Has anyone done a thorough comparison of AppFabric and NCache or AppFabric and ScaleOut? We are currently looking to implement either AppFabric, NCache or ScaleOut for distributed caching in geographically distant locations and I would like to know anyone's thoughts who has compared them side by side. I appreciate that many people use one or the other and tell me why their chosen solution is great but I am really looking for a comparison of the two products. Such things as what does AppFabric not do or not do well (if anything), partially from a features point of view but also from developer's point of view. Is working with one compared to the other nicer, easier, more flexible, more powerful, etc.
There are plenty of lists of features which I can compare but am really looking for a comparison from someone who has perhaps been in a similar position to us and has performed the evaluation that we are about to launch into which will give us some food for thought whilst we do so.
Thanks in advance.
Here is a good comparison between the features of NCache and Appfabric
As a more mature product, NCache has a number of more advanced caching features that Velocity/AppFabric doesn't have -- check out their website for some "marketing" comparisons.
However, we have had a number of issues troubleshooting NCache and obtaining more visibility from their support/engineering team into certain behaviors of their application. Given that, plus the cost compared to AppFabric, I'm not sure I would recommend NCache at this point -- at least, we're in the process of re-evaluating our caching provider.
My frustration/complaint with Velocity/AppFabric is the the sluggishness in the release schedule. Seems like they were in CTP forever. Certainly Microsoft can crush NCache on price alone. There are now players like NorthScale (memcached) that are entering the fray which I think are also worth considering. A lot depends on what you want to use caching for in your application.
The most used one is Memcached. for sure.
we currently are starting using AppFabric as our dcache, as it easily integrates into our .net solutions, and has a good feature set, that we want to use.
if you just do basic dcaching, make a abstraction of caching itself (or use the .net 4 System.Runtime.Caching.ObjectCache) so you are safe if you want to do changes. or want to stress test more solutions.
Also, depending on your App architecture, think of using more entities/instances of your DCache, as different parts maybe favor different systems.
It is looking like we will need more advanced functionality than what Velocity provides so it will be either NCache or ScaleOut. There are good reasons for both, we just need to sort through these. We do not have Unix resources so memcached is out. I know there is a Windows port but colleagues who know memcached tell me that it is somewhat buggy and if you are going to bother going down the memcached path, you really should make the effort to go for the Unix version.
Some might argue that this is a biased comparison, but it's worth reviewing..
http://www.alachisoft.com/comparison/ncache-vs-appfabric.html
PDF has the full review.
http://www.alachisoft.com/downloads/comparison/ncache-vs-appfabric.pdf
Related
I whould like to know some opinions about OpenEJB: we are considering to use it on a new project, but really didn't found many opinions about it.
So, here is my question: how about it? Does it perform well? Is it stable enough for a production environment?
We switched to OpenEJB (deployed embedded in our app on Tomcat). Performance tests showed better or not worse results processing our transactions compared to JBoss (transactions include data access, JMS, and servlets). We use ActiveMQ within OpenEJB for JMS. There are no stability problems as of yet - we are still in staging (pre-production) environment though. The documentation is definitely lacking, but not as poor as other embedded choices. Overall, we consider this as a good choice if you run on Tomcat. Deploying it on other application servers turned out to be much more difficult (JBoss, Weblogic, Websphere) but there are not many reasons for this usually (we had few but dropped this after several attempts basically failed).
And as in all open source products: expect lack of support (documentation, troubleshooting, bugs, etc.) to be compensated by free access to sources.
We've had experience with Oracle OAS and JBOSS before. We decided to give OpenEJB a try. We've found out that it is not only very fast but it also much easier to setup and configure, and it has much better defaults.
Currently we implement our own failure measures in the client, so we don't know how they compare for clustering, or other advanced features that we don't use.
We we have to go back and deal with JBOSS in the developer side, we see a drop on productivity, because it takes too long to bootstrap.
A friend wants to start a dating website, she wants me to help her. We still haven't discussed on what platform it'll be developed, but I'm thinking she'll suggest LAMP to save a buck (which is one reason already to chose over ASP.NET already). If the dating website does well, it'll potentially hold a large amount of data (I'm not sure if this would be another reason to consider either ASP.NET or LAMP).
Anyway, I ask this from an ASP.NET developer point of view. I have very little, almost null experience with LAMP, and I don't like it very much either, so if she decides to go with PHP odds are I won't help her. So what would be some good points to bring up when deciding which platform to develop on?
Please be objective, I don't want this to be argumentative or anything, try to stick to facts, not opinions alone.
