I am currently building a webshop for my own where I want to increment the product-stock when the user fails to complete payment within 10 minutes after the customer placed the order. I want to gather information from this thread to make a design decision.
I am using SQL Server 2008 and ASP.NET 3.5. Should I use a SQL Server Job who intervals check the orders which are not payed yet or are there better solutions to do this.
Thanks in advance!
Martijn
Good question. I would work with a scheduled job. Run it every minute.
If the application is larger, a triggered application may also work (an exe that you start from the job scheduler in asp.net). Depends on the logic - I would not put more into the stored procedure than I have to in business logic, if you do stuff there that is more complicated - i would not put it into SQL.
Related
After many years of programming, I need to do something asynchronously for the very first time (because it takes several minutes and the web page times out -- don't want the user waiting that long anyway). This action is done by only a few people but could be done a few times per day (for each of them).
From a "Save" click on an ASP.NET web page using LINQ, I'm inserting a record into a SQL Server table. That then triggers an SSIS package to push that record out to several other databases around the country.
So..
How can I (hopefully simply) make this asynchronous so that the user can get on with other things?
Should this be set up on the .NET side or on the SQL side?
Is there a way (minutes later) that the user can know that the process has completed and successfully? Maybe an email? Not sure how else the user can know it finished fine.
I read some threads on this site about it but they were from 2009 so not sure if much different now with Visual Studio 2012/.NET Framework 4.5 (we're still using SQL Server 2008 R2).
It is generally a bad idea to perform long-running tasks in ASP.Net. For one thing, if the application pool is recycled before the task completes, it would be lost.
I would suggest writing the request to a database table, and using a separate Windows Service to do the long-running work. It could update a status column in the database table that could be checked at a later time to see if the task completed or not, and if there was an error.
You could use Service Broker on the SQL side; it'sa SQL Server implementation of Message Queueing.
Good examples here and here
What you do is create a Service Broker service and define some scaffolding (queues, message types, etc).
Then you create a service "Activation" procedure which is basically a stored procedure that consumes messages from queue. This SP would receive for example a message with an ID of a record in a table, and would then go on and do whatever needs to be done to it, perhaps sending an email when it's done, etc.
So from your code-behind, you'd call a simple stored procedure which would insert the user's data into a table, and send a message to the queue with for e.g the ID of the new record, and then immediately return. I suppose you should tell the user upfront that this could take a few minutes and they'll receive an email, etc.
The great thing about Service Broker is message delivery is pretty much guaranteed - even if your SQL Server falls over right after the message is queued, when you bring it back up the activation SP will just kick off again, so it's very robust.
We are developing huge CRM application: MSSQL + ASP MVC. We've created views for password reminder. Every time user want to remind his password application generates GUID. This GUID is deleted when user get his new password. So for sure there are going to be some "lost GUIDs" in the database - GUIDs created for users that will never finish do recover password.
I want to schedule a job or app that will delete those "lost GUIDs". Is it better do accomplish by:
1. setting a job in the database,
or by
2. writting another controller and scheduling it
?
In my opinion database job is better solution, because it put data-workflow focused on database, but I prefer to as experts here :).
Which solution will be more scalable and easyer to deploy over number of clients?
"Better" is subjective and I usually handle different tasks differently.
I have always written these types of tasks as a job. More specifically, the applications that I have built that follow a similar model always have app specific daily/weekly/monthly tasks. For this type of task, I bunch it together with other jobs in a wrapper proc.
I don't manage all jobs this way as, more important things I want to take full advantage of sql agent's notifications and such but general regular data cleanup tasks will log an error and rerun the next cycle, which is acceptable for me.
I hope this helps!
We had huge performance problem when deploying our ASP.NET app at a customer, which had the DB sitting on a remote location.
We found that it was due to the fact that pages made ridiculous amount of individual SQL queries to the DB. It was never a problem we noticed because usually, the web and DB are on the same local network (low latency). But on this (suddenly) low latency configuration, it was very very slow.
(Notice that each sql request by itself was fast, it is the number and serial nature of the sequence that is the problem).
I asked the engineering team to be able to report and maintain a "wall of shame" (or stats) telling us for each page the number of SQL requests so we can use it as a reference. They claim it is expensive..
anyone can tell me how to be able to maintain or get such report cheaply and easily?
We are using SQL Server 2005
We have a mix of our own DB access layer and subsonic
I know and use the profiler, but that is a bit manual. Asking here if there is a tip on how to automate or maybe I am just crazy?
If you are on SQL Server, read up on Profiler.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187929.aspx
Running profiler from the UI is expensive, but you can run traces without the UI and that will give you what you want.
First, check out SubSonic's BatchQuery functionality--it might help alleviate alot of the stress in the first cut without getting into material modification of your code.
You can schedule trace jobs/dumps from the SQL server's end of things. You can also run perfmon counters to see how many database requests the app is serving.
All that said, I'd try and encourage the customer to move the database (or a mirrored copy of the database) closer to your app. It is probably the cheapest solution in the long term, depending on how thick the app is.
I have had good success using this tool in the past, not sure if the price is right for you but it will uncover any issues you may have:
Spotlight on SQL Server
The MiniProfiler (formerly known as the MVC mini profiler; but it works for all both MVC and Webforms) is a must in such a case IMO. If the code creating the database connections is well architectured it's a piece of cake to get it running for almost any ASP.NET application.
