could share using the Response.IsClientConnected property as a performance optimization for asp.net websites.
The reason I ask is that I am a bit skeptical on how effective it would be in real life scenarios. I understand the concept of checking the value before performing a large task but I just can't see how useful this would be as clients could disconnect at any point time.
I think the main usage would be for optimizing the delivery of long processes. For example, if you had to generate a huge report or something, you might run the report in a separate thread and then periodically check to see if the user is still connnected. If not, you could kill this long running process so that it is not running needlessly since the user is no longer expecting a response.
This helps to prevent users from starting long processes and then making more requests over and over because they might think it is slow or something. If you were not doing this type of checking, you could tax your server due to all the requests even though all but one is valid. This scenario could be handled by allowing only one user to run one long running task, but it would also help in a multi-user environment as well to make sure you are only spending time serving up requests where the user is still connected and waiting for the response.
Note: I have never actually used this before, this is just based on my very basic understanding of what I have read.
I have used this extensively in my applications and it can give you a huge saving on resources.
Try this: create a page that needs -some- time to complete and try refresh it many many times before it complete. You will see that requests are queued to be executed. Imagine a user that has a slow connection and refreshes his page many many times thinking this will fetch the page (a very common issue from what a site can die out of resources when all users are connected and for some reason it becomes slow).
Now, change it and at the start of each page load, (or sooner at page init) check if HttpContext.Current.Response.IsClientConnected and in the case that he is not connetced throw a threadabord exception. You will see, your site will respond much sooner.
Actually I check if client is connected before any heavy action on the page so as to prevent needless executions. In production environments, I have seen that especially in cases where the system becomes slow, this validation will help much.
I'm quickly falling in love with ASP.NET MVC beta, and one of the things I've decided I won't sacrifice in deploying to my IIS 6 hosting environment is the extensionless URL. Therefore, I'm weighing the consideration of adding a wildcard mapping, but everything I read suggests a potential performance hit when using this method. However, I can't find any actual benchmarks!
The first part of this question is, do you know where I might find such benchmarks, or is it just an untested assumption?
The second part of the question is in regards to the 2 load tests I ran using jMeter on our dev server over a 100Mbs connection.
Background Info
Our hosting provider has a 4Gbs burstable internet pipe with a 1Gbs backbone for our VLAN, so anything I can produce over the office lan should translate well to the hosting environment.
The test scenario was to load several images / css files, since the supposed performance hit comes when requesting files that are now being passed through the ASP.NET ISAPI filter that would not normally pass through it. Each test contained 50 threads (simulated users) running the request script for 1000 iterations each. The results for each test are posted below.
Test Results
Without wildcard mapping:
Samples: 50,000
Average response time: 428ms
Number of errors: 0
Requests per second: 110.1
Kilobytes per second: 11,543
With wildcard mapping:
Samples: 50,000
Average response time: 429ms
Number of errors: 0
Requests per second: 109.9
Kilobytes per second: 11,534
Both tests were run warm (everything was in memory, no initial load bias), and from my perspective, performance was about even. CPU usage was approximately 60% for the duration of both tests, memory was fine, and network utilization held steady around 90-95%.
Is this sufficient proof that wildcard mappings that pass through the ASP.NET filter for ALL content don't really affect performance, or am I missing something?
Edit: 11 hours and not a single comment? I was hoping for more.. lol
Chris, very handy post.
Many who suggest a performance disadvantage infer that the code processed in a web application is some how different/inferior to code processed in the standard workflow. The base code type maybe different, and sure you'll be needing the MSIL interpreter, but MS has shown in many cases you'll actually see a performance increase in a .NET runtime over a native one.
It's also wise to consider how IIS has to be a "jack of all trades" - allowing all sorts of configuration and overrides even on static files. Some of those are designed for performance increase (caching, compression) and - indeed - will be lost unless you reimplement them in your code, but many of them are for other purposes and may not ever be used. If you build for your needs (only) you can ignore those other pieces and should be realising some kind of performance advantage, even though there's a potential ASP.NET disadvantage.
In my (non-.NET) MVC testing I'm seeing considerable (10x or more) performance benefits over webforms. Even if there was a small hit on the static content - that wouldn't be a tough pill to swallow.
I'm not surprised the difference is almost negligible in your tests, but I'm happy to see it backed up.
NOTE: You can disable wildcard mapping from static directories (I keep all static files in /static/(pics|styles|...)) in IIS. Switch the folder to an application, remove the wildcard mapping, and switch it back from an application and - voilà - static files are handled by IIS without pestering your ASP.NET.
I think there are several additional things to check:
Since we're using the .Net ISAPI filter, we might be using threads used to run application for serving static assets. I would run the same load test while reviewing performance counters of threads - Review this link
I would run the same load test while running Microsoft Performance Analyzer and compare the reports.
I was looking for benchmark like this for a long time. Thanx!
In my company we did wildcard mapping on several web sites (standard web forms, .net1.1 and 2, iis6), and sys admins said to me that they didn't noticed any performance issues.
But, it seems you stressed network, not server. So maybe the scores are so similar because network bottleneck? Just thinking...
That's quite an impressive post there, thanks very much for that.
We're also assessing the security and performance concerns with removing a piece of software that's always been in place to filter out unwanted traffic.
Will there by any further benchmarking on your part?
Cheers,
Karl.
Seems the bottleneck in your test is network utilization. If the performance degradation is expected to be on the CPU usage (I'm not sure it is, but it's reasonable), then you wouldn't notice it with the test you did.
Since this is a complex system, with many variables - it does not mean that there is no performance degradation. It means that in your scenario - the performance degradation is probably negligible.