In my .NET web app, I keep basic user info in a user session object. I also usually keep a director class in the session; which is basically just has info about whatever thing it being worked on on that screen (like a customer id).
I am trying to keep from adding a ton of sessions. I also want to make sure at any given time ONLY the sessions that are necessary are in memory.
This means I need an effective way of managing my session variables. Any suggestions?
Two things:
1 - You should not be storing so much in session that managing memory is a concern. I.e., don't store objects in session, store pointers to things, e.g., rather than an instance of User just store the UserID. If you need to, you can add caching of retrieval of info, but that should be in a caching layer separate from sessions.
2 - Use database sessions, so that there is no concern about server memory, and so that you can add more web servers easily if desired (note, StateServer gives you this capability as well). Additionally, this lets you recycle the app pool without users losing their session. This is the main reason I do it - it lets me deploy on the fly.
The reason to treat sessions so delicately, is that they hang around after a user's last request, typically for 10 to 20 minutes. So, requests from many different sessions can use up large amounts of server memory if you are storing large objects in session. Doing even crazier things, like storing database connections in session, can result in you using up all available database connections, just because so many are hanging around in memory waiting for the session to expire.
Ideally, there is no "managing" of sessions required.
What I normally do is only keep the id of an object in Session and keep the data in a caching layer in front of the database. That way, you keep your session fairly small but most data can still be retrieved efficiently if the item is in cache. This has usually worked well for me.
I think you're misunderstanding sessions in ASP.NET. You do not explicitly manage them (although you could, you would rarely want to) they are implicitly created and destroyed by ASP.NET and IIS. Every user is given a session.
Now anything you store inside a users session is stored in memory on the server so if you routinely place large objects in each users sessions this will cause the memory to grow rapidly leading to performance and scalability issues.
The only data you need to store in the session is transient data that you want to be available across different page requests that you want to be secured that it is not available to the client in a cookie or similar construct.
However reading what you're doing this is most likely not needed. Since you are working with a specific page and "director" functionality this would most likely be fitting to place on the page in the viewstate as an intermediary data store.
There is no wright answer. It depends on the number of concurrent users, on the size of your memory.
Keeping things on session is faster than on a database, if you have your session variables in proc.
I usually try to keep just things that I know the user might need during a specific task, or, like you said, information of the current user.
My suggestion is:
Wrap the session access into a IPerSessionCache interface
Have a concrete implementation of this interface
Use an instace of the concrete class in the code to get/set session data
By this, then you have the freedom to clean up the instance of IPerSessionCache when the session ends
The code will not need to know where the IPerSessionCache actually stores the data (ie. it could in the Session or in a database or in a cookie etc.)
You would have better control on the lifetime of the IPerSessionCache especially if you use a DI container for managing & creating the instance
HTH.
My suggestion: Don't use session variables. Store everything in a database.
Related
What's the best way to cache web site user data in asp.net 4.0?
I have a table of user settings that track all kinds of user or session specific stuff like the state of UI elements (open/closed), preferences, whether some dialog has been dismissed, and so on. Since these don't change very often (for each user, anyway) but are looked up frequently it seems sensible to cache them. What's the best way? These are the options I've identified...
Store them in HttpContext.Current.Session directly (e.g. Session["setting_name"])
Store them in HttpContext.Current.Cache
Use a global static dictionary, e.g. static ConcurrentDictionary<string,string> where the key is a unique userID + setting name value
Store a dictionary object for each session in Session or Cache
What's the most sensible way to do this? How does Session differ from Cache from a practical standpoint? Would it ever make sense to store a dictionary as a single session/cache object versus just adding lots of values directly? I would think lookups might be faster, but updates would be slower since I'd have to re-store the entire dictionary when it changed.
What problems or benefits might there be to using a global static cache? Seems like this would be the fastest, but I'd have to manage the size. I could just flush it periodically if it hits a certain size, or keep a cross reference queue and remove things oldest first when it gets to a certain size. Does this make any sense or is it just trying too hard?
Session may end up being stored out-of-process or in a database, which can make retrieving it expensive. You would likely be using a session database if your application is to be hosted in a server farm, as opposed to a single server. A server farm provides improved scalability and reliability, and it's often a common deployment scenario. Have you thought about that?
Also, when you use Session not in-process, it ends up getting serialized to be sent out-of-process or to a database, and deserialized when retrieved, and you are effectively doing what you describe above:
... updates would be slower since I'd have
to re-store the entire dictionary when
it changed. ...
.. since, even if you use individual session keys, the entire Session object for a user is serialized and deserialized together (all at once).
Whereas, Cache would be in memory on a particular server in the farm, and therefore much more efficient than going out of process or to the database. However, something in cache on one server might not be in cache on another. So if a user's subsequent request is directed to another server in the farm, the cache on that server might not yet hold any of the user's items.
Nevertheless, I'd suggest you use Cache if you're caching for performance reasons.
p.s. Yes, you're trying too hard. Don't reinvent the wheel unless you really need to. :-)
might be better to put your information into memcached for scalability
I've done a search on this subject already, and have found the same data over and over-- a review of the three different types of sessions. (InProc, Sql, StateServer) However, my question is of a different nature.
