Can someone give me a good reason why ViewState isn't stored on the server by default?
Why not send a small session token in place of ViewState, which can then be mapped to whatever ViewState info is needed on the server, to prevent the whole ViewState being posted back and forwards multiple times.
Am I missing something?
Scalability - imagine how much server resources would be needed if a complex WebForms page was viewed by 1M users. Server would need to hold ViewState for at least the duration of the session timeout. Automatic server side cleanup of viewstate would also be problematic - user may be viewing several pages at once so ViewState for all pages would need to be retained.
Edit
There are several techniques discussed in these posts on how to move viewstate to the server. However, before you do that, it would be a good idea to remove unnecessary viewstate from controls / pages which don't need it (e.g. View only / no postback rendering).
I'm guessing now, but when viewstate was designed 10 years or so ago, 1GB RAM on a 32 bit server was about as good as it got, and MS presumably had to think of hosting providers wanting load 100's of apps per server. So bandwidth was probably viewed as cheaper than server Ram and disk storage.
There are a number of issues with storing the ViewState in memory.
If the application recycles, the VS for all anyone using the application is lost.
It increases the memory consumption of the application. This isn't an issue if there are only a few apps hosted on a server; but there are cases when there could be many websites hosted on one box.
Scalability; the more active the application, the more VS needs to be stored. And you can't assume 1-1 (1 user - 1 VS). A user can have multiple tabs open, can go back, leave tabs inactive, etc... which leads to:
How long do you store VS? Keeping the data encoded on the page ensures that it'll still be there if the user leaves the site open for a while.
What happens if you're hosted on a web farm. We can't guarantee that the user will hit the same machine on each request.
That being said, there are a few solutions:
Memcached-Viewstate - stores the VS in distributed memory using Memcache. This isn't ideal - if a server goes down the VS for anyone who had the VS stored to that server is lost, but will allow for application pools to reset without issue.
SQL-Viewstate - stores the VS in a SQL database. This adds a least 1 DB read and 1 DB write per request. Again, not ideal, but if the VS is getting unmanagable getting and setting the VS from the database is faster than sending and recieving it over HTTP.
Filesystem-Viewstate - stores the VS in the filesystem. It's less expensive than the SQL connection but would require a file server to work in a distributed environment.
It improves scalability because the server doesn't need to maintain all of that in memory. It is possible to store the viewstate in session but it's generally not recommended.
The root cause is using client side view state is that server doesn't know the current state of the page.
If a user is anxious, does multiple (partial) postback on the page, without waiting the response, browser will send out multiple partial postback requests, that each request create a new view state on server side, which will eventually flush out the initial view state in the browser. Finally the user does his last postback, at that time, the inital copy is gone, thus exception is thrown.
Also server side view state impacts server performance and user experience. If a user doesn't interact with the page for a day or a long time, the view state on server will expire. When the user posts back the page later, an exception is thrown.
For instance I watch youtube video of length 40 minutes. Yesterday I watched the first half, didn't close the tab but hiberated my computer. Today I continue watchig the last half, and post back something, the page will get errored out if the view state is in server and expired.
Related
I have the following use scenario: User logs in to ASP.NET application; and at some point makes a connection to remote TCP/IP server. The server's response may come after significant delay (say, a few hours). Imagine that the user submits a batch job, and the job may be running for a long time. So, the user may close the browser, get some coffee and come back to see the results later.
However, if client closes the connection, the server will never return the results. So, keeping Socket info in Application object won't work - once user closes the browser, it goes away.
Is there any other way to persist this open socket while IIS is up? Also, if the second user logs in, I would prefer to use the same connection. Finally, I realize that the solution is brittle, and it may occasionally break. It's OK.
Remote server is 20-year old mainframe application; so no chance for changes there. And as long as the user doesn't log out - everything is working fine now. Everything is on the LAN, so there are no routing issues to complicate the situation.
The contents of the application dictionary are not lost when a user logs out. Your scheme will work (in a brittle way, but you say that's ok).
