I have two websites that basically use the same code base, lets called them A & B. When I upload A and run, the site is not chunked. When I debug and test B, the page is not Chunked but when it is run from the server, the pages become chunked. Is there a setting in IIS or web.config that disables Chunking of the page. Any ideas on how to identify why the page is chunking?
Related
I have a PWA which has been developed in ASP.net Core and hosted on an Azure App Service (Linux).
When a new version of the PWA was released, I found that devices failed to update without clearing the browser cache.
To resolve this, I discovered a tag helper called asp-append-version that will clear cache for a specific file. I also discovered that I can append the version of the src attribute that specifies the URL of a file to trigger the browser to retrieve the latest file. For example, src="/scripts/pwa.js?v=1". Each time I update the pwa.js file I would also change the version i.e. v=2.
I’ve now discovered that my PWA is caching other JavaScript files in my application which results in the app not working on devices that have been updated to the new version however failed to clear the cache on specific files.
I believed that if I didn’t specify any cache control headers such as Cache-Control that the browser would not cache any files however this appears not to be the case.
To resolve this issue, is the recommended approach to add the appropriate Cache-Control headers (Cache-Control, Pragma, and Expires) to prevent browser caching or should I only add the tag helper asp-append-version to for example scripts tags to auto clear cache for that specific file?
I would preferably like the browser to store for example images rather than going to the server each time to retrieve these. I believe setting the header Cache-Control: no-cache would work as this would check if the file has changed before retrieving the updated version?
Thanks.
Thanks # SteveSandersonMS for your insights, In your web server returns correct HTTP cache control headers, browsers will know not to re-use cached resources.
Refer here link 1 & link 2 for Cache control headers on Linux app service
For example, if you use the "ASP.NET Core hosted" version of the Blazor WebAssembly template, the server will return Cache-Control: no-cache headers which means the browser will always check with the server whether updated content is present (and this uses etags, so the server will return 304 meaning "keep using your cached content" if nothing has changed since the browser last updated its content).
If you use a different web server or service, you need to configure the web server to return correct caching headers. Blazor WebAssembly can't control or even influence that.
Refer here
We use a custom HTTP module in IIS as a reverse proxy for web applications. Generally this works well and has done for some time, but we've come across an issue with Windows Authentication (WA). We're using IE 11, IIS 10 and Server 2016.
When accessing the target site directly, WA works fine - we get a browser login dialog when the initial HTML page is requested and the subsequent requests (CSS, JS, etc) go through fine.
When accessing via our proxy, the same (correct behaviour) happens for the initial html page, the first CSS/JS request authenticates ok too, but the subsequent ones cause a browser login to popup.
What seems to happen on the 'bad' requests (i,.e. those that cause the login dialog) is:
1) Browser decides it needs to authenticate, so sends an Authorization header (Negotiate, with an NTLM token)
2) Server responds (401) with a WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate response with a full NTLM token
3) Browser re-requests with an Authorization header (Negotiate, with a full NTLM token)
4) Server responds (401) with a WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate (with no token), which causes the browser to show the login dialog
5) With login credentials entered, Browser sends the same request as in (1) - identical NTLM token, server responds as in (2), Browser re-requests as in (3), but this time it works!
We've set up a test web site with one html page, requesting 3 JS and 2 CSS files to replicate this. On our test server we've got two sites, one using our reverse proxy and one using ARR. The ARR site works fine. Also, since step (5) above works, we believe that the proxy pass-through is fundamentally working, i.e. NTLM tokens are not being messed up by dodgy encoding, etc.
One thing that does work, is that if we use Fiddler and put breakpoints on each request, we're able to hold back on the 5 sub-requests (JS & CSS files), letting one go through at a time. If we let each sequence (i.e. NTLM token exchange for each URL/file, through to the 200 response), then it works. This made us think that there is some inter-leaving effect (e.g. shared memory corruption) in our proxy, this is still a possibility.
So, we put code at the start of BeginRequest and end of EndRequest with a Synclock and a shared var to store the Path (AppRelativeCurrentExecutionFilePath). This was for our code to 'Single Thread' each of these request/exchanges. This does what we expected, i.e. only allowing one auth exchange to happen and resulting in a 200 before allowing the next. However, we still have the same problem of the server rejecting the first exchange. So, does this indicate something happening in/before BeginRequest, where if we hold the requests back in Fiddler then they work, but not if we do it in our http module?
