I have a windows phone 8 application, which communicates with WCF service using basicHttpBinding. The service is hosted on IIS7 (and not using windows azure)
As the service may go down for any reason, I am exploring the use of message queues to increase the reliability of the system.
I have looked at NetMsmqBinding provided in WCF - but it looks like this binding is not supported by WP8 client.
I am also looking at using RabbitMQ, but cannot find any working example with WP8 client using WCF.
Please can anyone suggest what is the best way forward? Any sample code (or links) will be much appreciated.
Thanks
First off, netMsmqBinding cannot be used across the internet. This is because it uses MSMQ which is not exposed over http.
When you're making calls to a resource across the internet, unreliability is something you need to factor into your application. Because of the number of possible problems you can encounter, it's generally not a case of if, but when, there is a failure and it's how your application deals with this which is important.
Even so, there are things you can do to minimize the reliability issues you experience, one of which does involve queuing.
Where queuing can be useful is taking large, complex, and long running processes offline. Because calls to such processes implemented synchronously often time out, you can gain a lot of reliability by making the actual processing call asynchronous.
As an example, it would be fairly common to have the web server invoke some offline process via message queuing and return to the client that their request is being processed. Because doing this is inexpensive calls are far less likely to fail. Your problem then becomes one of how to return the response to the client once the offline processing has been done.
Related
I am working on a project in which I want to use a Windows Workflow 4 State Machine. The Visual Studio solution templates and most guidance seem to steer everything towards hosting as a service in IIS that is created dynamically from send and receive activities within the workflow.
However, I would prefer to not use the send and receive activities and then host in my own WCF service which would allow me to use a Windows Service instead of IIS and use other bindings like TCP instead of HTTP and create my own interface instead of exposing MEX. In addition, it would be portable to any other hosting arrangement like in a WPF app or a console or whatever.
This feels a lot more flexible to me. Somehow, having service operations as part of the workflow seems like pretty tight coupling of two things that aren't that related. Is there any downside to my approach? I'm new to WF so I might be missing something.
Depending on the kind of workflows you are running you might need to write quite a bit of pluming code that workflow services provide for you.
Things to consider:
Are your workflows long lived?
Are you sending multiple messages to the same workflow?
Do your workflows need to survive a host restart?
Are you using Delay activities to respond to timeouts?
Do you need to be a able to retry action after error situations?
Lots of these things are automatically taken care of with a WF service and need your attention otherwise. It is certainly doable, I have done it in the past, but be aware of of what you are losing.
I'm developing a web application that needs to perform a task that consumes a lot CPU and Memory, and that also may last several minutes. In order to get a better user experience, I also developed a windows service that hosts a WCF service that performs this "high cost" task and that comunicates with the web app using msmq (message queues).
This worked great until I tried to make a load test... The windows service starts consuming a lot of resource, puttin the CPU to work at 100% and more than 1GB of memory. I've looked for optimizations and I've done a lot of tweaks to the code and I think that it is very efficient, but the task just requires a lot of resources.
The problem is that while the WCF service is working, the CPU gets used at 100% and the web app turns INCREDIBLY SLOW! I don't mind if the task that the WCF service does takes a couple of minutes more, but I want the web app to perform well for users.
So I'm wondering if there is a way to limit the resources that the WCF service can consume, giving priority to the web app.
Thanks in advance.
Juan
The easy solution would be to place the WCF service on a different machine.
The fact that the service is using alot of CPU is probably not related to you using WCF.
There are some ways that you may be able to improve the performance of your web app:
Process only one message at a time.
Break the jobs into smaller parts.
Set priority of the windows service to below normal in the task manager
Install more RAM on the server
I guess this is a problem of your Windows service design. When you decide to host WCF in Windows service you have to control resource utilization = you have to control throttling. You have to create configurable control over internal service processing so that you can change the load based on available resources. If you host WCF in IIS it already provides such control on AppPool level.
There are some freeware tools which allow limiting CPU usage for given process but that is not something I would recommend for production usage.
Best regards, Ladislav
Just a technology update, now that .NET 4.0 is out.
I write an application that communicates to the server through what is basically a message bus (instead of method calls). This is based on the internal architecture of the application (which is multi threaded, passing the messages around).
