I have a asp.net web site for our company and handles about 1000 - 2000 users every day. Now the site will have about 4-5000 users every day. We are putting it to two servers and put them in the hardware load balanced environment.
I am wondering if there is anything else I should do from the ASP.net web site perspective to handle the larger users.
Thanks.
Some things I'd take into consideration..
Session state management - are you going to do it out-of-process? If so, make sure everything being stored in Session is serializable.
Do you have a large number (or any? some may argue) update panels being used or many standard server-side postbacks? If so, try to convert what you can to simple AJAX requests and marshal raw/JSON data back and forth. This will minimize on the number of full page life cycles and data traffic on the server.
On the front-end/UI side, try to leverage CSS sprites, so that you go to the server for the images once and never again.
For database connectivity, make sure you leverage connection pooling.
You may also want to consider js and css minification.
Additionally, these pages has some good tips:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163854.aspx (a bit outdated, but still somewhat relevant)
http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html
First of all you should profile your application against bottleneck - if there is any place in your code which makes your application slow then adding new servers won't help. There are many profilers - I recommend JetBrains Dot Trace (there is a free trial for couple of days).
Second thing is OutputCache - the shortest explanation is "store html that is sent to the users, not recreate it every time. There is a huge number of articles about OutputCache so I don't think you need any link here.
If the traffic is even bigger you can think about using some solution for caching your responses around the world (read e.g. about Akamai) but I don't suppose you will need it with couple thousands of visitors daily.
Related
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.
Does anyone have any literature regarding page requests per second for asp.net (preferably MVC) applications?
I realize it is application specific, but just looking to read up on case studies etc. and expereinces.
Is 1K per second possible?
It could be anywhere from less than one to hundreds of thousands per second. Hope that helps.
If you need more specific answers, try to include something (anything) about the setup or type of app. One machine, a farm of 10,000 machines, a simple app serving mostly-static data, a scientific data processing app, etc etc -
I was looking for something similar when I saw this question. But here's a useful blog post I've come across at the same time. Golden Rule of Web Caching which has some stats which may be relevant for you.
Admittedly, your first request will include the latency of hitting the database, but if you're caching correctly afterwards, you'll get something fairly similar to Gojko's results.
So, in answer, yes. 1k hits per second are definitely achievable.
Another thing I've been trying is using WCAT (Web Capacity Analysis Tool) for testing application performance. Is not difficult to get +1k pages per second from a modest IIS setup if you focus on nice light pages.
I have an asp.net web site with 10-25k visitors a day (peaks of over 60k before holidays). Pages/visit is also high, since it's a content site.
I have a few specific pages which generate about 60% of the traffic. These pages are a bit complex and are DB heavy (sql server 2008 r2 backend).
I was wondering if it's worth "caching" a static version of these pages (I hear this is possible) and only re-render them when something changes (about once in 48hs).
Does this sound like a good idea? Where would be the best place to implement this?
(asp.net, iis, db)
Update: Looks like a good option for me is outputcache with SqlDependency. I see a reference to some kind of SQL server notification for invalidating the cache, but I only see talk of SQL server 2005. Has this option been deprecated by Microsoft? Any new way to handle this?
Caching is a broad term that can happen at a number of different points. The optimum solution may be a combination of some or all.
For example, you can add page, or output caching as described here, which caches output on the web server, which I think is what you were referring to.
In addition, you can cache the data in memory using something like memcached, so that your data is more available to the web server as it builds the page, but you need to look at cache hit rate to know for sure that you are caching the right data.
Also, although slightly off the topic of improving db heavy pages, you can cache static resources that change infrequently like images, css and include files using a content delivery network. Any CDN will almost certainly have a higher bandwidth and a cheaper data plan than your own connection because of the economies of scale, so the more of your content you can serve from there the better, in general.
Your first question was "I was wondering if it's worth "caching" a static version of these pages". I guess the answer to that depends on whether there is a performance problem at the moment, and where the cause of that problem is. If the pages are being served quickly and reliably, then quite possibly it's not worth implementing caching. If there is a performance problem, then where is it? Is it in db read time, or is it in the time spent building the page once the data has been returned?
I don't have much experience in caching, but this is what I would try to do:
I would look at your stats and run some profiles, see which are the most heavily visited pages that run the most expensive SQL queries. Pick one or two of the most expensive pages.
If the page is pseudo static, that is, no data on it such as your logged in username, no comments, etc etc, you can cache the entire page. You can set a relatively long cache as well, anything from 1 min to a few hours.
If the page has some dynamic real time content on it, such as comments, you can identify the static controls and cache those individually. Don't put a page wide cache on.
Good luck, sounds like a cache could improve performance.
Caching may or may not help. For example, if a site has low traffic and if the caching is enabled, the server processes to create the cache before serving the request. And because the traffic is low, there can be enough delay between successive requests. So the cached version may even expire and the server again creates a new cached version. This process makes the response even slower than normal.
Read more: Caching - the good, the bad.
I have myself experienced this issue.
If the traffic is good, caching may help you have better load times.
Cheers
Aditya
I run a medium sized website on an ASP.net platform and using MS SQL server to store the data.
My current site stats are:
~ 6000 Page Views a day
~ 10 tables in the SQL server with around 1000 rows per table
~ 4 queries per page served
The hosting machine has 1GB RAM
I expect by the end of 2009 to hit around:
~ 20,000 page views
~ 10 tables and around 4000 rows per table
~ 5 queries per page served
My question is should I plan for scalability right now itself? Will the machine hold up till the end of the year with the expects stats.
I know my description is very top level and does not provide insight into the kind of queries etc. But just wanted to know what your gut instinct tells you?
Thanks!
