In the main thread I open a new thread that gets the number of new messages of user (takes about 5 secs) and this second thread should save the number in some place.
In the main thread I should check the "some place" and if the value exists I display it on the page.
Where can I save the value from the second thread to read it from the main one? This value is unique per user so I can't use static field.
Thank you for advance!
You can use static dictionary with user id as key and result as value. Protect dictionary access with locks. After main thread reads value, you can clear it from dictionary.
Use critical section to protect access to some data when several threads can read/write it. Use singleton instance to store data, global variable, registry pattern or whatever.
The way I do it, i have a vector od "ThreadData" elements.
Each started thread gets this element when started and it can update that data (protected by mutexes).
The main thread simply checks some flag in the element (ThreadState -- Running, Idle, Stopped, etc) and read the other data which the thread updated.
Related
We appear to have a problem with MDriven generating the same ECO_ID for multiple objects. For the most part it seems to happen in conjunction with unexpected process shutdowns and/or server shutdowns, but it does also happen during normal activity.
Our system consists of one ASP.NET application and one WinForms application. The ASP.NET app is setup in IIS to use a single worker process. We have a mixture of WebForms and MVC, including ApiControllers. We're using a rather old version of the ECO packages: 7.0.0.10021. We're on VS 2017, target framework is 4.7.1.
We have it configured to use 64 bit integers for object id:s. Database is Firebird. SQL configuration is set to use ReadCommitted transaction isolation.
As far as I can tell we have configured EcoSpaceStrategyHandler with EcoSpaceStrategyHandler.SessionStateMode.Never, which should mean that EcoSpaces are not reused at all, right? (Why would I even use EcoSpaceStrategyHandler in this case, instead of just creating EcoSpace normally with the new keyword?)
We have created MasterController : Controller and MasterApiController : ApiController classes that we use for all our controllers. These have a EcoSpace property that simply does this:
if (ecoSpace == null)
{
if (ecoSpaceStrategyHandler == null)
ecoSpaceStrategyHandler = new EcoSpaceStrategyHandler(
EcoSpaceStrategyHandler.SessionStateMode.Never,
typeof(DiamondsEcoSpace),
null,
false
);
ecoSpace = (DiamondsEcoSpace)ecoSpaceStrategyHandler.GetEcoSpace();
}
return ecoSpace;
I.e. if no strategy handler has been created, create one specifying no pooling and no session state persisting of eco spaces. Then, if no ecospace has been fetched, fetch one from the strategy handler. Return the ecospace. Is this an acceptable approach? Why would it be better than simply doing this:
if (ecoSpace = null)
ecoSpace = new DiamondsEcoSpace();
return ecoSpace;
In aspx we have a master page that has an EcoSpaceManager. It has been configured to use a pool but SessionStateMode is Never. It has EnableViewState set to true. Is this acceptable? Does it mean that EcoSpaces will be pooled but inactivated between round trips?
It is possible that we receive multiple incoming API calls in tight succession, so that one API call hasn't been completed before the next one comes in. I assume that this means that multiple instances of MasterApiController can execute simultaneously but in separate threads. There may of course also be MasterController instances executing MVC requests and also the WinForms app may be running some batch job or other.
But as far as I understand id reservation is made at the beginning of any UpdateDatabase call, in this way:
update "ECO_ID" set "BOLD_ID" = "BOLD_ID" + :N;
select "BOLD_ID" from "ECO_ID";
If the returned value is K, this will reserve N new id:s ranging from K - N to K - 1. Using ReadCommitted transactions everywhere should ensure that the update locks the id data row, forcing any concurrent save operations to wait, then fetches the update result without interference from other transactions, then commits. At that point any other pending save operation can proceed with its own id reservation. I fail to see how this could result in the same ID being used for multiple objects.
I should note that it does seem like it sometimes produces id duplicates within one single UpdateDatabase, i.e. when saving a set of new related objects, some of them end up with the same id. I haven't really confirmed this though.
Any ideas what might be going on here? What should I look for?
The issue is most likely that you use ReadCommitted isolation.
This allows for 2 systems to simultaneously start a transaction, read the current value, increase the batch, and then save after each other.
You must use Serializable isolation for key generation; ie only read things not currently in a write operation.
MDriven use 2 settings for isolation level UpdateIsolationLevel and FetchIsolationLevel.
Set your UpdateIsolationLevel to Serializable
I have an HttpSessionListener. Is there a way, inside its sessionDestroyed method to distinguish between the following cases:
the session was destroyed because the session-timeout configured in the web.xml was exceeded
the session was destroyed programmatically by the the application calling HttpSession#invalidate
My use case is that I have a Single Sign On (SSO) arrangement between a number of applications and I want a global single sign off when one of the applications participating in the SSO arrangement explicitly logs off but not when its session times out, hence the need to distinguish between the two cases. I guess a way would be for the application to set some flag in the session object just prior to calling HttpSession#invalidate. The HttpSessionListener would then examine the session object and if that flag is found it would know this was a programmatic logout. If not, it was a container logout. Would that make sense and / or is there a better way?
