Our app need instant notification, so obvious I should use some some WCF duplex, or socket communication. Problem is the the app is partial trust XBAP, and thus I'm not allowd to use anything but BasicHttpBinding. Therefore I need to poll for changes.
No comes the question: My PM says the update interval should be araound 2 sec, and run on a intranet with 500 users on a single web server.
Does any of you have experience how polling woould influence the web server.
The service is farly simple, it takes a guid as an arg, and returns a list of guids. All data access are cached, so I guess the load on the server is minimal for one single call, but for 500...
Except from the polling, the webserver has little work.
So, based on this little info (assume a standard server HW, whatever that is), is it possible to make a qualified guess?
Is it possible or not to implement this, will it work?
Yes, I know estimating this is difficult, but I'd be really glad if some of you could share some thoughts on this
Regards
Larsi
Don't estimate, benchmark.
Polling.. bad, but if you have no other choice, then it's ideal :)
Bear in mind the fact that you will no doubt have keep-alives on, so you will have 500 permanently-connected users. The memory usage of that will probably be more significant than the processor usage. I can't imagine network access (even in a relatively bloaty web service) would use much network capacity, but your network latency might become an issue - especially as we've all seen web applications 'pause' for a little while.
In the end though, you'll probably be ok, but you'll have to check it yourself. There are plenty of web service stress testers, you can use Microsoft's WAS tool for one, here's a few links to others.
Try using soapui, a web service testing tool, to check the performance of your web service. There is a paid version and an open source version that is free.
cheers
I don't think it will be a particular problem. I'd imagine the response time for each request would be pretty low, unless you're pulling back a hell of a lot of data, so 500 connections spread over 2 seconds shouldn't hit it too hard.
You can use a stress testing tool to verify your webserver can handle the load though, before you commit to this design.
250 qps probably is doable with quite modest hardware and network bandwidth provided you do minimize the data sent back & forth. I assume you're caching these GUID lists on the client so you can just send a small "no updates" response in the normal case.
Should be pretty easy to measure with a simple prototype though to be more confident.
Related
Our client requirement is to develop a WCF which can withstand with 1-2k concurrent website users and response should be around 25 milliseconds.
This service reads couple of columns from database and will be consumed by different vendors.
Can you suggest any architecture or any extra efforts that I need to take while developing. And how do we calculate server hardware configuration to cope up with.
Thanks in advance.
Hardly possible. You need network connection to service, service activation, business logic processing, database connection (another network connection), database query. Because of 2000 concurrent users you need several application servers = network connection is affected by load balancer. I can't imagine network and HW infrastructure which should be able to complete such operation within 25ms for 2000 concurrent users. Such requirement is not realistic.
I guess if you simply try to run the database query from your computer to remote DB you will see that even such simple task will not be completed in 25ms.
A few principles:
Test early, test often.
Successful systems get more traffic
Reliability is usually important
Caching is often a key to performance
To elaborate. Build a simple system right now. Even if the business logic is very simplified, if it's a web service and database access you can performance test it. Test with one user. What do you see? Where does the time go? As you develop the system adding in real code keep doing that test. Reasons: a). right now you know if 25ms is even achievable. b). You spot any code changes that hurt performance immediately. Now test with lots of user, what degradation patterns do you hit? This starts to give you and indication of your paltforms capabilities.
I suspect that the outcome will be that a single machine won't cut it for you. And even if it will, if you're successful you get more traffic. So plan to use more than one server.
And anyway for reliability reasons you need more than one server. And all sorts of interesting implementation details fall out when you can't assume a single server - eg. you don't have Singletons any more ;-)
Most times we get good performance using a cache. Will many users ask for the same data? Can you cache it? Are there updates to consider? in which case do you need a distributed cache system with clustered invalidation? That multi-server case emerging again.
Why do you need WCF?
Could you shift as much of that service as possible into static serving and cache lookups?
If I understand your question 1000s of users will be hitting your website and executing queries on your DB. You should definitely be looking into connection pools on your WCF connections, but your best bet will be to avoid doing DB lookups altogether and have your website returning data from cache hits.
