First let me say i am only a novice programmer, and by no means an sql guru. We have an app at work that is and has been under heavy dev from the vendor for sometime (2+ years). It runs as a MSSQL instance on one of our servers, and there is a client install for the desktops. The client software is making direct sql calls to the database.(it also has a local mysql instance to handle the client settings) there is 6-12 ports that had to be opened up for the communication. Looking at the sql manager, i can see direct sql calls from various clients.
Seems to me this is entirely the wrong approach. the closest thing i have done to this, was a webpage + php+ mysql. The webpage would make requests, and all the processing would be serverside, then simply display the results. The sluggishness my users feel i think is from the clientside request+ processing of the sql data.
ps: i realize that if they have not done it by now, switching to another paradigm seems out of the question. i just want to know if i am way off base.
You are way off base.
The client side has much more processing power.
Consider the case of one server and 5 clients. Even is the server has 3 times the power of a client the clients as a whole are still 5:3 more powerful.
If the application is sluggish it was probably poorly written. You need to investigate the root cause. Client / Server is a leading practice in design, I'm guessing it is not the root cause. It might be badly implemented or there might be other reasons. Your comment about having a local mysql sounds very fishy to me -- there should be no need for this.
Related
We are currently testing an upgrade from CF11 to CF2018 for my company's intranet. To give you an idea how long this site has been running, our first version of CF was 3.1! It is still using application.cfm, and there is code from 1998, when I started writing this thing. Yes, 21 years -- I'm astonished, too. It is a hodgepodge of all kinds of older frameworks, too, including Fusebox.
Anyway, we're running Win 2012 VM connected to a SQL 2016 farm. Everything looked OK initially, but in the Week I've been testing, the server has come to a slowdown once (a page took more than 5 seconds to run, something that usually takes 100ms, no DB involvement), and another time, the server came to a grinding halt. The only way I could restart CF App service was by connecting to the server with another server via Services, because doing it via Remote Desktop was so slow.
Now keep in mind -- it's just me testing. This is a site that doesn't have a ton of users, but still, having 5 concurrent connections is normal and there are upwards of 200-400 users hitting this thing every day.
I have FusionReactor running on this thing now, so the next time a lockup happens, I will be able to take a closer look, but what do you think is the best way I can test this? Our site is mostly transactional, users going and filling out forms to put internal orders through. We also connect to XML web services and REST services; we also provide REST services, too. Obviously there's no way to completely replicate a production server's requests onto a test server, but I need to do more thorough testing. Any advice would be hugely appreciated.
I realize your focus for now is trying to recreate the problem on test. That may not be as easy as hoped. Instead, you should be able to understand and resolve it in production. FusionReactor can help, but the answer may well be in the cf logs.
You don't mention assessing the logs at the time of the hangup. See especially the coldfusion-error log, for outofmemory conditions.
You mention raising the heap, but the problem may be with the metaspace instead. If so, consider simply removing the maxmetaspace setting in the jvm args. That may be the sole and likely cause of such new and unexpected outages.
Or if it's not, and there's nothing in the logs at the time, THEN do consider FR. Does IT show anything happening at the time?
If not then consider a need to tune the cf/web server connector. I assume you're using iis. How many sites do you have? And how many connectors (folders in the cf config/wsconfig folder)? What are the settings in their workers.properties file? Are they optimized for the number of sites using that connector?
Also, have you updated cf2018? Are there any errors in the update error log? Did you update the web server connector also?
Are you running the cf2018 pmt (performance monitoring tool set)? Have you updated it?
There could be still more to consider, but let's see how it goes with those. I have blog posts on these and many more topics that would elaborate on things, both at my site (carehart.org) and the Adobe cf portal (coldfusion.adobe.com).
But let's hear if any of this gets you going.
I am not sure if I should be posting this question here or over at ServerFault so apologies if it is in the wrong place.
I have a small web app that is starting to get some more business.
Currently I have a single dedicated LAMP server for this, and this has worked well - the single server is able to handle all of our traffic.
However... Recently I have been approached by some potential customers who are interested in using the app, but only if their data can be stored on a server in the same province as they are (legal reasons).
I could migrate the server, but I am reluctant to do this. I like where it is now.
So, I am wondering what is involved in having multiple servers in physically separate datacentres far apart, running the same web app? Data between the servers would not need to stay synced, necessarily.
I have never done anything like this before, and am not sure how complicated a job it is. Any suggestions on how and where to start looking into this would be much appreciated.
Thanks (in advance) for your advice.
As long as each customer has their own set of data you can just install another copy of the application in the other datacenter. It will require you to get some structure to your source control and deployment process, but it works. This option will give you two separate databases.
If you have to have one common database for all the customers (e.g. some kind of booking/reservation system of common resources) then you're up to a completely other level of complexity with replicating databases etc. It's doable, but it's hard.
I have a .NET application (VB.NET) that runs against a MS Access database. Every data request connects to the access database, runs and returns the query and closes the connection back again.
I placed the database on a windows xp 32-bit machine.
I have two clients on which I installed the .NET application. Both clients are running windows 7 professional 32-bit.
Now I have a performance problem with this.
When I use the first client it runs fine. All data is shown very fast. When I than use the second client, it takes some 10 seconds to connect to the database, fetch the data and close the database connection. When i ask for other data on that second client, it all runs fine, until I request data from the first client than back again. Than it takes again 10 seconds on the first client before my data is fetched.
