I've tried to read up on Caching in ASP.NET and still have a few questions.
When using a Sql Cache Dependency ... I know that you can specify which tables will be monitored but if a change happens to any one of those tables does it reset the entire cache? I understand that I don't want to cache tables that will have frequent changes but we could end up with a good handful of cached tables and even if each table only gets a few updates a day, that could turn into 50ish resets of the cache daily (8 hour window).
I would be creating and maintaining this cache via a GAC DLL. A large number of different applications would be accessing that GAC at any one time. Does each application maintain its own copy of the cache or is it just stored in one global location (or possibly per app pool)?
Is there a physical location on the server where I can see how much space the Cache is currently consuming? This would be extremely pertinent if each application maintains its own Cache as that could end up taking large amounts of disk space.
Is there some way to physically force the cache to rebuild itself? I could see my boss assuming that the cache was at fault for a particular issue and I'd need to be able to rule that out at the rootest level. No "changing a record and saying that SHOULD rebuild the cache" but rather "doing [Action X] and KNOWING that whatever was in the cache is now gone"
Thanks in advance for your answers and time.
SqlCacheDependency only monitors tables in the old-style SQL 2000 approach, which relies on triggers and polling. The SQL 2005+ method monitors changes at the row level, and uses Service Broker. At the level of the Cache object, changes will invalidate just the Cache entries associated with the given SqlCacheDependency (not the entire cache).
Each application has a separate copy of the Cache. If you have many apps sharing the same data, you might consider creating a separate "caching server," and have your apps get their data from there, using WCF -- basically add another tier to your app.
You can look at a couple of cache-related performance counters, but if your concern is disk space, then there's nothing to worry about, since the ASP.NET cache is stored entirely in RAM. In addition, if RAM gets too full, one feature of the cache is that it will let go of old/infrequently referenced objects to make room for new objects.
The easiest way to force the cache to be dropped is to simply recycle your application or AppPool (which happens once a day or so by default anyway). If you want something more targeted, you would need to write some code to forcibly remove certain items from the cache, either using Cache.Remove() or using linked dependencies.
from top of my head:
Only that table's content will be invalidated.
Each web application has it's own cache.
Cache is stored in memory. and see this question How to determine total size of ASP.Net cache? regarding cache size
http://bit.ly/vsqNDl this may help
Related
I have two separate web applications:
The "admin" application where data is created and updated
The "public" application where data is displayed.
The information displayed on the "public" changes infrequently, so I want to cache it.
What I'm looking for is the "simplest possible thing" to update the cache on the public site when a change is made in the admin site.
To throw in some complexity, the application is running on Windows Azure. This rules out file and sql cache dependencies (at least the built in ones).
I am running both applications on a single web role instance.
I've considered using Memcached for this purpose. but since I'm not really after a distributed cache and that the performance is not as good as using a memory cache (System.Runtime.Caching) I want to try and avoid this.
I've also considered using NServiceBus (or the Azure equivalent) but again, this seems overkill just to send a notification to clear the cache.
What I'm thinking (maybe a little hacky, but simple):
Have a controller action on the public site that clears the in memory cache. I'm not bothered about clearing specific cached items, the data doesn't change enough for me to worry about that. When the "admin" application makes a cache, we make a httpwebrequest to the clear cache action on the public site.
Since the database is the only shared resource between the two applications, just adding a table with the datetime of the last update. The public site will make a query on every request and compare the database last update datetime to one that we will hold in memory. If it doesn't match then we clear the cache.
Any other recommendations or problems with the above options? The key thing here is simple and high performance.
1., where you have a controller action to clear the cache, won't work if you have more than one instance; otherwise, if you know you have one and only one instance, it should work just fine.
2., where you have a table that stores the last update time, would work fine for multiple instances but incurs the cost of a SQL database query per request -- and for a heavily loaded site this can be an issue.
Probably fastest and simplest is to use option 2 but store the last update time in table storage rather than a SQL database. Reads to table storage are very fast -- under the covers it's a simple HTTP GET.
Having a public controller that you can call to tell the site to clear its cache will work as long as you only have one instance of the main site. As soon as you add a second instance, as calls go through the load balancer, your one call will only go to one instance.
If you're not concerned about how soon the update makes it from the admin site to the main site, the best performing and easiest (but not the cheapest) solution is to use the Azure AppFabric Cache and then configure it to use a a local (in memory) cache with a short-ish time out (say 10 minutes).
The first time your client tries to access an item this would be what happens
Look for the item in local cache
It's not there, so look for the item in the distributed cache
It's not there either so load the item from persistent storage
Add the item to the cache with a long-ish time to live (48 hours is the default I think)
Return the item
Steps 1 and 2 are taken care of for you by the library, the other bits you need to write. Any subsequent calls in the next X minutes will return the item from the in memory cache. After X minutes it falls out of the local cache. The next call loads it from the distributed cache back into the local cache and you can carry on.