Or is there some sort of timing issue where the manual breakpoints in Fiddler also mean we’re doing it at ‘human’ speed and therefore allowing things to work better?
One difference we can see is the ‘Connection: Keep-Alive’. That header is in the request from the browser to our proxy site, but not passed from our proxy to the base site, yet the ARR site does pass that through... It’s all using HTTP 1.1. and so we can't find a way to set Keep-Alive on our outgoing request - could this be it?
Regarding 'things to try', we think we've eliminated things like having the site in the Intranet Zone for IE by having the ARR site work ok, and having the same IE settings for that site. Clearly, something is not right, so we could have missed something here!
In short, we've been working on this for days, and have tried most of what we can find on SO and elsewhere, but can't figure out what the heck is going on.
Any suggestions - let me know if you want any further info. All help will be very gratefully received!
We are developing an application for Web. Inside that application, to download a file, I have created a WCF Rest service that will download the files based on this link Download using WCF Rest. The purpose is to check for user authentication before downloading. I used streaming concept to download the file. It is now that I have found out few things
When the user downloads the file, he is not able to determine what are the file size and the time remaining. I analyzed and found out that the reason is because, it’s using the “Transfer Encoding: chunked” in the header so that the file will be downloaded in chunks. One of the advantages is that the memory consumption is less in the server even when there are many users downloading a file. So I thought of adding “Content-Length” header, but I found out that you can use only either one of the headers not both. So I was thinking how Hotmail and Gmail were downloading attachments. From my investigation, I found out that Hotmail uses chunking header whereas Gmail uses Content-length header. Also in the case of Gmail, it is also checking if the session is active or not then downloads the file accordingly. I want to achieve the following
a) Like Gmail, I want to check if the session is active or not and then downloads the files accordingly. What will be the method for me to implement it?
b) When downloading the file, I want to use Content-Length header instead of Chunked header. Also the memory consumption should be less. Can we achieve it in WCF Rest? If so how?
c) Is it possible for me to add a header in WCF that will display the file size in the browser Downloads window?
d) When downloading an inline images from WCF, I found out that the image after loading is not cached in local machine. I was thinking that once an image is shown in an HTML page, it will get automatically cached and the next time user visits the page, the image will load from cache instead from server. I want to cache the inline images to cache, what is the option that I can use for it? Are there any headers that I need to specify when downloading an inline image from server?
e) When I download a zip file using WCF in IPhone Chrome browser, it’s not downloading at all. But the same link works in Android Chrome browser. What could be the problem? Am I missing header in WCF?
Are there any methods that will achieve the above?
Regards,
Jollyguy
by default browsers will cache the static files like image, js and css files. And it also cache http get request. If this feature is already there, then why we need asp.net output caching feature?
Thanks.
The asp.net caching is for creating the output sent to multiple clients the browser cache is a single client caching for itself.
Asp.net caching can cache individual parts of a larger output and jsut change the bits that are required to service a particualr client. e.g. changing the greeting at the top of the page, or making the "Top sellers" region relative.
I'm trying to optimize my web application using Google's Page Speed API which has highlighted the absence of "Keep-alive" in my HTTP response headers as a major page speed weakness.
In talking with my back-end devs and sys admins, they've told me that using Keep-alive on the site is impossible because we use a load balancer.
I'm wondering, is this accurate? Are there load balancers that support Keep-alive?
It seems strange to me that the Page Speed API would complain about Keep-alive if it were impossible to use with load balancers because I would imagine a fair amount of applications and large sites use load balancers.
Thanks!
I don't know what type of load-balancers do you have... but I don't think that it would prevent the use of keep-alive connections.
The load balancer will handle each incoming connection to one of the backend servers. Now for each object the browser needs to make a new connection just to fetch that object (for example all small images). Establishing and closing TCP connections takes some time. This is why the Google Page Speed suggests to have keep-alive turned on. Another option is put all your small images into one big image and use css sprites to display part of it on different places on your page.
But back to the load balancer. If you have network load balancer, it should work without any questions - it will just redirect incoming TCP connection to one of the backend servers. If you have HTTP load-balancer, it will accept the connection, read the request, send the request to backend server, wait for it to answer and send the answer back to the browser. If you enable keep-alive, the load balancer should forward the next request it receives over the same connection.
For dynamic pages you don't need keep-alive. Keep-alive is mainly useful for static content (js, images, css) as for each one html page you have usually more than 10 static objects. So I would suggest to continue serving html trough that load-balancer and serve static content over different hostname (static.example.com).