I'd also look into why you couldn't just connect directly to the database for your lookups, do you actually need a WCF service in the way first?
Look into Memcached.
I'm profiling a asp(classic) web service. The web service makes database calls, reads/writes to files, and processes xml. On a windows server 2003 box(2.7ghz, 4 core, 4gb ram) how many requests per second should I be able to handle before things start to fail.
I'm building a tool to test this, but I'm looking for a number of requests per second to shoot for.
I know this is fairly vague, but please give the best estimate you can. If you need more information, please ask.
95% of the performance of any data-driven app is dependent on the database: 1) the way you do your calls, 2) the indexes, 3) the hardware under the database (disk subsystem in particular).
I have seen a machine, like you are describing, handle 40 requests per second (2500/minute), but numbers like 10 per second (600/minute) are more common. I would expect even lower if you are running your DB on the same machine, and even lower still if that DB is SQLExpress or MSAccess.
Also, at capacity, your app will probably not fail, but IIS will Queue requests, once it is saturated, and may timeout some of those requests if it can't service them before the timeout expires.
Btw, instead of building a tool to test your app, you may want to look into using a test tool such as Microsoft WCAT. It is pretty smooth and easy to use.
How fast should it be? Fast enough.
How fast is fast enough? That's a question that only you and your users can answer. If your service is horrifically inefficient and keeps up with demand, it's fast enough. If your service is assembly-optimized, lightning-fast, and overwhelmed with requests, it's not fast enough.
If the server is handling its actual workload, then don't worry about how fast it "should" be. When the server is having trouble, or when you anticipate that it soon will, then you should look at improving the code or upgrading the hardware. Remember Knuth's Law – premature optimization is the root of all evil. Any work you do now to make it faster may never pay off, and you may be forced to make compromises with flexivility or maintainability. Remember, too, an older adage – if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yes I would also say 10 per second is a good benchmark. For a high performance app you would want to get more than this, but if you have no specific goal you should generally be able to get at least 10 requests per sec for a general web page with a bunch of database queries.
From all the articles I've read so far about Mochiweb, I've heard this over and over again that Mochiweb provides very good scalability. My question is, how exactly does Mochiweb get its scalability property? Is it from Erlang's inherent scalability properties or does Mochiweb have any additional code that explicitly enables it to scale well? Put another way, if I were to write a simple HTTP server in Erlang myself, with a simple 'loop' (recursive function) to handle requests, would it have the same level of scalability as a simple web server built using the Mochiweb framework?
UPDATE: I'm not planning to implement a full blown web-server supporting every feature possible. My requirements are very specific - to handle POST data from a HTML form with fixed controls.
Probably. :-)
If you were to write a web server that handles each request in a separate process (light weight thread in Erlang) you could reach the same kind of "scalability" easily. Of course the feature set would be different, unless you implement everything Mochiweb has.
Erlang also has great built in support for distribution among many machines, this might be possible to use to gain even more scalability.
MochiWeb isn't scalable itself, as far as I understand it. It's a fast, tiny server library that can handle thousands of requests per second. The way in which it does that has nothing to do with "scalability" (aside from adjusting the number of mochiweb_acceptors that are listening at any given time).
What you get with MochiWeb is a solid web server library, and Erlang's scalability features. If you want to run a single MochiWeb server, when a request comes in, you can still offload the work of processing that request to any machine you want, thanks to Erlang's distributed node infrastructure and cheap message passing. If you want to run multiple MochiWeb servers, you can put them behind a load balancer and use mnesia's distributed features to sync session data between machines.
The point is, MochiWeb is small and fast (enough). Erlang is the scalability power tool.
If you roll your own server solution, you could probably meet or beat MochiWeb's efficiency and "scalability" out of the box. But then you'd have to rethink everything they've already thought of, and you'd have to battle test it yourself.
I am looking for suggestions on doing some simple monitoring of an ASP.Net web farm as close to real-time as possible. The objectives of this question are to:
Identify the best way to monitor several Windows Server production boxes during short (minutes long) period of ridiculous load
Receive near-real-time feedback on a few key metrics about each box. These are simple metrics available via WMI such as CPU, Memory and Disk Paging. I am defining my time constraints as soon as possible with 120 seconds delayed being the absolute upper limit.
