Imagine situation (this is real situation):
There is a WCF client application on laptop.
Laptop is connected by WiFi to internet.
User is doing some stuff (request reply operations) on his laptop at work connected to WCF service.
Then user's laptop is sleep-down and user go home. At home user wake-up his laptop, connect HSPDA/3G modem (different interface & ip) and want to continue on work in client appliaction. Note that application hasn't been closed.
User (client application) should be authenticated and if it is possible, communication should be encrypted.
What are the best practices?
Create new proxy for each operation? This should be very slow when initializing net.tcp connection with authentication.
Is solution basicHttp connection (+HTTPS) with InstanceContextMode.PerCall? Note that speed and higher payload is problem.
Or the best solution is something like "wrapper(Func<>)", which contains while loop until operation is successfully finished (on fail, new connection is created and function is called again).
Thanks you for suggestions
I've always kept the connection open for as long as the unit of work is necessary. Basically, the connection is only open and available while the application is performing some processing (and those processes require a WCF connection). It may be more overhead to keep reconnecting (and depending on connection speed it may add latency) but it's also more secure when it comes to having a connection to work with (least probability of failure) and I'm generally saving those resources for other purposes.
However, this all depends on what the application does; If the client is dumb and the service is doing all the work it may make sense to keep the connection as every function executes a method on the service. Though with that comes some failure checking and re-establishing should the connection be unexpectedly severed.
Also, netTcp is going to be a lot faster than wsHttp. And I personally haven't see a lot of latency on establishing a netTcp connection (though I don't know what kind of authentication you're doing [mine has generally implemented windows authentication])
Related
On this previous question: Tell when wcf client lost connection One of the commenters states:
Your service should not care whether a network cable was disconnected.
One feature of TCP is that unless someone is actively sending data, it
can tolerate momentary interruptions in network connectivity.
This is even more true in WCF, where there are layers of extra
framework to help protect you against network unreliability.
I'm having an issue where this is not working correctly. I have WCF client that makes a connection to the server using a DuplexChannelFactory. The connection stays open for 3 minutes. I disconnect the client from the internet and reconnect. The client regains internet connection, however any calls made from the server to that client fail. Once the client reconnects it begins working again.
When I pull the plug on the internet, the client throws several exceptions but the channel is still listed as being in an open state. Once the connection is regained and I made a request from the server to the client, I get errors such as: The communication object, System.ServiceModel.Channels.ServiceChannel, cannot be used for communication because it has been Aborted.
Obviously if the request comes in when the client is offline it won't work, but I'm trying to get it so this channel will recover once the internet comes back without having to set up a new connection.
Should this be working as-is, based on the comment I listed above? Or is there something I need to change to make that actually work?
The issue here is that the channel you're trying to use is in a faulted state, and cannot be used any longer (as the error message indicates).
Your client needs to trap (catch) that exception, and then abort the current channel and create a new one. WCF will not do that for you automatically, you have to code for it yourself.
You could also check the CommunicationState of the channel to see if it is faulted, and recover that way.
A final option would be to use the OnFaulted event handler, and when the channel is faulted, abort the channel and create a new one.
I have always followed the guidance of try/Close/catch/Abort when it comes to a WCF proxy. I am facing a code base now that creates proxies in MVC controllers and just lets them go out of scope. I'm arguing the case that we need to edit the code base to use try/Close/catch/Abort but there is resistance.
Does anyone know a metric (e.g. perfmon) I can capture to illustrate the problem/benefit. Or a definitive reference that spells out the problem/benefit no one can dispute?
You can create a sample application to mimic the problem. Though I haven't tried you can try this,
Create a simple service and limit the maxConcurrentCalls and maxConcurrentSessions to 5.
Create a client application and in that, call the service method without closing the connection.
Fire up 6 or more clients
See what happens when you open a new connection from a client. Probably the client will wait for certain time and you get some exception.
If the client don't close the connection properly, the connection will still remain open in the service so what happens if 1000s of client connected to the service at a time and leave their connections open? The service has a limitation that it could server 'n' connections at a time and because of that the service can't handle any new requests from clients and that's why closing connections are very important.
