Well, I know that in a duplex contract the service can send messages to the client, but I would like to know when that is really useful.
I have a common application that send request to the service to get data from the a database, insert data... etc. Also, I need to store files about 40MB in the database, so I need a good performance. For this reason, I would like to use the net.tcp binding with transfer mode streamed, but the problem is that a net.tcp duplex service can't use the streamed transfer mode.
So I think I have some options.
1.- study if I really need a duplex contract for this kind of application. Perhaps in a chat application, for example, it has more sense a duplex contract because the server perhaps need to notify to the client when a contact is connected... etc. But in a common client that access to a data base, is necessary a duple contract? what kind of operations would can need a duplex contract?
2.- Other option it's not to have a duplex contract, but implement a no duplex contract in the server and other single contract in the the client, so when a client connect to the service, the service receive the needed information to connect to the service of the client. But, is this a good way to avoid a duplex contract?
3.- Really for my application I need tcp instead of a duplex HTTP that allows a streamed transfer mode? What is the advantages of the tcp over the HTTP in terms of performance?
Thanks.
You need duplex if you want to implement callback pattern. Callback means that client does not know when some event happens in server.
If you do not know when event happens you have two options to implement:
Polling - send requests every X minutes to check if event happened. Server should either return event details (if it happened) or return flag saying that you need to continue calling. Server also can return recommended timeout in advanced scenarios.
Callback - client sends some form of description what server should do if event happened. This may be pointer to function in C, delegate in .NET or endpoint schema in WCF. Server remembers that info and makes call from their side when time came.
As you can see duplex/callback means that at some point server works as client (initiates communication) and this is a big game change.
WCF duplex communications may require special network configuration because in many cases network allows you to call external services (you work as client) but forbids external resources to call you (external service works as client). This is implemented for security purposes.
Returning to your questions:
You do not need duplex if you only need to download big amount of data. You may need it if you want to catch updates that happened in server and notify clients. Duplex should work for Chat because in chat there are many scenarios when client needs to be notified with changes introduced by others.
What you described is hand-made variant of duplex channel. You should use proved and tested duplex implementation made by MS If you want server to call your method. Otherwise your option is polling.
You are right, you need tcp + streamed transfer mode to deal with big amount of data. TCP uses binary serialization which is more compact comparing to text serialization + with TCP you do not need to send any HTTP headers or SOAP envelops. Disable security if you do not need it. It has a big performance impact.
Addressing each point:
1, 2. I think that for your scenario a duplex service is an overkill. As you say yourself a duplex service is usually handy when both the client and service need to keep notifying each other on a constant basis, what you're doing, getting lots of data in/out of a database doesn't seem to be a good case for using duplex communication. Regarding netTcpBinding not allowing Streaming with duplex, you can just return a byte array (byte[]) instead of a stream. 40 MB is a lot, but I don't think Streaming will necessarily have a significant performance gain over a duplex service which will return a byte array (up to you to test each setup and compare the results). So you have a few options here, don't stream and return a byte array (you can do this with your duplex service) or you can just forget about making your service duplex since there doesn't seem to be a strong case for you to make it duplex and just return a Stream:
[OperationContract]
Stream RetrieveFile(long _fileId);
[OperationContract]
long SaveFile(Stream _stream);
3. netTcpBinding has a considerable performance advantage over HTTP bindings, but it comes with a price, mostly because its TCP ports are sometimes blocked by internet firewalls, although you can use netTcpBinding over the internet, it's not recommended. Choosing a binding depends on what you're looking to do, if your clients are going to consume your service over the internet, then netTcpBinding is not a good idea (blocked TCP ports, firewalls etc.), but if your clients are consuming the service in the same network (LAN) then netTcpBinding is the most sensible choice. wsDualHttpBinding (doesn't support streaming :#) is a good choice if you want to stick to a duplex service (equivalent of PollingDuplexHttpBinding in Silverlight), or any other HTTP based bindings if you let go of the idea of a duplex service.
Some articles that may help you out, performance comparison of various WCF bindings:
http://blog.shutupandcode.net/?p=1085
http://tomasz.janczuk.org/2010/03/comparison-of-http-polling-duplex-and.html
And about Streaming large data with WCF over HTTP, according to the authors, both samples have been tested with up to 2GB of data:
http://garfoot.com/blog/2008/06/transferring-large-files-using-wcf/
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/166763/WCF-Streaming-Upload-Download-Files-Over-HTTP
You shouldn't think that you must use netTcpBinding or you must use Streamed transfer for your service, netTcpBinding only becomes more performant than HTTP bindings after you enable throttling and configure some socket level properties. And streaming 40 MB will not have significant performance gains over buffered transfer. So you have a lot of options and a lot of trade-offs to make. There is no black and white and right or wrong, it's about how you customise your service to suit your needs best, most solutions will work. Your scenrio is a very common one and there are lots of stuff online about large data transfer in WCF, do more research ;)
Related
I am using On-Premise Service Bus 1.1 for communication between processes.
