I looking into the concept of queueing for web apps (i.e. putting some types of job in a queue for completion by a seperate worker, rather than being completed in the web request cycle).
I would like to know if there are any good solutions existing for this which can be utilised in an ASP.NET MVC environemnt.
Has anyone had any (good or bad) experiences?
Thank you!
UPDATE:
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about queueing incoming requests. I'll try to illustrate what I mean...
1) Standard situation:
Request from browser
Server processing starts
Long job starts
Long job finished
Server processing finished
Response returned to browser
2) What I'm looking into:
Requsest from browser
Server processing starts
Long job placed in queue
Server processing finished
Response returned to browser
And in another process (possibly after the response was sent):
Long job taken from queue
Long job starts
Long job finished
In the first instance the user has waited a long time for server resoponse, in the second it was quick.
Of course there are certain types of jobs that would be appropriate for this, some that would not be.
UPDATE2:
The client doesn't have to be updated immediately with the results of the long job. The changes would just show themselves in the application whenever the user happened to refresh a page (after the job had completed of course).
Think of some of the things that happen in stack overflow - they are not immediately updated in each part of the application, but this happends quite quickly - I suspect some of these jobs are being queued.
Post the job data in an MSMQ queue and have a Windows Service process the items in the queue. Or, let the web request spawn a process that process the items in the queue.
The Rhino Service Bus is another solution that may work for you:
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/12/17/rhino-service-bus.aspx
You might check into using an ESB. I've played around with MassTransit: http://code.google.com/p/masstransit/ - the documentation is (or at least was) a little sparse, but it's easy to implement.
In addition, I develop apps for running on Amazon EC2 and absolutely love their AmazonSQS Service.
Thanks,
Hal
Since you mentioned in another comment that you were looking for an equivalent to amazon's sqs service ... you might want to look into Windows Azure. They have an equivalent queue api:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd179363.aspx
I have implemented this pattern by having the web server call a WCF service asynchronously. The VS wizards will generate async proxies for you when you consume a WCF service. If you must have guaranteed delivery on the request to the service, you could use MSMQ as the transport layer for the WCF service.
I think Chrisitan's comment might be your answer, but considering I don't know much about IIS and queueing with it, my solution would be:
Make an asynchronous request and load the job details in the database. Then have a job to loop through the database and process the job details. I do this for one of my sites. Might not be the best solution out there, but it gets the job done.
EDIT
My answer might still work, but you will need to have some polling mechanism on the client to continuously check the database to see if that user's job is done, then grab the data you need.
Related
This question is about limits imposed to me by ASP.NET (like script timeout etc').
I have a service running under ASP.NET and I want to create a counterpart service for monitoring.
The main service's data is located at a database.
I was thinking about having the monitor service query the database in intervals of 1 second, within a loop, issued by an http request done by the remote client.
Now the actual serving of this monitoring will be done by a client http request, which will make the script loop (written in C#) and when new data is detected it'll aggregate that data into that one looping request output buffer, send it, and exit the loop, thus finishing the request.
The client will have to issue a new request in order to keep getting updates.
This is actually exactly like TCP (precisely like Windows IOCP); You request the service for data and wait for it. When it arrives you fire another request.
My actual question is: Have you done it before? How did it go? Am I limited by some (configurable) limits imposed by the IIS/ASP.NET framework? What are my limits in such situation, or, what are better options without complicating things too much?
Note that I do not expect many such monitoring requests at a time, maybe a few dozens.
This means however that 10 such concurrent monitoring requests will keep 10 threads busy, and the question is; Can it hurt IIS/performance? How will IIS handle 10 busy threads? Will it issue more? What are the limits? This is just one example of a limit I can think of.
I think you main concern in this situation would be timeouts, which are pretty much configurable. But I think that it is a wrong solution - you'd be better of with some background service, running constantly/periodically, and writing the monitoring data to some data store and then your monitoring page would just return it upon request.
if you want your page to display something only if the monitorign data is available- implement it with ajax - on page load query monitoring service, then if some monitoring events are available- render them, if not- sleep and query again.
IMO this would be a much better solution than a reallu long running requests.
I think it won't be a very good idea to monitor a service using ASP.NET due to the following reasons...
What happens when your application pool crashes?
What if you decide to do IISReset? Which application will come up first... the main app, or the monitoring app?
What if the monitoring application hangs due to load?
What if the load is already high on the Main Service. Wouldn't monitoring it every 1 sec, increase the load on the Primary Service, as well as IIS?
You get the idea...
What are your most successful ways of running a long process, like 2 hours, in asp.net and return information to the client on the progress.
I've heard creating a windows service, httphandler and remoting can be successful.
Just a suggestion...
If you have logic that you are tyring to utilize already in asp.net... You could make an external app (windows service, console app, etc.) that calls a web service on your asp.net page.