Thanks!
What generally matter in that kind of choice is :
How much time will it require ?
How much money will it cost
Which is often linked to the time ^^
If you have a lot of experience with .NET and none with Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL, choosing LAMP will mean that you'll need much more time : a whole lot of new stuff to learn.
It'll also mean that your code will probably not be as good as it would be with what you know.
After, the question is : do a couple of week "cost" more than a few licences ?
Only you and her can decide, there ;-)
If LAMP makes you queasy, you can try ASP.NET over Mono.
IMO the only good reason to move away from a programming environment that you are already experienced with is the one you already mentioned: cost.
You would use LAMP specifically to build appliances. If you're not building appliances, the software cost for ONE server is marginal, and is not worth the tradeoff for moving to a totally different development environment, IMO.
I think the first question is: Which is the target programming language and environment that you have experience with?
Imagine the site will become a success - how do you scale then? LAMP can scale, and so can WISC, but in both scenarios you need people who actually know the environment and who can secure it. If you don't know Linux and MySQL and PHP, how are you going to scale and secure it?
So even though LAMP may be significantly cheaper (The SQL Server license is the heavy part in the WISC stack), after the first hacker attack or downtime, that initial savings may seem marginal compared to the damage.
The other thing is of course the PHP vs. ASP.net/C# decision. If you don't know PHP, then it's a decision of "Not having the application at all" and "Having the application on an expensive stack", unless your partner of course decides to hire someone else to develop that.
Technically, both have their pros and cons, but there are huge websites built on both stacks, so it really boils down to "Which platform can you reliably/comfortably setup and maintain?"
I agree with Pascal. Go with what you feel comfortable with in completing the project and don't forget that YOUR TIME EQUALS MONEY. You have to put a $$ value on your time. LAMP may be cheaper up front but if it winds up taking 1000 extra manhours, then suddenly it's more expensive.
Also take into account the lost opportunity cost in not being able to bring something to market b/c you chose a technology you were not familiar with.
At the end, if the plans are for this to be a business that is successful, the cost of using ASP.NET should be negligible or else I would question the seriousness of the effort.
One argument for the Apache/MySQL/PHP stack is that it's available on most major platforms (Windows/Linux/Mac/BSD/...) and most webhosters provide it as well.
You also find many (as in "huge amounts") of good tutorials, books and other educational stuff about PHP/MySQL.
Apart from that all tools used in the LAMP stack are free (as in "free speech" and also as in "free beer"). ASP.NET is still a proprietary technology owned by Microsoft. I'm not a huge open source fan, but knowing that your tools will remain free to use in any way you want is quite nice.
Of course, if you have no experience with PHP at all and much exp. with ASP.NET it's easier for you to stick with ASP.
If your comfortable with Microsoft products there's nothing to stop you from developing code in .NET and using a free database (however you may need to find/develop a custom database adapter if you are not using free versions of SQL server or Oracle). If you are generating a lot of traffic you can swap out the data layer of your code and invest in a better performing database.
Time costs money and if you can develop a better product both from a user and maintenance/performance perspective it will serve you better in the long run.
Some hosting companies include the OS and flexible contracts so I would make fit from your prespective. The market's pretty competitve for that type of site and there's no point throwing a lot of money at it until you get some useful metrics for your site IMO.
The short answer is: it doesn't matter, unless the site is going to do something so amazingly different that one technology is obviously better suited. And I can't think of anything like that off the top of my head.
A big red flag is: if your friend is concerned about the extra $5/month for asp.net hosting instead of LAMP hosting, then you're probably not going to get paid. Ever.
Caveats aside, be realistic: what is the immediate goal? To get something working, or to design something on the scale of plentyoffish.com or facebook.com? [Facebook.com has about 44,000 servers at the moment]
So, what are the chances of your friend's dating web site exploding to the size where scaling is a concern? For most sites, the answer is "very close to zero" - because of the marketing effort required to drive that much traffic.
Now, what is the revenue stream? Is there any expectation that you will get paid to do this? Do you think the site will be profitable? Is the project fully funded?
Friendship is great, but don't let that keep you from asking the appropriate business and client-relationship questions. One sure way to ruin a friendship is to do some work for free and/or without thinking through the full extent of the project. Far too often, you think it is a one-time favor, while they think it is your job!
LAMP is only cheaper until you read the fine print. It's not better or worse technically, just different.
The WebsiteSpark/BizSpark programs will get you all the Microsoft software you need to get started, free for three years. If price is her driving concern, point her to those programs if she's willing to consider the ASP.NET platform.
