I have an iPad client application that are installed in around- 3000 - 4000 iPads. They are available in remote areas and are talking to a web service for submitting the data they collect. The data submission call from the iPads may happen together. I have one single server where all the data is stored in SQL server. The web services are written in .NET and are hosted in IIS 7.
Currently the iPad application does not work as expected as the web services are not able to handle that many requests simultaneously.
What is the best possible way to handle this scenario? Is the delay/scalability issue caused by DB access? Can an in-memory caching at web-service side solve the issue?
I am not in a position to invest in a separate server. So would like to know the best solution for handling as many requests together. The DB insertion can be done asynchronously. Most important task is to bring the data collected on iPads to server.
Related
I have a Web Server implemented using dot net MVC4. There are clients connected to this web server which perform some operations and upload live logs to the server using WebClient.UploadString method. Sending these logs from client to server is being done in group of 2500 characters at a time.
Things work fine until 2-3 client upload logs. However when more than 3 clients try to upload logs simultaneously they start receiving "http 500 internal server error".
I might have to scale up and add more slaves but that will make the situation worse.
I want to implement Jenkins like live logging, where logs from slave are updated live.
Please suggest some better and scalable solution to this problem.
Have you considered looking into SignalR?
It can be used for anything from instant messaging to stocks! I have implemented both a chatbox, and a custom system that sends off messages, does calculations and then passes them back down to client. It is very reliable, there are some nice tutorials, and I think it's awesome.
My management is evaluating non-Azure Microsoft Windows Service Bus (Azure is out of consideration for security reasons). It will be used to setup topic/subscription model with a number of WCF services with netMessagingBinding that we building, so I just have a few basic questions about that.
Are there any specific hardware requirements like dedicated server, dedicated database etc. for WSB to run in production environment?
It's easy to configure WCF service to listen on a specific topic subscription. Is there any way for WCF service to listen to multiple subscriptions?
Appreciate the answers.
You can install the service components and the databases all on one server (that is the default). However, for a number of reasons, we installed the services on a dedicated app server and then created the Service bus databases on an existing database server. The install package allows you to specify a different db server. Check this article for the minimum server requirements
Yes you can get one WCF service to listen to multiple subscriptions. You would need to create two (or more) System.ServiceModel.ServiceHost instances and then run them inside one process. For example we had one windows service running two ServiceHost's. Each host listened at a different queue and therefore implemented a different contract. This meant where queues were logically grouped we didn't need a new windows service per queue. You could do the same with subscriptions.
For question one, you will have to go through the exercise of hardware sizing. the good news is that WCF services can scale vertically, so you can add up servers if there were issues in handling client load.
To do hardware sizing you will have to make an estimate the expected load and then do performance/scalablity testing to figure the load bearing capacity of your serviceBus/services .
you could find a lot of resources for load testing like this one http://seroter.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/testing-out-the-new-appfabric-service-bus-relay-load-balancing/
once you do load testing and come up with the numbers, you can then do sizing using references like this one http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb310550.aspx
I'm designing a software system which has some C++ projects and java web applications hosted on Apache/Tomcat. Native code[C++ outputs] will connect to other systems[DB, External Gateways, etc] through web apps as HTTP requests. In order to make a good distributed/modular system, I'm planning to use several [5 to 10] web applications.
But still my system is not finished its developments, but function enough to sell. But even still 20% of its full features, I have to go through a huge deployment procedure since it has much of web apps.
My question is,
Is it good to merge few web apps TEMPORARILY to reduce deployment overhead[I can do this till I get a significant larger source for each] and do http requests within that same web application?
Will it be cause any performance/memory/threading issue?
if you are merging two or three web components and want to deploy an single jvm
than you should not use http request between web components,
for this you can use jboss osgi http://www.jboss.org/jbossas/subprojects/osgienter link description here
The solution I found was to use a hosted JVM, which is an application on either a Servlet container or in a web service.
This way, a single JVM is re-used.
But the problem here is that, you need a communication mechanism between two applications, which I prefer of using TCP sockets.
Even if this question is a year old, I am still searching a good answer for this question. I appreciate any information that will lead me to fully understand this issue regarding low performances of communicating web services hosted on the same machine.
I am currently developing a system with several WCF Web Services that communicate intensively.
They are running under IIS7, on the same machine, each service being in a different Application Pool, with multiple workers in the Web Garden.
During the individual evaluation of each Web Service, I can serve 10000-20000 requests per minute, quickly and without any issues for the resource consumption (processor and memory).
When I test the whole system or just a subsystem formed by two Web Services I can't serve more than 2000 requests/minute.
I also observed that communication time between Web Service is a big issue (sometimes more than 10 seconds). But when testing with only 1000 requests per minute everything goes smoothly (connection time of no more than 60 ms).
I have tested the system both with SOAPUI and JMETER, but the times were computed based on system logs, not from the testing tools.
Memory and network aren't an issue (they are used very little).
Later on, I have tested the performance of 2 communicating WCF web services, hosted on two server and on the same server. It again seems that there is a bottleneck when the services are on the same machine, lowering the number of connection with from ten thousands to thousands; again, no memory or processor limiting.
As a note, I am working with quite big data in some cases and some of the operations needed are long ones.
I used perf.mon to see what's going on, for memory, processes, webservice, aspnet, etc. but I didn't see anything that could indicate what it's going wrong.
I also tried all the performance settings and tuning options I could find on the Internet.
Does someone know what can be wrong? Why the communication between Web Services could last so long? Why the Web Service which serves as an entry point in the system can accept 10000 requests/minute when is tested alone, but when communicating with another Web Service barely accepts 2000?
It's an IIS7 problem? Could my system perform better if each Web Service will be deployed on a different server?
I want to understand better how things internally function (IIS and WCF services) to improve performances for current and future systems.
You could try to collect data from WCF performance counters : concurrent calls, instances, duration, ... In addition, WCF throttling provides some properties that you can use to limit how many instances or sessions are created at the application level. Performance of the WCF service can be improved by creating proper instance.
Finally, in load testing, there are many configuations to apply to different component : max concurrent http connection, IIS limits, having many load clients... You load test is invalidated because of this.
I am making a DR plan for a web application which is hosted on a production web server. Now that web server also acts as a file storage for storing the feed uploads files (used by the web application as input) and report files( output of web application processing). Now if the web server goes down , the files data is also lost, so need to design a solution and give recomendations which eliminates this single point of failiure.
I have thought of some recommendations as follows-
1) Use a seperate file server however it requires a new resources
2) Attach a data volume mounted on the web server which is mapped to some network filer ( network storage) which can be used to store the feeds and reports. In case the web server goes down , the network filer can be mounted and attached to the contingency web server.
3) There is one more web server which is load balanced however that is not currently being used as file storage , and if we can implement a feature which takes the back up of the file data regularly to that load balanced second web server , we can start using that incase the first web server goes down. The back up can be done through a back up script, or seperate windows service , or some scheduling job for scheduling the backup job every night.
Please help me to review above or suggest new recommendations to help eliminate this single point of failiure problem on the web server. It would be highly appreciated?
Regards
Kapil
I've successfully used Amazon's S3 to store the "output" data of web and non-web applications. Using a service like that is beneficial from the single-point-of-failure perspective because then any other instance of that web application, or a different type of client, on the same server or in a completely different datacenter still has access to the same output files. Another similar option is Rackspace's CloudFiles.
Both of these services are very redundant, and you could use them as the back, and keep the primary storage on your server, or use them as the primary and keep a backup on your other web server. There are lots of options! Hops this info helps.