All your admin app needs to do is update the database and then remove the item from the distributed cache. The next time the item falls out of the local cache on the client, it will simply reload the data from the database.
If you like this idea but don't want the expense of using the caching service, you could do something very similar with your database idea. Keep the cached data in a static variable and just check for updates every x minutes rather than with every request.
In the end I used Azure Blobs as cache dependencies. I created a file change monitor to poll for changes to the files (full details at http://ben.onfabrik.com/posts/monitoring-files-in-azure-blob-storage).
When a change is made in the admin application I update the blob. When the file change monitor detects the change we clear the local cache.
I am using ASP.NET's data caching API. For example:
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert(my_data, my_key);
Is there any way to configure cache so its contents are preserved when the App Domain recycles?
I load many object into cache, but there is a substantial delay re-loading these every time the app domain restarts. Assume for this question that I can't prevent the appdomain restart due to a server configuration.
Is there any way to configure cache so
its contents are preserved when the
App Domain recycles?
No. The Cache object holds references in RAM. Period.
Alternatives:
Out-of-process Session state (although that's per-user)
Distributed cache
Use SQL Server as a cache (where it keeps data in memory, rather than on disk)
Write the objects to disk at the web tier
I generally prefer #3 myself, although there are scenarios where the others are appropriate.
Recycling the appdomain dumps the cache. If you want to get around this you'd need to use a distributed cache. Here's an example.
For your most expensive data you can cache the objects with a distributed cache such as Memcached or velocity. Depending on the size of the object and the length of runtime you could also serialize it to disk or to your database provided that the access speed to these resources is less than the time to create the object.
Now since the in-proc cache is super fast compared to any other solution since it just holds a reference to the memory object you will want to use it where possible. You can keep a copy of your cached object on disk until it is lost and then re-create it from that and place it in memory. Where this is tricky is when you have to expire the data so only use the cache/disk/sql combo where you won't need to expire/invalidate the data otherwise you will need to ensure that you clear both. This will also get around not being able to implement distributed caching on a shared server for example.
I'm using the SqlProfileProvider on one of my websites and in one page I need to fetch the whole list of profiles (it is an intranet).
The method that I use is the ProfileManager.GetAllProfiles(). The problem is that its performance is really bad and it slows down the website considerably.
Therefore, I was thinking of caching the result of the method call in the Application scope as a DataTable (so I could filter/search on it as well).
My problem is that I have several servers running this webapp, and I would like the cache to be in sync. I started using memcached but I was put off by some problems (hence going back to thinking in caching in the Application scope).
So, here are my questions:
Would it be efficient to store the DataTable containing the profiles in the Application object? Or, is it possible to store objects in the Cache and have them available for all clients/browsers?
Is it possible to add a (SQL) Cache Depedency to this cache?
You could cache portions of the web page which will depend on the list of profiles by putting them in a user control and marking it as cacheable. SqlCacheDependency cache policy expiration could be defined as well. As for the cache location, every web server in the farm will have it's own version in memory but using cache expiration will make sure that this version is not out of sync with the data in the DB.
Page or fragment caching is the most effective caching technique because contrary to caching your model (a DataTable or whatever) you don't pay the price of HTML rendering.
I have to port a smaller windows forms application (product configurator) to an asp.net app which will be used on a large company's website, demand should be moderate because it's for a specialized product line.
I don't have access to a database and using XML is a requirement from their web developers.
There are roughly 30 different products with roughly 300 different possible configurations stored in the xml files, and linked questions / answers that lead to a product recommendation. Also some production options. The app is available in 6 languages.
How would you solve the 'data access' layer, if you could call it this way? I thought of reading / deserializing the xml files into their objects and store them in asp.net's cache if they're not there already and then read from the cache on subsequent requests. But that would mean all objects live in the memory all day and night.
Is that even necessary, or smart, performance wise? As I said before, the app is not that big, the xml files not that large. Could I just create some Repository class that reads the xml files whenever an object is requested (ie. 'Product Details', or 'Next question') and returns it that way, and drive memory consumption down?
The whole approach seems to be sticking to a single server. First consider if this is appropriate as you mentioned a "large company's website", that sets a red flag for me. If you need the site to scale, you will end up having more than a single server, which prevents considering a simple local file.
If you are constrained to using that, analyze what data is more appropriate to keep in cache (does not change often, its long lived, the same info is requested different times). Try to keep the cached stuff separated from the non cached, which will reduce the amount of amount of info in the more dynamic files. If you expect big amounts of information, consider splitting the files with something appropriate to your domain.
I use Cache whenever I can. I cache objects upon their first request. If memory is of any concern, I set expiration policy. And whether it is or not, when short on memory, the framework will unload the cache anyway.
Since it is per application and not per user, it makes sense to have it, especially if the relative footprint is small.
If you have to expand to multiple servers later, you can access the same file over the network or modify DA layer to retrieve data by any other means (services, DB, etc). The caching code will stay the same and performance will be virtually unaffected.