Monitor whether any given box is up (with "up" being defined as responding web requests in a reasonable amount of time)
Here are more details, things I've tried, etc.
I am not interested in logging. We have logging solutions in place.
I have looked at solutions such as ELMAH which don't provide much in the way of hardware monitoring and are not visible across an entire web farm.
ASP.Net Health Monitoring is too broad, focuses too much on logging and is not acceptable for deep analysis.
We are on Amazon Web Services and we have looked into CloudWatch. It looks great but messages in the forum indicate that the metrics are often a few minutes behind, with one thread citing 2 minutes as the absolute soonest you could expect to receive the feedback. This would be good to have for later analysis but does not help us real-time
Stuff like JetBrains profiler is good for testing but again, not helpful during real-time monitoring.
The closest out-of-box solution I've seen is Nagios which is free and appears to measure key indicators on any kind of box, including Windows. However, it appears to require a Linux box to run itself on and a good deal of manual configuration. I'd prefer to not spend my time mining config files and then be up a creek when it fails in production since Linux is not my main (or even secondary) environment.
Are there any out-of-box solutions that I am missing? Obviously a windows-based solution that is easy to setup is ideal. I don't require many bells and whistles.
In the absence of an out-of-box solution, it seems easy for me to write something simple to handle what I need. I've been thinking a simple client-server setup where the server requests a few WMI metrics from each client over http and sticks them in a database. We could then monitor the metrics via a query or a dashboard or something. If the client doesn't respond, it's effectively down.
Any problems with this, best practices, or other ideas?
Thanks for any help/feedback.
UPDATE: We looked into Cloudwatch a bit more and we may focus on trying it out. This forum post is the most official thing I can find. In it, an Amazon representative says that the offical delay window for data is 4 minutes. However, the user says that 2 minute old data is always reliable and 1 minute is sometimes reliable. We're going to try it out and hope it is enough for our needs.
Used Quest software and it seemed to be a good monitoring solution. Here is a link.
http://www.quest.com/application-performance-monitoring-solutions/
Also performance monitoring of Windows may also help.
Even on big-time sites such as Google, I sometimes make a request and the browser just sits there. The hourglass will turn indefinitely until I click again, after which I get a response instantly. So, the response or request is simply getting lost on the internet.
As a developer of ASP.NET web applications, is there any way for me to mitigate this problem, so that users of the sites I develop do not experience this issue? If there is, it seems like Google would do it. Still, I'm hopeful there is a solution.
Edit: I can verify, for our web applications, that every request actually reaching the server is served in a few seconds even in the absolute worst case (e.g. a complex report). I have an email notification sent out if a server ever takes more than 4 seconds to process a request, or if it fails to process a request, and have not received that email in 30 days.
It's possible that a request made from the client took a particular path which happened to not work at that particular moment. These are unavoidable - they're simply a result of the internet, which is built upon unstable components and which TCP manages to ensure a certain kind of guarantee for.
Like someone else said - make sure when a request hits your server, you'll be ready to reply. Everything else is out of your hands.
They get lost because the internet is a big place and sometimes packets get dropped or servers get overloaded. To give your users the best experience make sure you have plenty of hardware, robust software, and a very good network connection.
You cannot control the pipe from the client all the way to your server. There could be network connectivity issues anywhere along the pipeline, including from your PC to your ISP's router which is a likely place to look first.
The bottom line is if you are having issues bringing Google.com up in your browser then you are guaranteed to have the same issue with your own web application at least as often.
That's not to say an ASP application cannot generate the same sort of downtime experience completely on it's own... Test often and code defensively are the key phrases to keep in mind.
Let's not forget browser bugs. They aren't nearly perfect applications themselves...
This problem/situation isn't only ASP related, but it covers the whole concept of keeping your apps up and its called informally the "5 nines" or "99.999% availability".
The wikipedia article is here
If you lookup the 5 nines you'll find tons of useful information, which you can apply as needed to your apps.