I need to perform request-response methods between end points and need to decide if I will use WCF or the bus (Service Bus Relay for WCF is not currently available for on premise).
WCF would be easiest to talk to via a generated client proxy, potential complexity with IIS host (or self host) and versioning of clients calling the service.
For Service Bus create two queues per remote service (i.e.
userService, userServiceResponse) and then use sessions. Flexible versioning with different commands. Management of these queues could become complex.
For my project everything is within the same subnet and if required WCF endpoints could talk directly to one another
To help me decide which technology to use, my questions are:
Where would WCF be used over request-response service bus?
Are there any libraries for Service Bus queues to implement
request-response messaging (or any robust code examples)?
If we have multiple publishers on a queue, how would we return a reply to a specific sender? Would we have multiple serviceReponse queues, or can a single return queue be used?
Service Bus messages can have a SessionID unique for that request where the service will receive the message, do something with it and reply with a message that has the same ID in the ReplyToSessionID. This allows the requesting party to receive based on the Session ID like this
MessageSession sessionReceiver = _queueClient.AcceptMessageSession(_mySessionID,TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
sessionReceiver.Peek();
I think the big question here is Sync vs Async whether you want the requesting party to sit back and wait for a response (WCF) or back later and check if the response is ready yet Service Bus but that is a business decision.
This link or this MSDN article might help you get started with Req/Rep for SB.
I don't think that deciding which technology should be used is a business decision. At first, it's a technical one.
I would not go with a product which is very operating system dependent, and worst, it's so premature. We can be creating coupling (OS x Bus) and stepping over a mined field.
But, this is only a personal opinion and might be biased as I'm not a Azure SB specialist.
I agree with #Tom, your decision is more related to sync/async model.
Some questions I usually answer before deciding on this subject:
Can we preview the rate of requests/minute and the amount of clients?
What is the nature of the service? Heavy processing logic or simple queries against a database?
I can list some others if you wish, but those two can easily help on the decision, forcing you to think broadly.
I have a question with regards to WCF client channel lifetime while using Message security, but first, a few notes on my company's setup and guidelines:
Our client-server applications are solely for intranet use
Our clients are WPF applications
Our company's guidelines for WCF usage are:
Use wsHttpBinding
Use Message Security
Service InstanceMode: PerCall
Service ConcurrencyMode: Multiple
It is the first time I have to use message security on an intranet setup. Here's how I typically use my client channels to limit the amount of resources kept on the client and server and literally just to keep things simple:
Instantiate + open channel (with ChannelFactory)
Make the WCF call
Close / dispose the channel asap
While monitoring this strategy with Fiddler 2, I noticed that because of Message Security, a single WCF call ended up causing 5 round-trips to my service:
3 initial round-trips for handshaking
1 round-trip for the actual WCF call
1 call to close the session (since I am using PerCall, I am assuming this is more a security session at the IIS level)
If I were to turn off Message Security, as one would expect, one WCF ended up being... A single round-trip.
As of now, I must use Message Security because that's our guideline. With this in mind and knowing that we make hundreds of WCF calls from each client WPF app a session, would you therefore advise to open the client channel and keep it open for re-use instead of disposing of it every time?
I would advise not to preemptively turn off features until you know they are a known problem. Preoptimization is needless work. Until you notice your clients having lagging problems, I would not worry about the message security. At that point, try a few things: one of your approaches of keeping a client open longer; two, try grouping requests together without turning off message security; three, consider caching, if you can; four, if the message security is the final culprit, then try a different method. I wouldn't just turn something off because I see a bit more network traffic until I knew it was the absolute last thing that I could do to improve performance.
I am novice in WCF and I have a project that needs to be migrated into WCF communication base with the client/server and server to server architecture.
My question is what is the right messaging function that I need for this project that insure the security of data across the network ,reliable connection and speed exchange of data.
I was able to find out the WCF has numerous messaging function.
Below is the architecture of my project:
Note: The clients should be simultaneously updated by both data processing and feed source servers. And clients also sends simultaneous requests to the servers while feeds are still being supplied by the feed source server.