I think you are aware about the using problem in WCF service. In my applications I close the WCF connections using an extension method as said in this thread.
Have you tried a simple 'netstat -N' from the command prompt both on server and client? Yoy are likely to see a lot of waiting/pending connections which might exhaust your server resources for no reason.
This may be a shot in the dark (I don't know much about the internals of WCF), but here goes...
I'm currently working with a legacy application at a client site and we're experiencing a persistent issue with a WCF service. The application is using the Microsoft Sync Framework 2.0 and syncing through the aforementioned service. The server-side implementation of the service has a lot of custom code in various states of "a mess."
Anyway, we're seeing an error on the client application most of the time and the pattern we're narrowing down centers around different users using the application on the same machine hitting the same service. It seems that the service and the client are getting out of sync in some way on an authentication level.
The error is discussed in an article here, and we're currently investigating the approach of switching from message layer security to transport layer security, which will hopefully solve the problem. However, we may be able to solve it in a less invasive manner if this question makes sense.
In the linked article, one of the suggestions was to forcibly terminate the connection if the specific exception is caught, try again, and if it fails again it wasn't because of this particular theory. Sounds good, and easy to implement. However, I find myself unable to say with confidence if the connection is being properly terminated.
The service operates through a custom interface, which is implemented on the server-side. The only thing that interface can do to end the connection is call EndSession() on the proxy itself, which calls EndSession() on the server which is a custom method.
So...
From a WCF service method, is there a way to properly and gracefully terminate the connection with the client in a way the client will like?
That is, in this custom EndSession() is there some last step I can take to cause the server to completely forget that this connection was open? Because it seems like when another user on the same machine tries to hit the service within the application, that's when it fails with the error in the linked article.
The idea is that, at the client side of things, code which calls EndSession() is followed by nulling out the proxy object, then a factory method is called to supply another one the next time it's needed. So I wonder if something additional needs to happen on the server side (and does by default in WCF were it not for all this custom implementation code) to terminate the connection on that end?
Like I said, a shot in the dark. But maybe in answers/discussions here I can at least further diagnose the problem, so any help is much appreciated. Thanks.
Unfortunately there are only really three ways in which a session can terminated
The client closes the proxy
The service's receiveTimeout is exceeded
before the client sends another
request
the service throws a
non-fault exception which will fault
the channel and so terminate the
session
if you don't want the client involved then you only have 2 and 3 neither of which end well for the client - they will get an exception in both situation on the next attempt to talk to the service.
You could use Duplex messaging and get the service to notify the client that its requires session termination - the client then gets an opportunity to close down the proxy gracefully but this is a cooperative strategy
After developing mini project with WCF duplex (Chat Service | Sms Service), I got a Point that maybe not be correct!!
I believed Duplex theory is good and useful but there is a lot problem about using Wcf Duplex. (like reliable session, Time-out exceptions, Client address-Management on server side, proxy management on Client Side)
am I think wrong ? am I miss something?
For more Information I Used wsDualHttpBinding not tcpBinding.
If you need bidirectional communication and you want to use WCF, duplex channels are the way to go. You just need to design your application correctly and correctly handle all problems you have described. If you feel that these problems are overhead and make things even worse you can always use network programming directly (sockets) or handle bidirectional communication by yourselves exposing separate service on server and another on client (where first call from client inform server about clients address) - this scenario will suffer from the same communication problems as WsDualHttpBinding.
WsDualHttpBinding itself is special kind of duplex communication. I personally don't like it because people very often misuse it. The problem is that this binding uses two separate connections - one from client to server and second from server to client. That is big difference to net.tcp where only connection initiated from client to server is used. Obviously using WsDualHttpBinding over internet (= you don't have control over client machines) becomes much more complicated because each client must configure its firewall (in computer, on home internet gateway, etc.) to allow connection on some port. Also if you want to run more then one instance of application on the same client machine, each instance must use its own port.
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.