You can use HttpSession#getLastAccessedTime() to obtain the timestamp of the last request sent by the client associated with the session. Then you can just do the math with help of HttpSession#getMaxInactiveInterval() and the current timestamp.
long lastAccessedTime = session.getLastAccessedTime();
long timeoutInMillis = TimeUnit.SECONDS.toMillis(session.getMaxInactiveInterval());
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
boolean sessionHasBeenTimedout = (now - timeoutInMillis > lastAccessedTime);
// ...
My Node.js application accepts connections from the outside. Each connection handler reads a SET on Redis, eventually modifies the set itself, then moves on. The problem is that in the meanwhile another async connection can try to read the same SET and try to update it or decide its next step based on what it reads.
I know that Redis does its best to be atomic, but this is not quite sufficient for my use case. Think about this: the set is read to understand if it's FULL (there is a business rule for that). If it's FULL, then something happens. The problem is that if there is one only slot left, two semi-concurrent connections could think each one is the last one. And I get an overflow.
I there a way to keep a connection "waiting" for the very short time the other eventually needs to update the set state?
I think this is a corner case, very very unluckely... but you know :)
Using another key as the "lock" is an option, or does it stink?
How about using blpop to do locking. blpop key 5 to wait 5 seconds for key. At start put item(to identify queue is not empty) at key. The connection acquiring the lock should remove item from key. The next connect then can't acquire the lock, because empty, but blpop has the following nice property:
Multiple clients can block for the same key. They are put into a
queue, so the first to be served will be the one that started to wait
earlier, in a first-BLPOP first-served fashion.
When connection which acquired lock has finished task it should put back item back in queue, then the next connection waiting can acquire lock(item).
You may be looking for WATCH with MULTI/EXEC. Here's the pattern that both threads follow:
WATCH sentinel_key
GET value_of_interest
if (value_of_interest = FULL)
MULTI
SET sentinel_key = foo
EXEC
if (EXEC returned 1, i.e. succeeded)
do_something();
else
do_nothing();
else
UNWATCH
The way this works is that all of the commands between MULTI and EXEC are queued up but not actually executed until EXEC is called. When EXEC is called, before actually executing the queued instructions it checks to see if sentinel_key has changed at all since the WATCH was set; if it has, it returns (nil) and the queued commands are discarded. Otherwise the commands are executed atomically as a block, and it returns the number of commands executed (1 in this case), letting you know you won the race and do_something() can be called.
It's conceptually similar to the fork()/exec() Unix system calls - the return value from fork() tells you which process you are (parent or child). In this case it tells you whether you won the race or not.
I have a system set up to lock certain content in a database table so only one user can edit that content at a time. Easy enough and that part is working fine. But now I'm at a road block of how to send a request to "unlock" the content. I have the stored procedure to unlock the content, but how/where would I call it when the user just closes their browser?
You also can't know when the user turns off his computer. You have to do it the other way around.
Require that the lock be renewed periodically. Only the web site would do the periodic renewal. If the user stops using the web site, then the lock expires.
Otherwise, require the user to explicitly unlock the content. Other users who want to edit the content can then go yell at the first user when they can't do their jobs. Not a technological solution, but still a good one. Shame works.
The best thing you can really do is add something to your Session_End in your global.asax. Unfortunately, this won't fire until the session times out.
When the user clicks the "X" in their browser, there isn't anyway to guarantee the browser will send you anything back.
A quick note on the Session_End approaches. If you use this method, then you have to ensure
That sessionstate is InProc, eg. add something like this to your Web.config
<sessionState mode="InProc" timeout="timeout_in_minutes"/>
Make sure that you've setup IIS as to not recycle worker processes during normal operation (see for instance this blog post).
Edit:
Not directly answering the question directly, but another approach would be to use Optimistic concurrency control on the data in question.
There is such event as "user closes browser".
Nevertheless, I can think of two workarounds:
Use Javascript/Ajax to permanently
(lets say every 10 seconds) call a
method in your page. The DateTime of
your last query needs to be stored
somewhere. Now you write a windows
service that checks every second
which session are timed out. Perform
your custom action there.
Use the global.asax Session_End()
-Event. (cannot be used with every SessionState, look up for which ones
it is usable)
Trying to leave a stackoverflow answer page pops up an "are you sure" dialog. Perhaps during the on-page-leave event that SO uses (or however SO does this), you can send a final request with an XmlHttpRequest object. This won't cover if the browser process closes unexpectedly (use session_onend for that), but it will at least send the "I'm closed" event earlier
I think your one stored procedure can do the locking and unlocking (used with "Select #strNewMax As NewMax")...