For example, I had a similiar problem where the code I needed was asp.net and I needed to update about 3000 clients using this code. It started timing out, so I exposed the code through a web service. Then, instead of trying to run the whole 3000 clients at through asp.net all at once, I used a console app that is run by a nightly sql server job that ran the web service once for each client. This way all the time consuming processing was handled by the console app that doesn't have the time out issue, but the code we had already wrote in asp.net did not have to be recreated. In the end slighty modifying the design of my existing architecture allowed me easily get around this problem.
It really depends on the environment and constraints you have to deal with...Hope this helps.
There are two ways that I have handled this. First, you can simply run the process and let the client time out. This has two drawbacks: the UI isn't in synch and you are tying up an IIS thread for non-html purposes (I did this for a process that used to return quickly enough but that grew beyond time-out limits).
The better way to handle this is to write a "Service" application that handles the request as passed through a database table (put the details of the request there). Then you can create a window that gives the user a "window" into ongoing progress on the task (e.g. how many records have been processed or emails sent). This status window can either have a link to permit the user to refresh or you can automate the refresh using Ajax callbacks on a timer.
This isn't directly applicable but I wrote code that will let you run processes similar to "scheduled tasks" inside of ASP.NET without needing to use windows services or any type of cron jobs.
Scheduled Tasks in ASP.NET!
I very much prefer WCF service to scheduled tasks. You might (off the top of my head) pass an addr to the WCF service as a sort of 'callback' that the service can call with progress reports as it works.
I'd shy away from scheduled tasks... too course grained.
I know there's a bunch of APIs out there that do this, but I also know that the hosting environment (being ASP.NET) puts restrictions on what you can reliably do in a separate thread.
I could be completely wrong, so please correct me if I am, this is however what I think I know.
A request typically timeouts after 120 seconds (this is configurable) but eventually the ASP.NET runtime will kill a request that's taking too long to complete.
The hosting environment, typically IIS, employs process recycling and can at any point decide to recycle your app. When this happens all threads are aborted and the app restarts. I'm however not sure how aggressive it is, it would be kind of stupid to assume that it would abort a normal ongoing HTTP request but I would expect it to abort a thread because it doesn't know anything about the unit of work of a thread.
If you had to create a programming model that easily and reliably and theoretically put a long running task, that would have to run for days, how would you accomplish this from within an ASP.NET application?
The following are my thoughts on the issue:
I've been thinking a long the line of hosting a WCF service in a win32 service. And talk to the service through WCF. This is however not very practical, because the only reason I would choose to do so, is to send tasks (units of work) from several different web apps. I'd then eventually ask the service for status updates and act accordingly. My biggest concern with this is that it would NOT be a particular great experience if I had to deploy every task to the service for it to be able to execute some instructions. There's also this issue of input, how would I feed this service with data if I had a large data set and needed to chew through it?
What I typically do right now is this
SELECT TOP 10 *
FROM WorkItem WITH (ROWLOCK, UPDLOCK, READPAST)
WHERE WorkCompleted IS NULL
It allows me to use a SQL Server database as a work queue and periodically poll the database with this query for work. If the work item completed with success, I mark it as done and proceed until there's nothing more to do. What I don't like is that I could theoretically be interrupted at any point and if I'm in-between success and marking it as done, I could end up processing the same work item twice. I might be a bit paranoid and this might be all fine but as I understand it there's no guarantee that that won't happen...
I know there's been similar questions on SO before but non really answers with a definitive answer. This is a really common thing, yet the ASP.NET hosting environment is ill equipped to handle long-running work.
Please share your thoughts.
Have a look at NServiceBus
NServiceBus is an open source
communications framework for .NET with
build in support for publish/subscribe
and long-running processes.
It is a technology build upon MSMQ, which means that your messages don't get lost since they are persisted to disk. Nevertheless the Framework has an impressive performance and an intuitive API.
John,
I agree that ASP.NET is not suitable for Async tasks as you have described them, nor should it be. It is designed as a web hosting platform, not a back of house processor.
We have had similar situations in the past and we have used a solution similar to what you have described. In summary, keep your WCF service under ASP.NET, use a "Queue" table with a Windows Service as the "QueueProcessor". The client should poll to see if work is done (or use messaging to notify the client).
We used a table that contained the process and it's information (eg InvoicingRun). On that table was a status (Pending, Running, Completed, Failed). The client would submit a new InvoicingRun with a status of Pending. A Windows service (the processor) would poll the database to get any runs that in the pending stage (you could also use SQL Notification so you don't need to poll. If a pending run was found, it would move it to running, do the processing and then move it to completed/failed.
In the case where the process failed fatally (eg DB down, process killed), the run would be left in a running state, and human intervention was required. If the process failed in an non-fatal state (exception, error), the process would be moved to failed, and you can choose to retry or have human intervantion.