Hosting will cost a fair amount either way, because for a full-service website you don't want to go shared. You'll need at least one dedicated server to support a dating site. The OS and database will be free either way if you go with one of the *Spark programs I mentioned.
As a small startup company you can get a free 3-year MSDN subscription (well, you have to pay $100 at the end of the 3 years). If you think .Net will be more efficient and this website will make money, seriously consider BizSpark.
Since you are looking for dating site, check out Markus Frind of plentyoffish.com he is running the largest dating site on .net platform with asp.net and sql.
I am the .Net specialist in a consultancy with many difference flavors of developers using many different languages and frameworks. Because everyone is pretty much trying to push their own agendas with our different clients in terms of what technology to propose, I'm constantly finding myself in the classic arguments with them all about "why" .Net may be a better technology solution for a given clients requirements.
Often time here, the debate comes down to the issue of performance. Usually the areas that are argued about here consist of costs, maintainability, and performance. I have a hard time arguing about cost because in general open-source technologies are usually cheaper, and although and can usual put a good word in for .Net in terms of total cost of ownership (It seems to be pretty easy to convince people that .Net applications have relative low costs for maintainability if the application architecture has been thoughtfully designed), we will really only push .Net here if the client understands and is indifferent about the costs associated with Microsoft licensing. In terms of maintainability, like I mentioned before, the other developers here realize how much a difference it can make when an application is thoughtfully designed. I have had around 8 years of experience programming .Net solutions and I'm pretty confident in my ability to present to a client all the features and tool sets that .Net provides to give an application a long, and easy to maintain life span.
So again, what it usually boils down to is an argument over performance. Up until now, I have worked for companies that already used Microsoft development technologies to developer their applications so while I have discussed performance with others in the past I have never been a position where I have had to convince performance. My other co-workers are always boasting about these different website that they go to that show improved performance for open-source web applications. This all being said, what I would like to know from everybody here is where do you usually go to get your information about how may some .Net web applications have out performed other technologies?
Thanks in advance for the advice,
-Matt
I appreciate the detail, though I must say I forgot your question at the end. =)
Anyhow, this is something that has certainly been on my mind in the past. There is always a conflict on what technology is the best. We all know on each side you will find zealots, so it's quite difficult weeding out the facts. Professionally, I've seen successes/disasters on both sides of the fence.
For you, since you have a vested interest in .NET. I would showcase success stories, such as ... (insert whatever big name site you want) Facebook, SO, etc. I'd also find stories where things went wrong on the .NET side and pinpoint the reason. Like you said, it is often poor implementation. I don't know how many DailyWTF stories I've seen with ASP.NET sites behaving poorly but it gets traced back to 1) Poor design 2) Implementation 3) Coding.
Once you have a solid show case to justify the technology you can then of course talk about your own past experiences. You need to qualify yourself as being able to avoid the same pitfalls that your stories exposed.
.NET loses in performance against C/C++. In general, it will win over Python, Ruby, and PHP in baseline performance. The static typing tends translates into faster native code. (There are exceptions, such as Python's hand-tweaked set() performance being faster than HashSets in .NET)
The difference might come down to things like apache vs IIS (and their respective caching configurations), database architecture, etc. Features than can be misused or misunderstood (ViewStates and large GridViews, or using large numbers of hidden WebControls, for example)
Depending on what type of application you are building I've found that performance is rarely an issue. All the technologies out there can perform well enough.
When debating .net versus java/ruby/python etc I usually try to point out other benefits of .net.
There was this one time my boss asked me why .net instead of others? He wanted to know because he could get a PHP programmer for cheap. As part of the report we wrote a simple web application in 4 different languages and the .net app ran the fastest by far. After that we solidified behind .net. This was when .net was new so none of us really knew it well. We came from ASP, PHP, Coldfusion and Java backgrounds.
If you are looking for .Net performance stories you can listen to this dot net rocks show
I'm starting to build a community website from the site up and my web framework will be Asp.net and Mysql.
I want to start planning some scalability into the infrastructure early because I'm anticipating high traffic when the site goes live.
Are there any case studies which you recommend reading where asp.net or mysql has been scaled and which demonstrates good scaling techniques?
I think it could be a challenge to find reference materials for that particular combination. Many .NET shops stick to SQL Server, and fewer use MySQL (at least at scale).
In general it would be appropriate to:
Follow general .NET practices for scalability. Weed out what is not appropriate for you.
Learn about database performance and implications of various design strategies such as denormalisation (when and why).
Consider out-of-process caching like memcached.