You should always plan for scalability. When to put resources into doing the actual scaling is usually the tough guess.
Will the machine hold up until the end
of the year
Way too little information to answer this. If a page request takes 30 CPU seconds to process due to massive interaction with a legacy enterprise application through the four queries per page - then there's no way. If it's taking miniscule fractions of a second to serve some static content stored in the cache and your queries are only executed every half hour to refresh the content - then you're good until 2020 at the rate of traffic growth you describe.
My guess is that you're somewhere closer to the latter scenario. 20,000 page hits a day is not really a ton of traffic, but you'll need to benchmark your page and server performance at some point so that you can make the calculations you need.
Things to look at for scaling your site when it is time:
Output Caching
Optimizing Viewstate
Using Ajax where appropriate
Session optimization
Request, script, css and html minification
Two years ago I saw a relatively new (for two years ago) laptop running IIS and serving up 1100 to 1200 simple dynamic page requests per second. It had been set up by a consulting firm whose business was optimizing ASP.Net websites, but it goes to show you how much you can do.
Essentially, by the end of 2009, you expect to do 100,000 SQL queries per day. This is about 1.157 queries per second.
I am making the assumption that your configuration is "normal" (i.e. you're not doing something funky and these are pretty straightforward SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, etc), and that your server is running RAID disks.
At 4,000 rows per table this is nothing to SQL server. You should be just fine. If you wanted to be proactive about it, put another stick of RAM in the server and bring it up to at least 2GB, that way IIS and SQL have plenty of memory (SQL will certainly take advantage of it).
The hosting machine? Does this mean that you have IIS and SQL installed on the same box or IIS on your host machine with a dedicated SQL Server provided by your hosting company? Either way I would suggest starting to take a look at how you might implement a caching layer to minimize the hits (where possible) to the database. Once this is PLANNED (not necessarily implemented) I would then start to look at how you might build a caching layer around your output (things built in ASP.NET). If you see a clear an easy path to building caching layers...then this is a quick and easy way to start to minimize request to the database and work on your web server. I suggest that this cache layer be flexible...read not use anything provided by .NET! Currently I still suggest using MemCached Win32. You can install it on your one hosted local box easily and configure your cache layer to use local resources (add memory...1gb is not enough). Then if you find that you really need to squeeze every little bit of performance out of your system...splurge for a second box. Split your cache between your current box...and the new box (allowing you to keep more in cache). This will give you some room (and time) to grow. Offloading to more cache should help address any future spikes...and with the second box you can now also focus on making your site work in farmed environment. If you are using local session..push that into your cache layer so that a request from one box or another won't matter (standard session is local to the box that it is managed on).
This is a huge subject...so without real details this is all speculation of course! You might be just right for adding better and more hardware to the existing installation.
Have you tried setting up a quick performance test using sample data? 20,000 page views is less than one/sec (assuming even distribution over 8 hours), which is pretty minimal given your small tables. Assuming you're not sending a ton of data with each page view (i.e. a data table with all 1000 rows from one of your tables), you are likely OK.
You may need to increase RAM, but other than running a performance test I wouldn't worry too much about performance right now.
I don't think the load you are describing would be too much of a problem for most machines. Of course it doesn't just depend on the few metrics you outlined but also on query complexity, page size, and a heap of other things.
If you worry about scalability do some load testing and see how your site handles, say 10000 page views per hour (about 3 views per second). It's mostly always good to plan ahead as long as you plan for probable scenarios.
Guts say: Given 10 tables with 4,000 rows each and assuming about 2KB of data per row is only 80MB for the entire database. Easily cached within memory available. Assuming everything else about the application is equally simple, you should be able to easily serve hundreds of pages per second.
Engineers say: If you want to know, stress test your application.
In Joel's article for Inc. entitled How Hard Could It Be?: The Unproven Path, he wrote:
...it turns out that Jeff and his
programmers were so good that they
built a site that could serve 80,000
visitors a day (roughly 755,000 page
views)
How would I go about figuring out the maximum load my server(s) can handle?
Benchmarking your software is often a lot harder than it seems. Sure, it's easy to produce some numbers that say something about the performance of your software, but unless it was calculated using a very accurate representation of the actual usage patterns of your end users, it might be completely different from the actual results you will get in the wild. Websites are notoriously hard to benchmark correctly. Sure, you can run a script that measures the time it takes to generate a page but it will be a very different number from what you will see under real world usage.
Inorder to create a solid benchmark of what your servers can handle, you first need to figure out what the usage patterns of your users is. If your site is already running, you can easily collect this data from your logs. Next, you need to create a simulation that will emulate exactly the same patterns as your real users exhibit... that is - view front page, login, view status page and so forth. Different pages will create a different load on the servers requiring that you actually fetch correct set of pages when simulating load on your servers. Finally, you need to figure out which resources are cached by your users, you can do this again by looking through your access log or using a tool such as firebug.
JMeter, ab, or httperf
You can create several "stress tests" and run them as the other posters are telling.
Apache has a tool called JMeter where you can create these tests and run them several times.
http://jmeter.apache.org/
Greetings.
Jason, Have you looked at the Load Test built in to Visual Studio 2008 Team System? Check out this video to see a demo.
Edit: Here's another video that has better resolution.
Apache has a tool called ab that you can use to benchmark a server. It can simulate loads requests and concurrency situations for you.
Basically you need to mimic the behavior of a user and keep ramping up the number of users being mimiced until the server response is no longer acceptable.
There are a variety of tools that can do this but essentially you want to record a few sessions activity on your site and then play those sessions back (adding some randomisation to reflect real user behaviour) lots of times.
You will want to log the performance of each session and keep increasing the load until the the performance becomes unacceptable.