It generates a report on each rendered page with profiling stats, including each SQL query sent to the database for the request. You can see it in action on the Stack Exchange Data Explorer pages (top left corner).
We are building an extranet loan status check website using ASP.NET MVC with a WCF backend. Its a pretty standard design with the MVC site using a WCF service reference to get customer objects. The ervice uses an Oracle backend + http binding, and won't be hosted on the same server as the MVC site (so we can't use tcp binding to reduce latency).
The problem we encountered is that every call to the service is resulting in a 7-8s response time which is unacceptable for an extranet site and much higher than the 2s magic mark. The service method(s) call 12 stored procedures to create the customer object. The database is, unfortunately, denormalized (we can't change it as its also used by other inhouse production systems) so most of the calls are basic select statements which populate the customer object and its associated objects. The service proxy is properly opened and closed/disposed in the MVC actions so there are no instances of any service connection leaks. A new client proxy is created for every request (i.e., we are not using the singleton pattern for the service).
Any ideas how we can speed this up ?
Thanks
It sounds like you already know where the problem is - it's the database.
I've never heard of a WCF operation taking more than a fraction of a second to set up and tear down, excluding any logic inside. So even if you could shave off 1-2 seconds of latency (which is probably an optimistic estimate), that doesn't really help if the database operation takes 5-6 seconds by itself.
Honestly? Running 12 stored procedures to create a customer is completely off-the-wall. The purpose of a stored procedure is to encapsulate all of the logic necessary to perform a complex database operation. The very first thing you need to do is change this to be one stored procedure - then if it's still slow, profile the database to see what's taking so long and fix it accordingly. Usually poor database performance is due to one or more missing indexes.
Until you accurately measure what is really happening, don't be too quick to assume where the bottleneck is.
You really need to do an Oracle extended SQL trace to see where that slowness is coming from. Anything other than that is mostly guesswork. Here is a paper from Cary Millsap (of Method R and formerly of Hotsos) that you can download that details doing this:
http://method-r.com/downloads/doc_details/10-for-developers-making-friends-with-the-oracle-database-cary-millsap
We have an ASP.Net application that provides administrators to work with and perform operations on large sets of records. For example, we have a "Polish Data" task that an administrator can perform to clean up data for a record (e.g. reformat phone numbers, social security numbers, etc.) When performed on a small number of records, the task completes relatively quickly. However, when a user performs the task on a larger set of records, the task may take several minutes or longer to complete. So, we want to implement these kinds of tasks using some kind of asynchronous pattern. For example, we want to be able to launch the task, and then use AJAX polling to provide a progress bar and status information.
I have been looking into using the BackgroundWorker class, but I have read some things online that make me pause. I would love to get some additional advice on this.
For example, I understand that the BackgroundWorker will actually use the thread pool from the current application. In my case, the application is an ASP.Net web site. I have read that this can be a problem because when the application recycles, the background workers will be terminated. Some of the jobs I mentioned above may take 3 minutes, but others may take a few hours.
Also, we may have several hundred administrators all performing similar operations during the day. Will the ASP.Net application thread pool be able to handle all of these background jobs efficiently while still performing it's normal request processing?
So, I am trying to determine if using the BackgroundWorker class and approach is right for our needs. Should I be looking at an alternative approach?
Thanks and sorry for such a long post!
Kevin
In your case it actually sounds like the solution you will be looking for is multifaceted (and not a simple in and done project).
Since you said that some processes can last for hours that is absolutely not something for ASP.NET to own. This should be ran inside a windows service and managed with native windows threading.
You will need to implement some type of work queue in your service and a way to communicate with the queue. One way is to expose a WCF service for all actions your service will govern. Another would be to have service poll a database table and pick up work from the table.
To be able express the status of the process you will want the ASP.NET application to be able to have some reference to the processID for example the WCF service returns a guid identifier. Then you have a method that when you give it the processID it will return the status of the process. You can then implement the polling of that service call using AJAX and display any type of modal you wish.
Another thing to remember is that you need to design your processes to have knowledge of where it is and where it will be when it is finished so it can track the state it's in. For example, BatchJobA is run and will have 1000 records to process. The service needs to know what record it's on or what the current % of competition is for it to be able to return information to the UI. For sql queries that take a very long time to execute this can be very problematic to accurately gauge where it is unless you do alot of pre and post processing of temp tables that you can in the middle of it read the status of the temp tables to understand where it is.
Based on what you are saying I think that BackgroundWorker is not a good choice.
Furthermore keeping this functionality as a part of your main app can be problematic, specifically because you do not want the submitted processing to be interrupted if the main app recycles. You can play with asynch processing but it still will be a part of the main app AppDomain - all of it will die if the app recycles.
I would suggest buidling a separate app implementing this functionality. In a similar situation I separated background processing to a Windows service and hosted a web service in it as a means of communication
You might consider a slightly different approach.
For example, have a command and control table in which you send commands like "REFORMAT PHONE NUMBERS" or whatever.
Then have a windows service monitoring that table. Whenever a record shows up, run the command.
This eliminates any sort of worry about a background thread. Further you have a bit more flexibility with regards to what's in the queue, order of operations including priority, etc. Finally, you would have a definitive list of what is running or needs to run.
As an option, instead of a windows service you might just use a SQL job to execute every so often to watch your control table and perform the requested action.