Is it possible to use BackGroundWorker thread in ASP.NET 2.0 for the following scenario, so that the user at the browser's end does not have to wait for long time?
Scenario
The browser requests a page, say SendEmails.aspx
SendEmails.aspx page creates a BackgroundWorker thread, and supplies the thread with enough context to create and send emails.
The browser receives the response from the ComposeAndSendEmails.aspx, saying that emails are being sent.
Meanwhile, the background thread is engaged in a process of creating and sending emails which could take some considerable time to complete.
My main concern is about keeping the BackgroundWorker thread running, trying to send, say 50 emails while the ASP.NET workerprocess threadpool thread is long gone.
If you don't want to use the AJAX libraries, or the e-mail processing is REALLY long and would timeout a standard AJAX request, you can use an AsynchronousPostBack method that was the "old hack" in the .net 1.1 days.
Essentially what you do is have your submit button begin the e-mail processing in an asynchronous state, while the user is taken to an intermediate page. The benefit to this is that you can have your intermediate page refresh as much as needed, without worrying about hitting the standard timeouts.
When your background process is complete, it will put a little "done" flag in the database/application variable/whatever. When your intermediate page does a refresh of itself, it detects this flag and automatically redirects the user to the "done" page.
Again, AJAX makes all of this moot, but if for some reason you have a very intensive or timely process that has to be done over the web, this solution will work for you. I found a nice tutorial on it here and there are plenty more out there.
I had to use a process like this when we were working on a "web check-in" type application that was interfacing with a third party application and their import API was hideously slow.
EDIT: GAH! Curse you Guzlar and your god-like typing abilities 8^D.
You shouldn't do any threading from ASP.NET pages. Any thread that is long running is in danger of being killed when the worker process recycles. You can't predict when this will happen. Any long-running processes need to be handled by a windows service. You can kick off these processes by dropping a message in MSMQ, for example.
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegateThatSendsEmails)
or on System.Net.Mail.SmtpServer use the SendAsync method.
You want to put the email sending code on another thread, because then it will return the the user immediately, and will just process, no matter how long it takes.
It is possible. Once you start a new thread asynchronously from page, page request will proceed and send the page back to the user. The async thread will continue to run on the server but will no longer have access to the session.
If you have to show task progress, consider some Ajax techniques.
What you need to use for this scenario is Asynchronous Pages, a feature that was added in ASP.NET 2.0
Asynchronous pages offer a neat
solution to the problems caused by
I/O-bound requests. Page processing
begins on a thread-pool thread, but
that thread is returned to the thread
pool once an asynchronous I/O
operation begins in response to a
signal from ASP.NET. When the
operation completes, ASP.NET grabs
another thread from the thread pool
and finishes processing the request.
Scalability increases because
thread-pool threads are used more
efficiently. Threads that would
otherwise be stuck waiting for I/O to
complete can now be used to service
other requests. The direct
beneficiaries are requests that don't
perform lengthy I/O operations and can
therefore get in and out of the
pipeline quickly. Long waits to get
into the pipeline have a
disproportionately negative impact on
the performance of such requests.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163725.aspx
If you want using multitheading in your ASP page, you might using simple threading model like this:
{
System.Threading.Thread _thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Activity_DoWork));
_thred.Start();
}
Activity_DoWork()
{
/*Do some things...
}
This method is correct working with ASP pages. The ASP page with BackgroundWorker will not start while BackgroundWorker will finish.
5 years later, but problems the same… If you want to perform fire-and-forget operations from your application and forget about all difficulties related to background job processing in ASP.NET applications, you can use http://hangfire.io.
It does not loose your jobs on recycling process, because it uses persistent storage to keep information about background jobs.
It automatically retries your background jobs that were aborted or failed due to transient exception (SMTP Server connectivity errors).
It allows you to easily debug background jobs through the integrated web interface.
It is very easy to install/configure/use HangFire.
There is also tutorial Sending Mail in Background with ASP.NET MVC for using HangFire with Postal.
Related
I am migrating an app written on asp.net 1.1. There is a process which can take 5 minutes on one page, processing data in SQL, and letting the user know when it's complete.
To get around the HTTP page timeout, the process runs asynchronously and the page refreshes every 5 seconds checking for completion. It's very simple. Here is the problem: I use a session variable as a semaphore to signal process completion.
This is not working now as I cannot read the semaphore set in the asynch process. The asynch process can read the session from the calling routine, but cannot write back.
First, is there a way to get the asynch process to write to a session variable which can be read by another process? This probably is not the best approach today, but getting the app working is my biggest priority.
Second, if I rewrite it, what approach should be used? This is an asp web app. Not MVC.
use callback technologie it allow you to query an operation server side from your client and get a return from server so no session to manage any more:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178210(v=vs.80).aspx
I'm not talking about asynchronous pages or asynchronous handlers, I just want to know if I should be afraid of any side effect when I invoke an asynchronous method that will end after the page is finished rendering.
Example given: Each time that a user do login, I have to launch a heavy and time consuming SQL operation, but the user doesn't need to know the result of that operation, so I can execute the query using BeginExecuteNonQuery without pass any callback, and finish rendering the page.
My concern is, what happen if the HTTP call ends (because the page is served) and whatever I've executed asynchronously is already running? is ASP.NET or IIS going to cut, destroy, void anything?
Cheers.