I would be appreciate any suggestion or comments.
My first question is why are you putting the Connection Manager (CM) component in-between your clients and the services which they want to use? What is the job it does which means it needs to be right in the middle of everything?
This ultimately means that your CM component will have to handle potentially high volumes of bi-directional traffic across potentially different transport bindings and introduces a single failure point.
What if client A wants only to receive messages from the Feed Source (FS) component? Why should client A have to deal with an intermediary when it just wants to send a subscription notification to receive updates from the FS?
Equally, what if client B wants to send a message to the Data Processing (DP) component? Surely it should just be able to fire off a message to DP?
I think the majority of what you want to do with this architecture can be achieved with one-way messaging, in which case you should use netMsmqBinding (assuming you are in a pure wcf environment).
I have asp.net site where I call my WCF service using jQuery.
Sometimes the WCF service must have an ability to ask user with confirmation smth and depend on user choice either continue or cancel working
does callback help me here?
or any other idea appreciated!
Callback contracts won't work in this scenario, since they're mostly for duplex communication, and there's no duplex on WebHttpBinding (there's a solution for a polling duplex scenario in Silverlight, and I've seen one implementation in javascript which uses it, but that's likely way too complex for your scenario).
What you can do is to split the operation in two. The first one would "start" the operation and return an identifier and some additional information to tell the client whether the operation will be just completed, or whether additional information is needed. In the former case, the client can then call the second operation, passing the identifier to get the result. In the second one, the client would again make the call, but passing the additional information required for the operation to complete (or to be cancelled).
Your architecture is wrong. Why:
Service cannot callback client's browser. Real callback over HTTP works like reverse communication - client is hosting service called by the client. Client in your case is browser - how do you want to host service in the browser? How do you want to open port for incoming communication from the browser? Solutions using "callback like" functionality are based on pooling the service. You can use JavaScript timer and implement your own pooling mechanism.
Client browser cannot initiate distributed transaction so you cannot start transaction on the client. You cannot also use server side transaction over multiple operations because it requires per-session instancing which in turn requires sessinoful channel.
WCF JSON/REST services don't support HTTP callback (duplex communication).
WCF JSON/REST services don't build pooling solution for you - you must do it yourselves
WCF JSON/REST services don't support distributed transactions
WCF JSON/REST services don't support sessionful channels / server side sessions
That was technical aspect of your solution.
Your solution looks more like scenario for the Workflow service where you start the workflow and it runs till some point where it waits for the user input. Until the input is provided the workflow can be persisted to the database so generally user can provide the input several days later. When the input is provided the service can continue. Starting the service and providing each needed input is modelled as separate operation called from the client. This is not usual scenario for something called from JavaScript but it should be possible because you can write custom WebHttpContextBinding to support workflows. It will still not achieve the situation where user will be automatically asked for something - that is your responsibility to find when the popup should appear and handle it.
If you leave standard WCF world you can check solutions like COMET which provides AJAX push/callback.
We can use polling to find out about updates from some source, for example, clients connected to a webserver. WCF provides a nifty feature in the way of Duplex contracts, in which, I can maintain a connection to a client, and make invocations on that connection at will.
Some peeps in the office were discussing the merits of both solutions, and I wanted to get feedback on when each strategy is best used.
I would use an event-based mechanism instead of polling. In WCF, you can do this easily by following the Publish-Subscribe framework that Juval Lowy provides at his website, IDesign.net.
Depends partly on how many users you have.
Say you have 1,000,000 users you will have problems maintaining that many sessions.
But if your system can respond to 1000 poll requests a second then each client can poll every 1000 seconds.
I think Shiraz nailed this one, but I wanted to say two more things.
I've had trouble with Duplex
contracts. You have to have all of
your ducks in a row with regards to
the callback channel... you have to
check it to make sure it's open,
etc. The IDesign.net stuff would be
a minimum amount of plumbing code
you'll have to include.
If it makes sense for your solution
(this is only appropriate in certain
situations), the MSMQ binding allows
a client to send data to a service
in an async manner (like Duplex),
but the service isn't "polling" for
messages... it gets notified when
one enters the queue through some
under-the-covers plumbing.
This sort of forces you to turn the
communication around (client becomes
server, server becomes client), but
if the majority of the communication
is one-way, this would provide a lot
of benefits. The other advantage
here is obviously the queued
communication - the server can be
down and not miss any messages...
it'll pick 'em up when it comes back
online.
Something to think about.