Specifically, what is the advantages/disadvantages of using the built in .NET session in the first place?
Here is why I am asking: A fellow .NET developer has told me to NEVER use the built in Microsoft Session. Not at all. Not even create a custom Session State Provider. His reasoning for this is the following--that if you have the Session turned on in IIS it makes all of your requests happen synchronously. He says that enabling session degrades the performance of a web server.
His solution to this is to create a session yourself-- a class that stores all values you need and is serialized in and out of the database. He advises that you store the unique ID to reference this in a cookie or a querystring variable. In our environment, using a DB to store the sessions is a requirement because all the pages we make are on web farms, and we use Oracle-- so I agree with that part.
Does using the built in Session degrade performance more than a home-built Session? Are there any security concerns with this?
So to sum it all up, what are the advantages/disadvantages?
Thanks to all who answer!
My experience has been that the session is a good means of managing state when you use it appropriately. However, often times it's misused, causing the "never ever use the session" sentiment shared by many developers.
I and many other developers have ran into major performance issues when we mistakenly used the session to store large amounts of data from a database, so as to "save a trip." This is bad. Storing 2000 user records per session will bring the web server to its knees when more than a couple of users use the application. Session should not be used as a database cache.
Storing an integer, however, per session is perfectly acceptable. Small amounts of data representing how the current user is using your application (think shopping cart) is a good use of session state.
To me, it's really all about managing state. If done correctly, then session can be one of many good ways to manage state. It should be decided in the beginning on how to manage state though. Most often times, we've run into trouble when someone decides to just "throw something in the session".
I found this article to be really helpful when using out-of-process modes, and it contains some tips that I would have never thought of on my own. For example, rather than marking a class as serializable, storing its primitive datatype members in separate session variables, and then recreating the object can improve performance.
Firstly, you colleague is implementing his own DB backed session management system, I do not see what advantage this has over using built in session state stored on a database (MS SQL is the default, there is no reason not to use Oracle instead).
Is his solution better than the built in one? Unlikely. It's way more work for you for a start. Here's a simple illustration of why. Let's say you use cookies to store your ID, how do you cope with a user who turns off cookies? If you are using ASP.Net's session state there's no problem as it will fall back to using the query string. With your colleagues idea you have to roll your own.
There is a very valid question as to whether you shold have session state at all. If you can design your application not to need any session state at all you will have a much easier time scaling and testing. Obviously you may have application state which needs to live beyond a session anyway (simple case beign user names and passwords), but you have to store these data anyway regardless of whether you have session state.
The MS implementation of Session State is not evil in and of itself... it is how some developers use it. As mentioned above, using the built-in session state provider means that you don't have to reinvent the security, aging, and concurrency issues. Just don't start jamming lots of garbage in the session because you're too lazy to figure out a better way to manage state and page transitions. Session doesn't scale really well... if each user on your site stuffs a bunch of objects in the session, and those objects take up a tiny bit of the finite memory available to your app, you'll run into problems sooner than later as your app grows in popularity. Use session in the manner for which it was designed: a token to represent that a user is still "using" your site. When you start to venture beyond that, either because of ignorance or laziness, you're bound to get burned.
You should be judicious in your use of Session, since multiple requests to the same Session object will usually be queued: see "Concurrent requests and session state" http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178581.aspx.
Note that you can set EnableSessionState to ReadOnly to allow concurrent read access to session state.
This queuing is a good thing, as it means developers can use Session without being concerned about synchronization.
I would not agree with your colleague's recommendation to "never" use Session and I certainly wouldn't consider rolling my own.
First, a browser will only make two requests, to a given hostname, at a given time. For the most part these requests are for static content (JS files, CSS, etc). So, the serializing of requests to dynamic content aren't nearly the issue that one might think. Also, I think this may be confused with Classic ASP, where pages that use Session are definitely serialized, I don't believe this is the case with ASP.Net.
With ASP.Net session state (SQL mode, state server, or custom) you have an implementation that is standard, and consistent throughout an application. If you don't need to share session information this is your best bet. If you need to share information with other application environments (php, swing/java, classic asp, etc.) it may be worth considering.
Another advantage/disadvantage is that there has been a lot of developer focus on the built-in methodology for sessions with regards to performance, and design over rolling your own, even with a different provider.
Are there any security concerns with this?
If you roll your own you'll have to handle Session Fixation and Hijacking attacks, whereas using the built-in Session I think they are handled for you (but I could be wrong).
the home made session as you have described is doing nothing different "SQL" state of .Net sessions and in my experience i dont think session degrades your performance in anyway. building your own session manager will require putting in several other plumbing tasks along - security, flushing it out, etc.
the advantage with in-built sessions is its easy to use with all this plumbing already been taken care of. with "SQL" mode you can persist the session data in database thus allowing you to run your app on web-farms without any issues.
we designed a b2b ecommerce app for fortune 57 company which processes over 100k transactions a day and used sessions [SQL mode] quite extensively without any problems whatsover at all.