If you set dependency, objects will always stay current.
I'm for it.
Using the cache, and setting an appropriate expiration policy as advised by others is a sound approach. I'd suggest you look at using LINQ to XML as the basis for your data access code as it is so much easier to use than traditional methods of querying XML. You can find a decent introduction here.
I recently came across a ASP 1.1 web application that put a whole heap of stuff in the session variable - including all the DB data objects and even the DB connection object. It ends up being huge. When the web session times out (four hours after the user has finished using the application) sometimes their database transactions get rolled back. I'm assuming this is because the DB connection is not being closed properly when IIS kills the session.
Anyway, my question is what should be in the session variable? Clearly some things need to be in there. The user selects which plan they want to edit on the main screen, so the plan id goes into the session variable. Is it better to try and reduce the load on the DB by storing all the details about the user (and their manager etc.) and the plan they are editing in the session variable or should I try to minimise the stuff in the session variable and query the DB for everything I need in the Page_Load event?
This is pretty hard to answer because it's so application-specific, but here are a few guidelines I use:
Put as little as possible in the session.
User-specific selections that should only last during a given visit are a good choice
often, variables that need to be accessible to multiple pages throughout the user's visit to your site (to avoid passing them from page to page) are also good to put in the session.
From what little you've said about your application, I'd probably select your data from the db and try to find ways to minimize the impact of those queries instead of loading down the session.
Do not put database connection information in the session.
As far as caching, I'd avoid using the session for caching if possible -- you'll run into issues where someone else changes the data a user is using, plus you can't share the cached data between users. Use the ASP.NET Cache, or some other caching utility (like Memcached or Velocity).
As far as what should go in the session, anything that applies to all browser windows a user has open to your site (login, security settings, etc.) should be in the session. Things like what object is being viewed/edited should really be GET/POST variables passed around between the screens so a user can use multiple browser windows to work with your application (unless you'd like to prevent that).
DO NOT put UI objects in session.
beyond that, i'd say it varies. too much in session can slow you down if you aren't using the in process session because you are going to be serializing a lot + the speed of the provider. Cache and Session should be used sparingly and carefully. Don't just put in session because you can or is convenient. Sit down and analyze if it makes sense.
Ideally, the session in ASP should store the least amount of data that you can get away with. Storing a reference to any object that is holding system resources open (particularly a database connection) is a definite scalability killer. Also, storing uncommitted data in a session variable is just a bad idea in most cases. Overall it sounds like the current implementation is abusively using session objects to try and simulate a stateful application in a supposedly stateless environment.
Although it is much maligned, the ASP.NET model of managing state automatically through hidden fields should really eliminate the majority of the need to keep anything in session variables.
My rule of thumb is that the more scalable (in terms of users/hits) that the app needs to be, the less you can get away with using session state. There is, however, a trade-off. For web applications where the user is repeatedly accessing the same data and typically has a fairly long session per use of the site, some caching (if necessary in session objects) can actually help scalability by reducing the load on the DB server. The idea here is that it is much cheaper and less complex to farm the presentation layer than the back-end DB. Of course, with all things, this advice should be taken in moderation and doesn't apply in all situations, but for a fairly simple in-house CRUD app, it should serve you well.
A very similar question was asked regarding PHP sessions earlier. Basically, Sessions are a great place to store user-specific data that you need to access across several page loads. Sessions are NOT a great place to store database connection references; you'd be better to use some sort of connection pooling software or open/close your connection on each page load. As far as caching data in the session, this depends on how session data is being stored, how much security you need, and whether or not the data is specific to the user. A better bet would be to use something else for caching data.
storing navigation cues in sessions is tricky. The same user can have multiple windows open and then changes get propagated in a confusing manner. DB connections should definitely not be stored. ASP.NET maintains the connection pool for you, no need to resort to your own sorcery. If you need to cache stuff for short periods and the data set size is relatively small, look into ViewState as a possible option (at the cost of loading more bulk onto the page size)
A: Data that is only relative to one user. IE: a username, a user ID. At most an object representing a user. Sometimes URL-relative data (like where to take somebody) or an error message stack are useful to push into the session.
If you want to share stuff potentially between different users, use the Application store or the Cache. They're far superior.
Stephen,
Do you work for a company that starts with "I", that has a website that starts with "BC"? That sounds exactly like what I did when I first started developing in .net (and was young and stupid) -- I crammed everything I could think of in session and application. Needless to say, that was double-plus ungood.
In general, eschew session as much as possible. Certainly, non-serializable objects shouldn't be stored there (database connections and such), but even big, serializable objects shouldn't be either. You just don't want the overhead.
I would always keep very little information in session. Sessions use server memory resources which is expensive. Saving too many values in session increases the load on server and eventualy the performance of the site will go down. When you use load balance servers, usage of session can run into problems. So what I do is use minimal or no sessions, use cookies if the information is not very critical, use hidden fields more and database sessions.