There are a limited number of messages to go from the client to the server, quite a lot more from the server to the client. Most of those can be handled via a separate specialized mechanism, but at the end we talk of possibly 10-100 small messages per second going from the server to the client.
The client is supposed to operate under "internet conditions". THis means possibly home end users behind standard NAT devices (i.e. typical DSL routers) - a firewalled secure and thus "open" network can not be assumed.
I want to have as little latency and as little overhad for the communication as possible.
What is the technologally best way to handle the message bus callback? I Have no problem regularly calling to the server for message delivery if something needs to be sent...
...but what are my options to handle the messagtes from the server to the client?
WsDualHttp does work how? Especially under a NAT scenario?
Just as a note: polling is most likely out - the main problem here is that I would have a significant overhead OR a significant delay, both aren ot really wanted. Technically I would love some sort of streaming appraoch, where the server can write messags to a stream while he generates them and they get sent to the client as they come. Not esure this is doable with WCF, though (if not, I may acutally decide to handle the whole message part outside of WCF and just do control / login / setup / destruction via WCF).
For bidirectional communications, your best bet is NetTcpBinding, rather than the http bindings, if they're available.
This has the advantage of only requiring that the client can initiate a connection with the server.
I would go with Windows Azure Service Bus. See my answer in the following question:
WCF, 4.0, Bidirectional
Take a look at Windows AppFabric, good place to start is Here. It fundamentally wraps up WCF and WF into an application server, with WCF activation supported through WAS. Its where I would host this type of app. It offerd full duplex connection orientated, p2p or sessions between client and server. Don't confuse the Windows appfabric with Azure appfabric, (formely called Azure Service Bus).
As regards bindings above, both NetTcpBinding and WsDualHttp offer callbacks, but the ws binding you get a lot for your cash, especially if it's a mixed programming environment and you have to flatten the wsdl to make interop work. I also think that WsDual is easier on routers traversal, although I understand talking to friends, that Windows AppFabric mitigates this, with new Relay Services, (which i've not seen, and I think have now been renamed).
Hope that helps.
We're planning a system running on Windows/.Net 3.5 that has a number of "services" that need to run in the background. Some will be active all of the time, but some will only be called occassionally and can be stood-up on demand.
As far as I can see, my options are:
Windows Services - always running(?)
IIS hosted something - called on demand
COM+/ .Net Enterprise Sevices - most complex option, but most powerful?
Distributed transactions is not a requirement, these are mainly computation engines, rather than transaction processors.
Does anyone have any experience of working with all of these and what further pros & cons can be claimed for each technology?
EDIT
Is suppose there are multiple ways of hosting code in IIS, web services, WCF (as pointed out below), any others? Relative pros/cons?
WCF feels like the right way to go. There are still many choices to make. WCF provides a number of communication mechanisms and hosting environments:
WCF combines the following technologies under one set of APIs-
ASMX;
WSE;
Remoting;
COM+;
MSMQ.
So for instance you can use persistent messages from MSMQ for occassionaly connected clients or standard XML encoding SOAP messages over an HTTP transport layer. You can also use new features in 3.5 like binary encoding of XML or JSON encoding over HTTP.
Hosting environments include:
Console applications
Windows services
WCF services inside IIS 7.0
and on Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008 you can use WAS (Windows Activation Services) to host WCF services.
Different hosting environments have pros and cons. I suggest you look at MSDN for more details (e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb332338.aspx).
Because WCF encompasses a lot of functionality it is more difficult to learn than any one of the technologies it replaces. I still think it pays for itself in the long run.
It depends on what the software will do, and how (and if) users or systems need to interact with it. Depending on those things, there may be one more, often overlooked, option: set it up as a scheduled task. This is often a very good alternative to a windows service, if the software is of the kind that will act on certain time intervals (check for a change in a database, act on the changed data and send it somewhere, for instance).
If you will have other systems talking directly to your software, I would imagine that a WCF application hosted in IIS would be a rather straighforward way. We use both those approaches in my current assignment; WCF services for looking up and storing data, and scheduled tasks for data calculations that run on a regular basis.
The scheduled task has one upside compared to the others in one specific field; it uses system resources only when running.
