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.
Related
I have a client that is using EAP(Event-based Asynchronous Programming) to call WCF service asynchronously.
But when I try to close the client proxy after calling the service I see that client hangs up and it works in a synchronous manner.
When I don't close the client proxy after calling the service the call works fine in asynchronous manner.
Do I need to close the proxy in some different way when using EAP ?
I need to process large number of concurrent requests asynchronously.
Strictly speaking, we do not need to close the client connection because the server automatically closes the connection.
This depends on the following parameters.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/wcf/feature-details/configuring-timeout-values-on-a-binding
Besides, I suggest you enable the concurrency on the server side.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.servicemodel.servicebehaviorattribute.concurrencymode?view=netframework-4.8
Feel free to let me know If there is anything I can help with.
It there any disadvantage of creating a wcf client in code everytime a call is needed. currently i have a static class that creates a client and reuses it for a period of time (couple of minutes before the wcf service times out)
i'm having problems with it getting into a faulted state while i'm in development because i keep recompiling the WCF code. its an annoyance now but think it'll be fine in production.
but... creating client proxy with user creds everytime a call is made... bad practice? performance issues?
As far as I know there is no performance penalty and this is the good way of doing it i.e create a client proxy each time you need it.
And each time you're done with it, it is a recommended best practice to always close the proxy. Closing the proxy releases the connection held toward the service, which is particularly important to do in the presence of a transport session. It also helps ensure the threshold for the maximum number of connections on the client’s machine is not reached. Closing the proxy terminates the session with the service instance.
I think the best answer is a little of both.
there is definitely a performance hit creating a proxy client every call. if you can create a proxy client and use it for all the calls you're going to make immediately. then dispose of it. it is much faster.
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])
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
I have 2 wcf services, 1 which polls the other service at regular interval.The service2 is hosted in no. of machines with the same configuration.
My problem is that whenever the poller service gets restarted, even though the service2 on other machines runs fine, i am not getting the response from those services (basically it gets timed out - getting SYSTEM.TimeOutException ). If I try to access the same service (service2) from some temp application (without restarting the service2) it gives response.
If I restart the service2, than it works fine, the service1 (poller service) gets the responses from all hosted services (Service2).
Dont know what is causing problem.
Regards,
Chirag
Attach VS to your wcf service which hangs. And find out if your connection is successful.
Do it with both services, so that you can debug the services at runtime.
If you're using a sessionful binding (netTcpBinding, wsHttpBinding), it's more than likely that you're not explicitly closing your client channel when you're done with it. This would cause the behavior you see, because the session takes a minute or so to time out if you don't explicitly close it, and the default max number of sessions is low (10)- the server will let new sessions stack up until old ones close. You can also adjust the service throttle on the server side binding to increase the max number of open sessions allowed, but you really should make sure your clients are getting cleaned up properly first.