Note, that worker processes can exit for many reasons, so expect to be killed at arbitrary points in time.
you have several options for persisting session-state: MSDN - Session-State Modes
inproc mode: you disconnect, state is lost. if you use cookies, and
store info/data somewhere on the backend, then you can map the GUID
to the data, regardless of session. or use application-state.
stateserver: persisted across disconnects and application restarts,
but not across iis/pool/server restarts, unless you use another
server, or cookie/auth. can be problematic sometimes.
sqlserver: as the name implies, uses a specially formatted db/table structure to persist state data across all sorts of scenarios.
custom/off: allows you to build your own provider, or turns it off completely.
here's the cookie method, by far the simplest (you have to generate a GUID, then store it in the cookie and application state or a backend DB): MSDN - Maintaining Session State with Cookies
you can persist cookies on the user's client. then, on server
reboot/client disconnect/any other scenario just pull the GUID from
app/session state or from a backend DB, which will also store the data
for the reports/output.
also, as a caution: even though cookies can be used to auth a user to an account/db record via GUID, it is considered insecure for all other purposes except unindentifiable information, such as: view shopping cart, simple reports, status, etc...
oh, and the stuff on IIS session timeouts (20 mins by default): MSDN - Configure Session Time-out (IIS 7) and MSDN - Configure Idle Time-out Settings for an Application Pool (IIS 7)
completely forgot to add the links on: ASP.NET Application State Overview, ASP.NET Session State Overview, but storing large amounts of data on a busy server in application state is not recommended. oh yea, and MSDN - Caching Application Data
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!
just wondering
if I have a webpage that generates a pdf, but could take a while to generate due to long sql request and number of data to insert and tread before generating pdf.
If the request hasn't finished yet and the user seeing that nothing happened clicks again on button and again and again.
What will happen in my web application and in the database?
Is it going to wait for previous request to be finished before throwing another one?
Does it accept multiple requests per session?
Is my web application going to freeze?
Is my database going to performe multiple sql request at the same time from same user?
Is my sql server going to freeze?
I know I should not leave it like that and make the button unclickable and put a little message "Please wait" but I'm just interested in what would happen in that situation.
Sorry for bad english!
Thanks!
Check out this answer: Problem with IHttpAsyncHandler and ASP.NET "Requests Executing" counter for an technical viewpoint.
You had a number of questions:
If the request hasn't finished yet and the user seeing that nothing happened clicks again on button and again and again?
In this case, multiple requests will be queued on your web server, and they will all be processed. This will affect performance. As you mentioned, your UI should prevent this by disabling the button and giving the user some feedback that the request is being processed.
What will happen in my web application and in the database? Is it going to wait for previous request to be finished before throwing another one?
No. Unless you are locking on a single resource in your database, each request will be handled by a separate worker in IIS. There are limits to the number of concurrent requests, but generally, things will happen in parallel. If the work you are doing is CPU intensive, there could be some contention for CPU resources and overall performance will suffer. You should definitely look in to the AsyncHandler model.
Does it accept multiple requests per session?
Yes
Is my web application going to freeze?
Freeze might be the wrong word. It is possible that the queue for requests will grow large if requests are coming in at a rate faster than the web server can fulfill them. If this happens, it will appear to users that your web server is unresponsive or slow.
Is my database going to performe multiple sql request at the same time from same user?
It might.
Is my sql server going to freeze?
Same as above. If your SQL Server cannot process requests faster than they are coming in, it may appear to your users that your application is unresponsive.
I have a user control in my page which is inside a update panel.By using the user control i am displaying a message for the user.I need to change the message every 5 min.The message is stored in the data base and the user control will retrieve the message from the database every 5 min once automatically.
My problem is when there are more than 50 users accessing the same page then for every 5 min the request is sent from each client automatically to the server which decreases the server performance.
So can anybody help me to resolve this performance issue.
Make use of the Cache object in the UI tier to load in the different texts. Only load it in on first request when needed.
have a user control in my page which is inside a update panel
Try to get rid of the updatepanel as it will always send back and forth the full viewstate of the page. Make use of ajax, script only instead in combination with a PageMethod or a service endpoint (.asmx or wcf).
Also measure where things are going slow. I like to use tools like YSlow and Sql Profiler to measure. ASP.NET also has the capability of tracing which you can turn on/off in the web.config.
Requests to server will always use up resources. It's a fact of life.
You don't say which server it is that has the performance problem, but if the message in the database is static, then why not load it into a cache on the application server so that each client doesn't make a request to the database?
You need to profile your application to find the performance bottleneck(s).
Seriously! Anything else is just guessing.
Even though it did not top the list, I recommend the EQATEC Profiler.
Update
Just thought I would point out that 50 concurrent users should be no problem for ASP.NET.
MySpace runs on ASP.NET with 2.3 million concurrent users and handles 1.5 billion page views every day.