You mentioned starting up a process "on demand". WAS - Windows Activation Service, or sometimes called Windows Process Activation Servvice, though it is never abbreviated "WPAS" - is the thing inside Windows that provides on-demand process activation. The way it works - when a message arrives, WAS can start a worker process to handle the message. WAS was, prior to IIS7, fairly tightly integrated into IIS. It was used primarily to activate processes that did web work - like an ASP.NET worker process. With IIS7, WAS is generalized so that it can activate worker processes based on non-HTTP as well as HTTP messages. If you write your app to receive messages through WCF, you can get activation essentially "for free". That applies if it is HTTP, TCP, MSMQ; SOAP or otherwise.
The key thing with this on-demand startup though, is that it is tied to the communication. In fact the process lifecycle model for WAS is tied to communication as well. By default if there are no incoming messages after a while, the process will be shut down by WAS. That may or may not be what you want.
As for process hosting - COM+ offers a hosting environment but it is primarily intended for use as a host for processes that communicate. This may not be the perfect fit for you.
If you have compute engines, you may just want to run a Windows Service. A service like that can be started and stopped either administratively or programmatically. In the latter case, you could imagine a WAS-activated worker process programmatically starting a windows service.
You could also imagine writing a simple Windows Service that watches a location (filesystem, message queue, etc) for a message, and when that file or message arrives, the Windows Service starts up a compute engine process, which itself is NOT a Windows Service, but is just a process.
Speaking of MSMQ - That is basically the same model as MSMQ triggers. You can configure MSMQ to start a process when a message arrives on a particular queue.
There are lots of options.
I am looking at using MSMQ as a solution to do asynchronous execution in my upcoming project. I want to know the differences between using WCF and frameworks like MassTransit or even hand written MSMQ client to place/read task off MSMQ.
Basically the application will be several websites (internal through LAN or external through the Internet) reading/writing data through a service layer (be it WCF or normal web service). Then this service layer will do one of two things: 1. write data to database 2. and/or trigger the background process by placing a message in the queue. 3. obviously it can also retrieve data from database. The little agent (a windows service) on the other side of the queue will monitor the queue and execute based on the task command.
This architecture will be quite easy to scale (add more queues and agents) and easy to implement compared to RPC or distributed execution or whatever. And the agent processing doesn’t need to be real time. And the agent and service layer are separate applications except they share the common domain objects and Repositories etc.
What do you think? Architecture suggestions for the above requirements are welcomed. Thank you!
WCF adds an abstraction over MSMQ. In fact, once you define compatible contracts (operations must be OneWay), you can switch out MSMQ in the config, transparently. (For instance, you could switch to normal HttpWS or a NetTcp binding.)
You should evaluate the other WCF benefits, like security and so on, to see how those fit in with your needs. Again, they should be reasonably transparent of the fact you're using MSMQ underneath. For instance, adding SOAP security and so on should "just work", independent of using MSMQ.
(Although, IIRC, you still need to login to the desktop on each machine that uses MSMQ, with the service account that will use MSMQ, to generate the certificate in the machines local profile. And then, it doesn't work very well from IIS6, since user profiles aren't loaded. A real pain in general, but nothing to do with WCF specifically.)
Apart from that:
Have you looked at SQL Server Service Broker? After using MSMQ + WCF and SSSB, I think that SSSB is vastly easier to configure and manage. SSSB works with T-SQL commands over any SQL client (I use it from Mono, on Linux, with transactions). It'll also give you transactional send/receive, even remotely (I think MSMQ 4 now allows this). It really takes a lot of the pain away from message queuing, and if you're using SQL Server already...
SSSB is often overlooked since the SQL Management Studio doesn't have GUI designers for it all, but it isn't hard and is a great option. The one downside is that if you want local send capability (i.e., queue message when network is down), you'll need to run a local SQL Express instance.
Your architecture seems sound and reasonable. However you should consider using the WCF net MSMQ transport over hand coded MSMQ classes. WCF wraps this common functionality into a nice programming model. Also I believe there is some improvements in the protocol used by wcf compared to basic System.Messaging
Have a look at the value-add over plain MSMQ:
http://readthedocs.org/docs/masstransit/en/latest/overview/valueadd.html
In summary, you get a lot of messaging concepts clearly presented in the API with MassTransit; to an extent you wouldn't have if you hand-coded it or used WCF.