That operation will run, even when the request has finished. However, please note that the ASP.NET host aggressively kills threads. When IIS has any reason for unloading or recycling the AppDomain, your background thread will be killed. Unloading happens in several situations. For instance when no new requests have come in for a certain period of time. Or when too many exceptions are fired from the application within a certain period of time. Or when the memory pressure gets too high.
If you need the guarantee, that the operation will finish, I think there are three things you can do:
Speed up the operation so that it can run synchronously, or
Move that that heavy operation to a Windows Service and let that execute it, or
You can hook onto the HostingEnvironment.RegisterObject method (as Phill Haack explains here) (demands full trust) to prevent the AppDomain to go down while that thread is running.
If you have a callback registered, the process will comeback to notify the callback otherwise it will still complete the job. AFAIK - neither ASP.NET or IIS will cut/destroy or void anything as the execution was already ordered and it has to complete.
I was working on a project and there is bulk e-mail sending part of it and when user clicks on the button, he/she gets the "Thanks the e-mails have been sent" immediately as a Response and the same method is firing an async thread as well.
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(SendEMail, _message);
This thread is queued when user clicks on the send button but since this is default Background Thread I was expecting when the page response ended, this thread would be terminated but it didn't happen because the current thread which fires this Thread was also a Background Thread and a Worker Thread, so which means there is an unfinished foreground thread(s) (Could be MainThread or Worker Threads) still alive but I don't know when they finish because their finish time will effect my background worker threads; When the last foreground thread ends, it causes the process to be terminated, so do background threads.
Should I be afraid of this or Asp.NET can handle it automatically and I am kinda confused because I've read a lot of things about it and now everything is mixed up.
Could you please clarify things a little bit ?
Thanks in advance.
Using the ThreadPool for long-running tasks will negatively influence the performance of your application (because ASP.NET also uses the ThreadPool to handle incoming requests).
Creating threads manually for each task can also become a problem if too much threads are created.
One technique I've used in the past, is to create a custom ThreadPool when starting the application, and enqueuing tasks on that ThreadPool. A simple custom ThreadPool could consist of a single Thread and a Queue of tasks.
When you call QueueUserWorkItem a new thread will be drawn from the thread pool if available and execute the callback function on this thread. If no threads are available, the function will block until a thread is freed. Once it finishes the execution of the method the thread will be suspended and returned to the pool for further reuse. Your only concern should be the fact that threads from the pool are also used to service requests, so if you perform lengthy tasks on them you could jeopardize the whole system request servicing capabilities because there's a limited number of threads in the pool and if all of them are busy performing lengthy operations future HTTP requests will be queued. As an alternative you could consider creating threads manually: new Thread(state => { }).Start();
You can use MSMQ for creating your email queue and have a single thread process the queue.
The following post might be useful as it fits your problem domain. Although it does not use MSMQ but is a good post on processing scheduled tasks using ASP.net.
Simulate a Windows Service using ASP.NET to run scheduled jobs
I am getting started with ASP.NET web development and was wondering what the differences are when multi-threading a standard winforms application versus a web-based application written in asp.net that will run in IIS. Is there any difference and if so, what are the limitations (and conversely any positives) of threading a web application,
Thank you in advance
In the Windows GUI world, you always have the "UI thread" which you can use to communicate with the user. For example, you can start a BackgroundWorker in the UI thread, which will raise an event in the UI thread after completing its work: In a Windows UI application, you can be pretty sure that the UI thread is still there, unless the user has closed the application.
In the web world, you have no equivalent main thread. There are just web requests: Sometimes there are none and sometimes there are many at the same time; it is even possible that one single request will be handled by multiple threads without you knowing it. If you start a background thread with a lengthy operation, you need to either
delay finishing the web request until the background thread has completed -- which means a slow response time for the user and somehow defeats the purpose of a background thread or
regularly (during future requests) check the state of the thread and inform the user when it has finished.
Of course, that's only a problem if you want some user interaction after the thread has finished. If you don't, just start it and it will eventually finish (unless someone restarts IIS).
Threading isn't really an issue in the web world. There isn't any state and each request is a new instance of the web page. There are ways to track state between requests such as cookies, sessionstate, viewstate.
I'm trying to bind a datasource to a repeater, for instance, to a web service (.asmx from a different website) on page load. The webservice returns a DataSet from an sql call. What is the best way to go about doing this?
Because you're calling another website, you have to contend with two issues (especially if this web service is on somebody else's website or over the public internet). First, there might be a delay to retrieve the data from the other website. Second, the other website might timeout.
At a minimum you should consider an asychronous page request. As this MSDN article states:
If a synchronous request becomes I/O
bound—for example, if it calls out to
a remote Web service or queries a
remote database and waits for the call
to come back—then the thread assigned
to the request is stuck doing nothing
until the call returns. That impedes
scalability because the thread pool
has a finite number of threads
available. If all request-processing
threads are blocked waiting for I/O
operations to complete, additional
requests get queued up waiting for
threads to be free. At best,
throughput decreases because requests
wait longer to be processed. At worst,
the queue fills up and ASP.NET fails
subsequent requests with 503 "Server
Unavailable" errors.
But the best solution is probably to use AJAX. Load the page then make an ajax request to fill the repeater. That way you can have the nice "spinning" graphic or something else happening while you are waiting on the webservice.
Call the webservice, take the result, and bind it to your repeater.
If you can, you might also try to cache the information for a time on your side, if possible to help with overall performance.