Correct me if I am wrong:
The primary advantage of storing Session state in a db, e.g., SQL Server, is that you are not consuming memory resources, but instead storing it to disk in a db.
The disadvantage is that you take an IO hit to retrieve this info from the database each time you need it (or maybe SQL Sever even does some magic caching of the data for you based on recently executed queries?)
In any event, this the price an IO to retrieve the session info from a db per trip to the web server seems like a safer strategy for sites that encounter a lot of traffic.
If you cache data from your database in ASP.NET session then you will speed up subsequent requests for that data (note: depending on the serialization/deserialization cost of the data concerned), at the expense of memory load in IIS.
(OK, this is probably a simplification of the reality of the situation - feel free to correct or refine my statement above)
Do you use any rules (simple rules of thumb or otherwise) to decide when it is appropriate to cache in Session?
Update
Can use of Session for storing read-only data without very well thought out rationale simply be considered another case of Premature Optimization? (and therefore, bad)
Keep in mind with caching in session if you use the InProc mode, you are limiting your scalability unless your code will go back to the DB when the session is empty. You will be forced to use a single server or pin your user to a particular server.
If your using Session State Server this doesn't apply, and if your using SQL to store session state then using session for caching is pointless.
Edit
Any advice around this topic is subject to your specific environment. As you stated, a very complex sql query might benefit from being cached even when using SQL Session State. I think the most important thing is first make your application perform the functions and achieve the business requirements. Then go back and test and optimize the application to handle the load you expect.
Edit 2
Based on your update no I don't think this is true. In one of my ASP.Net Applications I am using session state to store a complex object model that the user is then manipulating and modifying. We are using AJAX and so we have a lot of short communication to server as user updates the object. Keeping the object in session was done as a convience. The object performs a lot of customized calculations to generate different data points, so doing this on the server was ideal as opposed to trying to replicate the code in the servr and in javascript. Also keeping it in session lets us have an undo function very easily.
And Yes I know we sacrificed scalability, but I welcome the day when I sit down with my boss and explain we have a problem because we have too many users (And I know he would too).
So I think the question is why are you storing data in session is it for convience and to provide access to transient data while the user is logged in? That is different then storing it there for caching. One thing to remeber with caching is how are you going to flush the cache? How do you invalidate it? I don't session state is built to handle this.
Edit 3
Back at it well read only data, user specific, expensive to load from DB, go ahead cache it in session. You can write your code so if it's not in session then you hit the DB. Have a nice little helper class that does this hidding it from your web app that your even using session and you should be good. Nice thing about hidding where you store it from your web if you find you run into issues you only have one place to change it.
Given that it is very hard to guarantee that data in a session gets cleared up in a reasonable time frame, I would be very wary of cashing anything more than the odd integer there. When you get up to a large scale you will either hit memory issues or have all your users get session time out errors. Remember that unlike the Cache object sessions don't get killed off when memory is low.
Also as Josh says if you go to multiple servers and need to use either a Database or Session State Server your session object will need to be serialisable. In this case the cost of serialising and de serialising is likely to be worse than the cost of a well optimized query.
I have been asked up to come up with a state management strategy for a ASP .NET / MVC C# 3.5 web app
I have chose to go with storing sessions on a state server - this will be a separate physical box. I am concerned about the time that would be taken to serialize/deserialize objects when storing into sessions...
Does anyone know of a technique to get maximum performance when doing this?
Also would something like compressing information before storing it in session help or would this also result in slower performance times.
EDIT: I am using a separate box for the state server as we will have multiple web servers.
Personally the most common elements here are to work with reducing the amount of information put into session.
Compression MIGHT save space, but it is going to take more CPU time to get it done, more than likely causing either reduced performance or at minimum no net gain. Unless you are talking about REALLY big objects.
Example of Zip Compression on Session, Application, and Cache, used right here at StackOverflow.
Make sure you disable Session State on pages that don't use it. "By default, the ASP.NET session state manager performs two accesses—one read access and one write access—to the session data store in every request, regardless of whether the page requested uses session state." --MSDN Magazine
Be careful you're not trying to prematurely optimize your solution. Before implementing something like Session compression, it would probably be a good idea to conduct a series of benchmarks to determine if something like that is even necessary in your application.
You sure you'll be storing that much data in your session storage? Typical use of a session for a single user is a few hundred bytes!
As for serializing and de serializing, with that kinda small size is negilable.
Of course you'll be expecting more users than that, but still.
If your storing large amounts data in your session, then IMO, your doing it wrong.
Several have pointed out that too much data in session state per-user is a sign of a problem, but they haven't directly pointed at the solution to it: keep a user SQL database and store all the user info in that. Then the session state typically consists of just the logged in user's id. Any other state is probably directly related to the user's current activity, which suggests it can possibly be carried along more appropriately as in-memory cookies or querystring variables. Often this is the better option anyway, so that things to get into a corrupt state when users click their Back and Forward buttons.
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.