I keep hearing that it's bad practise to store large object collections / anything in the session. Often during conversation it's quickly followed by: 'Just turn sessions off'
So what is the general problem with sessions? I use them a fair bit and since they 'real' session is stored behind a strongly typed container I don't really see the issue.
There is nothing wrong with session - you just need to be mindful of its limitations. To say "just turn off session" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There is a huge difference between storing BIG objects and small objects in a session
The session will stay alive on a server untill it expiers, and that means those big objects pollute your available memory. If you do that with a server under load, or a server that runs many application pools, then this can cause trouble.
You dont need cookies to have a session, since ASP cal also encode that information in the urls. Also you can configure the session store to run out of process, or even to store the information inside a SQL Server (reducing the memory load on the server, and enabeling sessions across a farm)
So basically: Objects are ok - Big objects not
Here's my take -- sessions are not bad but sometimes they are overused. It can also be harder to understand a web application's flow when it relies on a lot of sessions so of course you should be careful not to get carried away.
However, you should feel free to use them anytime you need to store temporary data to be made accessible across multiple pages. In no other situation should they be used. But that situation is one for which sessions were specifically designed.
Now, if you're worried about memory consumption on the server, that's not necessarily a reason to avoid sessions. But it may be more of a reason to avoid the InProc session provider. In fact I'm not a fan of InProc sessions as they tend to expire prematurely after a certain number of recompiles in your application.
What I actually prefer and nearly always use are SQL Server sessions. They'll be slightly slower, but the benefits are numerous. They'll persist even if the server is rebooted and that makes them a very reliable choice. And of course since they're stored in the SQL file system instead of in memory, they won't make such a big hit on memory.
This article on MSDN talks about the various session providers and also explains how to configure SQL to handle your sessions. If you don't have SQL, just know that even the free SQL Server Express 2008 can be configured as your session provider.
I had thought that it largely depends on the traffic to your web site. If you are running something like amazon.com, trying to store the user's shopping cart in a session would take huge amounts of IIS allocated memory, bringing down your web server. For smaller web sites, session variables are fine to use in moderation.
Storing large objects in Session is bad, yes, but "large" is relative.
Basically, storing an object in session will keep it in memory until the session expires, so if you have a site with a high user count all storing mega-objects in their session, you'll kill your server pretty quickly.
With that being said, an argument could be made for the idea that if you have objects that are 5k+ in memory and have enough users to actually cap out a server then you can probably afford more hardware anyway.
There are also topics like server clustering and session integrity between boxes in the cluster. Some frameworks handle this, I don't know if .NET does or not.
There are two things to be careful of:
Memory consumption: if you store large data objects in session and you have many user you may well run out of memory or at the very least triggering many early recycling of your application
This is only a problem if you have multiple web servers (web farm): the session has to be stored externally (not in process) in a SQL server or a windows service so that it is accessible from different machines. This can be quite slow at times.
Session requires the user to have cookies turned on
If you're working in a web farm, you'll run into trouble.
I guess these reasons don't have anything to do with storing large objects in session, just in using sessions at all.
2 major issues come to mind...
1) Persistence of sessions across servers when you start scaling your website
2) Memory usage explosion from storing UI objects in session state
The more serious issue is the tendency to store objects in session. When you store something as innocuous as a Label from a page on your page, you get LOTS of unwanted object attributes as well. You probably just wanted the text of that label stored in your session, but along with it, you get references to the page itself...and all of a sudden, you have a massive usage of memory to store the page, its view state, and lots of unwanted attributes in memory on your server.
Check out this link about storing UI elements in session
You may want to check out this question as well.
This is an old thread although.
But I have an experience for a session problem. I would like to share it.
There is a simple flow.
One .aspx validate a client, and read a bill-html from a file (for this client), then save this html(about 2MB) in a session variable.
This .aspx will auto redirect to next .aspx, the next .aspx retrieves this html from session. Then show it to the client.
It works fine in most cases. But some clients encountered a problem: The bill he saw is not his bill, but others.
We used sniffers tools to intercept the network package.
And we saw a strange situation:
Our IIS has definitely sent the SessionID(eg: 1111111) to the client, But when the client redirects to next page and tries to access session. The SessionID(eg: 11112222) that this client brings is different.
We think that the browser of that client does not accept the SessionID.
And finally, we abandon the use of Session, and solved this problem.