Here is an example from a system I have:
Declare #strNewMax Char
Select #strNewMax = 'N'
BEGIN TRANSACTION
/* Lock only the rows for this Item ID, and hold those locks throughout the transaction. */
If #BidAmount > (Select Max(AB_Bid_AMT) from AuctionBid With(updlock, holdlock) Where AB_AI_ID = #AuctionItemId)
Begin
Insert Into AuctionBid (AB_AI_ID, AB_Bid_AMT, AB_Emp_ID, AB_Entry_DTM)
Select #AuctionItemId, #BidAmount, #EmployeeId, GetDate()
Select #strNewMax = 'Y'
End
COMMIT TRANSACTION
Select #strNewMax As NewMax
This will insert a record as the next highest bid, all while locking the entire table, so no other bids are processed at the same time. It will return either a 'Y' or 'N' depending on if it worked or not.
Maybe you can take this and adjust it to fit your application.
I've a requirement of creating a HttpHandler that will serve an image file (simple static file) and also it'll insert a record in the SQL Server table. (e.g http://site/some.img, where some.img being a HttpHandler) I need an in-memory object (like Generic List object) that I can add items to on each request (I also have to consider a few hundreds or thousands requests per second) and I should be able unload this in-memory object to sql table using SqlBulkCopy.
List --> DataTable --> SqlBulkCopy
I thought of using the Cache object. Create a Generic List object and save it in the HttpContext.Cache and insert every time a new Item to it. This will NOT work as the CacheItemRemovedCallback would fire right away when the HttpHandler tries to add a new item. I can't use Cache object as in-memory queue.
Anybody can suggest anything? Would I be able to scale in the future if the load is more?
Why would CacheItemRemovedCalledback fire when you ADD something to the queue? That doesn't make sense to me... Even if that does fire, there's no requirement to do anything here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your requirements?
I have quite successfully used the Cache object in precisely this manner. That is what it's designed for and it scales pretty well. I stored a Hashtable which was accessed on every app page request and updated/cleared as needed.
Option two... do you really need the queue? SQL Server will scale pretty well also if you just want to write directly into the DB. Use a shared connection object and/or connection pooling.
How about just using the Generic List to store requests and using different thread to do the SqlBulkCopy?
This way storing requests in the list won't block the response for too long, and background thread will be able to update the Sql on it's own time, each 5 min so.
you can even base the background thread on the Cache mechanism by performing the work on CacheItemRemovedCallback.
Just insert some object with remove time of 5 min and reinsert it at the end of the processing work.
Thanks Alex & Bryan for your suggestions.
Bryan: When I try to replace the List object in the Cache for the second request (now, count should be 2), the CacheItemRemovedCalledback gets fire as I'm replacing the current Cache object with the new one. Initially, I also thought this is weird behavior so I gotta look deeper into it.
Also, for the second suggestion, I will try to insert record (with the Cached SqlConnection object) and see what performance I get when I do the stress test. I doubt I'll be getting fantastic numbers as it's I/O operation.
I'll keep digging on my side for an optimal solution meanwhile with your suggestions.
You can create a conditional requirement within the callback to ensure you are working on a cache entry that has been hit from an expiration instead of a remove/replace (in VB since I had it handy):
Private Shared Sub CacheRemovalCallbackFunction(ByVal cacheKey As String, ByVal cacheObject As Object, ByVal removalReason As Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason)
Select Case removalReason
Case Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Expired, Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.DependencyChanged, Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Underused
' By leaving off Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Removed, this will exclude items that are replaced or removed explicitly (Cache.Remove) '
End Select
End Sub
Edit Here it is in C# if you need it:
private static void CacheRemovalCallbackFunction(string cacheKey, object cacheObject, System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason removalReason)
{
switch(removalReason)
{
case System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.DependencyChanged:
case System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Expired:
case System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Underused:
// This excludes the option System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Removed, which is triggered when you overwrite a cache item or remove it explicitly (e.g., HttpRuntime.Cache.Remove(key))
break;
}
}
To expand on my previous comment... I get the picture you are thinking about the cache incorrectly. If you have an object stored in the Cache, say a Hashtable, any update/storage into that Hashtable will be persisted without you explicitly modifying the contents of the Cache. You only need to add the Hashtable to the Cache once, either at application startup or on the first request.
If you are worried about the bulkcopy and page request updates happening simultaneously, then I suggest you simple have TWO cached lists. Have one be the list which is updated as page requests come in, and one list for the bulk copy operation. When one bulk copy is finished, swap the lists and repeat. This is similar to double-buffering video RAM for video games or video apps.