i have a WCF service which Monitors a Particular Drive and Creates a New Folder weekly which i am using as a Document Storage
i have many Drives configured for Document Storage and i have to Monitor which Drive is Active(only one drive can be Active at one time ) and on Weekly Basis i have to Add a new Folder in My Active Drive at a predefined Path
provided at the configuration Time.
The Client can make any Drive Inactive or the drive can become Inactive if it is Full and i need to make another Drive Active dynamically using a Service based on priority for example
i have following drives
drive A priority 1 Active yes
drive B priority 2 Active no
if A Becomes Full i have to Make Drive B as Active
Now should i Implement a WCF Service in IIS or as a Windows Service as My Program Will Watch has to Perform Many Actions Like check the drive size and make another drive Active and send Updates in the Database
Which is a Better Way IIS or Windows Service
I need A Service which Get the Information about Drives path From the Database and I have a Configuration WIndows Application which needs to communicate with this Service also to check the drive path and Check the size if it is invalid Application will not Configure the Drive Path and if it is valid it will keep the entry in the Database and any client can have multiple directories and only one directory will be Active So that i can Store Documents in it
What about the Performance and can i configure WCF for IIS like IIS does not Refresh the Application Pool as i want my Service to Run periodically say every 30minutes – Nitin Bourai just now edit
It seems to me a better architecture would be to have a service responsible for persisting your Documents, it can then decide where (and how) to store it and where to read it from based on who's requesting it / how much disk space is available etc. This way all your persistance implementation details are hidden from consumers - they only need to care about Documents, not how they are persisted.
As to how to host it... there is lots of useful information out there documenting both:
IIS : here
Windows Service: here
Both would be more than capable of hosting such a service.
I would go with a windows service in this case. Unless I misunderstand, you want this all to happen with no human intervention, correct? So, I don't see a contract, which means its not a good candidate for WCF.
As I see it both Windows Service or IIS hosted service will work well in your scenario. Having said that, I would go with the Windows Service. It is just a feeling matter but I guess you have a little more config support 'out of the box'. I believes it is easier to config what to do if it fail to start, config the user you want the service to run with and so on.
But as I said, it is a matter of feeling
Related
I am using the Azure Container Service with Kubernetes orchestrator and have an app deployed on a cluster with 3 nodes. It has 5 replicas. How can I verify load balancing in action e.g. I want to be able to see that every time I hit the external IP I am being routed to perhaps a different node. Thanks.
The simplest solution is to connect (over ssh for example) to 3 nodes and run WinDump there. In order everything is working properly you will be able to see what happens on every node.
Also here is Microsoft documentation for testing a load balancer:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/windows/tutorial-load-balancer#test-load-balancer
The default Load Balancer which are available to your Windows Azure Web and Worker roles are software load balancers and not so much configurable however they do work in Round Robin setting. If you want to test this behavior this is what you need to do:
Create two (or more) instances of your service with RDP access
enabled so you can RDP to both instances
RDP to your both instances and run NETMON or any network monitor
solution in it.
Now access your Windows Azure web application from your desktop You
need to understand that when a network connection is made from your
desktop the connection is still alive based on network settings
(default 60 seconds) so you need to wait until default timeout is
passed to access your Windows Azure web application again.
When you will access your Windows Azure Web application again you can
verify that seconds time the request went to next instance. BE sure
to pass the connection timeout otherwise your request will be keep
handled by same instance.
Note: If you dont want to use RDP, you sure can also create a test ASP.NET page to write some special code based on your specific instance which will show you that this page is specific to certain instance. The best way to do is to read the Instance ID as below:
int instanceID = RoleEnvironment.CurrentRoleInstance.Id;
If you want to have more control over Windows Azure Load Balancing, i would suggest using the Windows Azure Traffic Manager which will help you to route the traffic to your site via Round-Robin, Performance or backup based scenario. More info on using Traffis Manager is in this article.
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 am working with silverlight project that is consuming domain services. Actually i find that quite messy as one domain service class and metadata. I have already worked with Wcf services and found them very easy to update and handle. But domain service's modification (as new field or tables are added) is really a pain.
I want to know why people prefer domain services over silverlight enabled Wcf services? I mean advantages or disadvantages of both and performance implication
After goggling i found this are things you should see :
To authenticate users faster in the domain
To authenticate resources(gps etc) faster for the users
Utilization of resources
Utilization of network and descreasing the overall traffic in the
network.
The main benefit is that of the users and passwords management, which
could grow to be massive amount of work having to manage them
individually on each independent servers. The proposed changes of
migrating the whole platform to Active Directory environment will
assist in propagating the changes (such as new users, password
changes, new security requirements via GPO, etc) on to the servers
(which will run as domain clients, only 1 or 2 will run Primary and
Secondary ADC. Not all these servers are going to run host AD or be
an ADC, server OS is used due to it's robustness and reliability).
disadvantage
cost of infrastructure
good planning is must
Complex structure for user
I would like to create a service whose job is to monitor other services that are running within the same process, and then report basic information like health or service dependencies. I'm having trouble figuring out the best way for my monitoring service to access detailed information about the other services without having to have each service publish its metadata or expose some custom endpoint the monitoring service can communicate with. If I load the configuration and read through it I can get most of the way there but this approach has a few weaknesses:
Getting the absolute URI for each endpoint can be difficult,
especially when using IIS hosting or fileless activation.
Any configuration that was done programmatically would not be able to be read by the monitoring service
What I'd like to be able to do is to somehow access the ServiceDescription to get all the information I need about each ServiceHost, without requiring any work on the part of the service designer to give it to me. Is something like this possible?
If you've checked Channs links and are convinced you need to roll your own health monitoring infrastructure, you'll probably need to either derive from ServiceHost or go all out and derive from ServiceHostFactoryBase or possibly do both depending on what you need to implement. They'll give you access to the ServiceDescription instance for each service as it is spun up.
One alternative would be to use WCF's built-in health monitoring and performance monitoring capabilities. This works at the individual service level though.
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.