If there were multiple processors, the first one to move it to a running state got that job. You can use this method to prevent the job being run twice. Alternate is to do the select then update to running under a transaction. Make sure either of these outside a transaction larger transaction. Sample (rough) SQL:
UPDATE InvoicingRun
SET Status = 2 -- Running
WHERE ID = 1
AND Status = 1 -- Pending
IF ##RowCount = 0
SELECT Cast(0 as bit)
ELSE
SELECT Cast(1 as bit)
Rob
Use a simple background tasks / jobs framework like Hangfire and apply these best practice principals to the design of the rest of your solution:
Keep all actions as small as possible; to achieve this, you should-
Divide long running jobs into batches and queue them (in a Hangfire queue or on a bus of another sort)
Make sure your small jobs (batched parts of long jobs) are idempotent (have all the context they need to run in any order). This way you don't have to use a quete which maintains a sequence; because then you can
Parallelise the execution of jobs in your queue depending on how many nodes you have in your web server farm. You can even control how much load this subjects your farm to (as a trade off to servicing web requests). This ensures that you complete the whole job (all batches) as fast and as efficiently as possible, while not compromising your cluster from servicing web clients.
Have thought about the use the Workflow Foundation instead of your custom implementation? It also allows you to persist states. Tasks could be defined as workflows in this case.
Just some thoughts...
Michael
I have a aspx web application that updates or adds files in a database. The clients access through the browser and one of the requirements is that they can start the update and be able to close the browser while the update continues. It appears to run for a little bit after I close the browser but then it stops. How can you keep the application running for asp.net?
That's something you could very well solve with WF (Workflow Foundation). Create a workflow for the task that should survive closing the browser. Workflows have their own threads and livecycles separate from ASP.NET.
The web application will keep running in the application pool, but this will be recycled eventually. As long as the users session runs the application should be kept alive, so by upping the session timeout you may fix the problem.
A better approach though would be to move the long-running task into a service instead, but that may require a rewrite of your application.
Usually for long-running or asynchronous processing, you want to dispatch the request to a back-end service to handle. Trying to keep the web-app alive to finish processing can lead to problems, especially with HTTP and session timeouts.
A common pattern for this is to put the request on a message queue and let a back-end service process it when it can.
I would create a separate windows service that you can push jobs onto from your web application, then check the status of the job(s) when the user logs in again.
The windows service won't be tied to the asp.net app domain so it will continue to run regardless of whats happening in your web application.
I've run into this pattern and you have to decouple the work from the HTTP request. The way we've solved it is to abstract the computing to be done as an event to be scheduled. So, say a user at a browser takes an action that requires a long lived (relatively) computation on the back end, this computation is given a name like 'doXYZForUser' and given a prameter vector like (userId, params...) and sent off to the work queue. Some time in the future the user logs in again and can see what the status of their job is.
I'm running a Java stack and a Java Message Service (JMS) but the principle is the same. The request from the browser queues up an event and the browser get an ACK back saying the event is on the work queue. The queue is managed by an entirely separately running process which in .NET I believe is just called the Message Queue. The job comes up on the queue gets processed and the results can be placed in a separate table containing a reference to the user that kicked off the job, so the next time they log in job status/results can be returned.
What kind of multi-threading issues do you have to be careful for in asp.net?
It's risky to spawn threads from the code-behind of an ASP.NET page, because the worker process will get recycled occasionally and your thread will die.
If you need to kick off long-running processes as a result of user actions on web pages, your best bet is to drop a message off in MSMQ and have a separate background service monitoring the queue. The service could take as long as it wants to accomplish the task, and the web page would be finished with its work almost immediately. You could accomplish the same thing with an asynch call to a web method, but don't rely on getting the response when the web method is finished working. From code-behind, it needs to be a quick fire-and-forget.
One thing to watch out for at things that expire (I think httpContext does), if you are using it for operations that are "fire and forget" remember that all of a sudden if the asp.net cleanup code runs before your operation is done, you won't be able to access certain information.
If this is for a web service, you should definitely consider thread pooling. Too many threads will bring your application to a grinding halt because they will eventually start competing for CPU time.
Is this for file or network IO? If so, you should also consider using asynchronous IO. It can be a bit more of a pain to program, but you don't have to worry about spawning off too many threads at once.
Programmatic Caching is one area which immediately comes to my mind. It is a great feature which needs to be used carefully. Since it is shared across requests, you have to put locks around it before updating it.
Another place I would check is any code accessing filesystem like writing to log files. If one request has a read-write lock on a file, other concurrent requests will error out if not handled properly.
Isn't there a Limit of 25 Total Threads in the IIS Configuration? At least in IIS 6 i believe. If you exceed that limit, interesting things (read: loooooooong response times) may happen.
Depending on what you need, as far as multi threading is concerned, have you thought of spawning requests from the client. It's safe to spawn requests using AJAX, and then act on the results in a callback. Or use a service as a backgrounding mechanism, which runs every X minutes and processes in the background that way.