Can anybody please help me with that? I owe a Belgian beer to the solver of this issue ;-)
Thanks!
Tom Wickerath wrote a great article on improving multiuser performance for MS Access applications. While his article assumes a MS Access front-end, many of the tips should apply to a .Net application. I recall two points that might help you:
Keep a persistent connection to the back-end
Use (short) UNC paths instead of mapped drives
After a long search, i found it out... My virusscanner NOD32 was causing this, most probably by excessive scanning inbound and outbound network traffic.
I'm not sure stackoverflow is the right place for questions like this, but ...
It sounds like the first process is locking the file, so the second process has to wait.
"Use SQL Server" isn't a completely flippant response - SQL Server is specifically designed to handle concurrency issues like this.
IMHO ...
PS:
This is a pretty lame link, but it might help:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/access-help/about-sharing-an-access-database-on-a-network-mdb-HP005240860.aspx
PPS:
Here's a somewhat better link, with some suggestions for things you can do to improve concurrency:
http://www.softcoded.com/web_design/upgrading_access.php
i have a very simple server running WAMP on a windows machine, with a php code who is a simple API for my clients that returns an XML. The things is that the hardware is very modest, and if a user calls the link to the API and hits F5 many times (calls the link repeatedly) the server performance goes down a little (response time goes up). Is there a way to limit the queries on port 80?
I know how to limit this in the the php code, but i think it is not good practice because even if you limit the queries on the php code the query is already made and I'm consuming resource checking with php if the user is making many queries.
Well, if you want to catch it before it reaches PHP, an Apache module would be one approach, e.g. mod_cband. Other than that, your firewall might help you, but I don't know if the default Windows one is up for that.
Other than that, handling it in your PHP code wouldn't be that bad. Yes, checking a DB consumes time, but it's still faster than collecting and returning XML.
Implement access control to the resources, keep track of active sessions and don't initiate heavy tasks while that particular user has a task open...?
I'm attempting to help our network engineers troubleshoot a situation for one of our clients. This client purchased a point-of-sale system from quite literally a "mom-and-pop" vendor, and said vendor recommended SQL Server Express 2005 as the back-end database to save the client from having to incur extra licensing fees. (Please don't get me started on that!)
We didn't write the app, and because it's a commercial app, we have no source code available. (Not that it would help us if we did; the thing was built in PowerBuilder, so we don't have tooling for it.) The app does none of its own logging, that we can ascertain. All we have to go on is SQL Server Express's own logging.
In the application, an end user swipes a membership card. Occasionally (a few times a day), the swipe will not return data from the database. The message on screen will say, "Member 123 not found." (The member numbers are actually six digits, "000123.") A rescan immediately afterward returns the member data correctly.
We've eliminated the scanner itself as a source of issues -- it routinely scans the full six-digit number. A scan of SQL Server Express's log indicates that it is coming back online from being idle, often at the point of the scan (but also at several other times per day). (Idle mode is explained here.)
I understand that allocating/deallocating RAM the way SQL Express does is a time-consuming process, especially if we're talking about hundreds of megabytes at a time -- which appears to be the case.
What we're not sure of is whether or not we're getting back partial data, or if the app is simply failing to connect to the database and displaying a generic error message. Since everything is so opaque, and the client is (for obvious reasons) unwilling to pay us to sit in their facility for 8 hours or so to physically see it happen (perhaps with network monitoring/packet sniffing tools), we're kind of at a loss.
At this point, our recommendation is that the client upgrade to SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition, with 5 CALs. But that doesn't completely sit well with me as the solution to this issue, because I'm reasonably certain that no SQL Server ever returns partial data -- if you can't connect, you can't connect. (That said, I still recommend it because it's a solution to a number of their other issues!)
I don't have much experience with Express. (I never use it for anything but local development, and there only at home; I certainly never recommend it to my clients.)
My question to those who might have experience with Express is, have you ever seen an instance of SQL Express return partial data, without the app itself being the cause of it? Specifically, have you seen this behavior when returning from idle mode?
(For what it's worth, we're inclined to believe that the app is failing to connect and merely displaying a generic error message, lopping off leading zeroes on the member ID when it does. That seems the most reasonable answer -- a third question might be, do you guys concur with that assessment?)
I've never heard of or experienced SQL Server Express returning partial data. It's essentially the same code base as the full SQL Server.
It is more likely that the application is experiencing a timeout (which defaults to 30 seconds) due to SQL Server Express going idle. The application probably receives a timeout that it does not expect and does not handle it well.
The problem and possible solutions are discussed in this forum thread: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/sqlexpress/thread/a8fbf8d6-9949-47a5-a32b-50f8131f1127/
I suspect you have a connection string that looks like this:
Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS; Integrated Security=True;AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\myDatabase.mdf;User Instance=True
From the referenced thread:
This connection string will cause an
initial connection to the main
instance (.\SQLEXPRESS) and then
instruct the main instance to spawn a
new instance of SQL Server under the
user's context and attach the database
specified to that new User Instance.
The User Instance is a completely
separate running instance of SQL
Server form the main instance that is
unique to the user and that will be
shut down when there are no longer any
connections to it.
This is totally different that
attaching a database to the main
instance, which stays running at all
times, unless you've manually shut it
down. If your question is about the
main instance going into an Idle
state, then your question is not
unique to SQL Express and you should
ask this question in the Database
Engine forum. I believe all Editions
of SQL Server have an Idle state and
the other forum would be where you can
find out how to affect that behavior.