Review books on MySQL performance. Most of these are focused on UNIX platforms. Windows users may have problems applying some of these practices.
Read up on how other people are scaling their sites (Building Scalable Sites and The Art of Capacity Planning)
Consider how you might optimise your web design to be more scalable. Are you using AJAX? Work out what the impact of excessive polling may be etc.
Learn how to measure the performance of your application and database (starting points ASP.NET and MySQL).
Develop a plan for scaling your architecture (1 server to 2 servers, to multiple servers etc) so that you have some frame of reference for making decisions about building things in your system.
I only know of one really good resource to read case studies about scalability techniques and I am really surprised no one has mentioned it. High Scalability
There is so many examples of "out of the box" thinking that and different techniques for scaling that I think it makes a good read for anyone who is interested in the topic.
BrianLy said it best here:
"Develop a plan for scaling your
architecture (1 server to 2 servers,
to multiple servers etc) so that you
have some frame of reference for
making decisions about building things
in your system."
As a forum I frequent says, 'quoted for truth'. All of his points are excellent, but this one is a key point that many people overlook. It doesn't matter how scalable your code and database are if you are running on a creaky old server. The hardware may not be as important as your code, improving it beyond a certain point will give diminishing returns VERY quickly, but do NOT forget to get your hardware to that point. If you have crap hardware, or even good hardware but not enough of it, your site will bomb out.
For mysql scaling, you may find this interesting: danga livejournal
I am curious as to what others are using in this situation. I know a couple of the options that are out there like a memcached port or ScaleOutSoftware. The memcached ports don't seem to be actively worked on (correct me if I'm wrong). ScaleOutSoftware is too expensive for me (I don't doubt it is worth it). This is not to say that I don't want to hear about people using memcached or ScaleOutSoftware. I'm just stating what I "know" at this point.
So my question is basically this: for those of you ACTIVELY using distributed caching, what are you using, are you happy with it, and what should I look out for?
I am moving to two servers very soon...both will be at the same location. I use caching fairly heavily (but carefully) to reduce the load on my database server.
Edit: I downloaded Scaleout Software's solution. I've coded for it and it seems to work real well. I just have to decide if my wallet will part with the cash for it. :) Anyone have experiences good or bad with ScaleoutSoftware?
Edit Again: It's been a little while since I asked this? Any more thoughts on it? We ended up buying the solution from ScaleOutSoftware and have been happy with it, but I'm curious what others are doing.
Microsoft has a product pending code-named Velocity. It's still in CTP, and is moving slowly, but looks like it will be pretty good. We'll be beating it up in the near future to see how it handles what we want it to do (> 2 million read/writes per hour). Will post back with results.
There is a 100% native .NET, well documented open source (LGPL) project called Shared Cache. Looks like it is not yet mentioned on SO, but it's promising and should be able to do what most people expect from a distributed cache. It even supports different strategies like distributed or replicated caching etc.
I will update this post with more details as soon as I had a chance to try it on a real project.
We're currently using an incredibly simple cache that I wrote in a couple of hours, based on re-hosting the ASP.NET cache in a Windows Service (more info and source code here). I won't pretend it's anywhere near as optimised as something like Memcached but we were just looking for something simple and free until Velocity came along, and it's held up extremely well even under fairly heavy load.
It comes down to our personal preference for core components - i.e. ones that affect whether the site is available or not - that they are either (a) supported by a vendor with a history of rapid and high quality support, or (b) written by us so that if something goes wrong we can fix it quickly. Open source is all well and good, and indeed we do use some OSS, but if your site is offline then unfortunately newsgroups et al don't have a 1 hour SLA, and just because it's OSS doesn't mean you have the necessary understanding or ability to fix it yourself.
We are using the memcached port for Windows and we are very pleased with it. The enyim.com memcached client API is great and easy to work with. It's also open source, which is a big advantage, if you ask me.
We are now using this setup in a production web-app and it has helped a lot in improving its performance.
There's a great .NET wrapper/port found here on Codeplex. Awesomesauce!
We use memcached with the enyim library in a production environment (www.funda.nl). Works fine, very pleased with it, but we did notice a substantial raise in CPU use on the clients. Presumably due to the serializing/deserializing going on. We do around 1000 reads per second.
One tried and tested product by 100's of customers worldwide is NCache. Its
a feature rich product that lets you store session state in a redundant and highly available manner, lets you share data
within the enterprise as well as bridging for WAN communication essentially acting as a data fabric and lastly it lets you build an elastic caching tier so that when
your application scales, you can add servers to the cache and actually boost performance further.