I have a WCF service method that I want to perform some action asynchronously (so that there's little extra delay in returning to the caller). Is it safe to spawn a System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker within the method? I'd actually be using it to call one of the other service methods, so if there were a way to call one of them asynchronously, that would work to.
Is a BackgroundWorker the way to go, or is there a better way or a problem with doing that in a WCF service?
BackgroundWorker is really more for use within a UI. On the server you should look into using a ThreadPool instead.
when-to-use-thread-pool-in-c has a good write-up on when to use thread pools. Essentially, when handling requests on a server it is generally better to use a thread pool for many reasons. For example, over time you will not incur the extra overhead of creating new threads, and the pool places a limit on the total number of active threads at any given time, which helps conserve system resources while under load.
Generally BackgroundWorker is discussed when a background task needs to be performed by a GUI application. For example, the MSDN page for System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker specifically refers to a UI use case:
The BackgroundWorker class allows you to run an operation on a separate, dedicated thread. Time-consuming operations like downloads and database transactions can cause your user interface (UI) to seem as though it has stopped responding while they are running. When you want a responsive UI and you are faced with long delays associated with such operations, the BackgroundWorker class provides a convenient solution.
That is not to say that it could not be used server-side, but the intent of the class is for use within a UI.
Related
I am creating a new net core 2.2 API for use with a JavaScript client. Some examples in Microsoft have the controller having all async methods and some examples aren't. Should the methods on my API be async. Will be using IIS if this is a factor. An example method will involve calling another API and returning the result whilst another will be doing a database request using entity Framework.
It is best practice to use async for your controller methods, especially if your services are doing things like accessing a database. Whether or not your controller methods are async or not doesn't matter to IIS, the .net core runtime will be invoking them. Both will work, but you should always try to use async when possible.
First, you need to understand what async does. Simply put, it allows the thread handling the request to be returned to the pool to field other requests, if the thread enters a wait state. This is almost invariably caused by I/O operations, such as querying a database, writing/reading a file, etc. CPU-bound work such as calculations require active use of the thread and therefore cannot be handled asynchronously. As side benefit of async is the ability to "cancel" work. If the client closes the connection prematurely, this will fire a cancellation token which can be used by supported asynchronous methods to cancel work in progress. For example, assuming you passed the cancellation token into a call to something like ToListAsync(), and the client closes the connection, EF will see this an subsequently cancel the query. It's actually a little more complex than that, but you get the idea.
Therefore, you need to simply evaluate whether async is beneficial in a particular scenario. If you're going to be doing I/O and/or want to be able to cancel work in progress, then go async. Otherwise, you can stick with sync, if you like.
That said, while there's a slight performance cost to async, it's usually negligible, and the benefits it provides in terms of scalability are generally worth the trade-off. As such, it's pretty much preferred to just always go async. Additionally, if you're doing anything async, then your action should also be async. For example, everything EF Core does is async. The "sync" methods (ToList rather than ToListAsync) merely block on the async methods. As such, if you're doing a query via EF, use async. The sync methods are only there to support certain limited scenarios where there's no choice but to process sync, and in such cases, you should run in a separate thread (Task.Run) to prevent deadlocks.
UPDATE
I should also mention that things are a little murky with actions and particularly Razor Page handlers. There's an entire request pipeline, of which an action/handler is just a part of. Having a "sync" action does not preclude doing something async in your view, or in some policy handler, view component, etc. The action itself only needs to be async if it itself is doing some sort of asynchronous work.
Razor Page handlers, in particular, will often be sync, because very little processing typically happens in the handler itself; it's all in subordinate processes.
Async is very important concept to understand and Microsoft focus too much on this. But sometimes we don't realise the importance of this. Every time you are not using Async you are blocking the caller thread.
Why Use Async
Even if your API controller is using single operation (Let's say DB fetch) you should be using Async. The reason is your server has limited number of threads to handle client requests. Let's assume your application can handle 20 requests and if you are not using Async you are blocking the handler thread to do the operation (DB operation) which could be done by other thread (Async). In turn your request queue grows because your main thread is busy dealing other things and not able to look after new requests , at some stage your application will stop responding. If you would use Async the Main thread is free to handle more client requests while other operation run in the background.
More Resources
I would recommend definitely watching very informative official video from Microsoft on Performance issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5T4sZHbfoQ
Suppose my WCF Service Application is "single-threaded" and I process some stuff on a background thread, but then need to service the processed data on the main IIS thread. (conversely, and seemingly more easily, I could lob all incoming methods to be re-called on the background thread, but this is not what I'm asking).
How can I, from the background thread, "notify" the main thread that my WCF methods are being invoked upon, to "wake up" and go process a method I specify?
I'm not super-familiar with the inner workings of WCF & IIS. I'm taking a guess that my service's methods are being called from completion ports and I should take as little time as possible in them, to prevent the IO servicing stuff from choking. I'm starting to think that if I want everything synchronized on one thread (calls to my methods, and my video-processing operations I need to perform), then I should make a command q and put all incoming method calls onto the command Q.
Surely this is an extremely common scenario. How do most people do this?
From my understanding, you are trying to run something in background, and process something else further based on the result from background job.
Maybe you can try the Task, which you can specify the callback (Task.ContinueWith) when the task is finished.
The GUI of my program freezes while the program is doing its work. I created a mass import which can send X-thousand datarows via a called webservice into a database. The code is already very big and I cannot rewrite it for multithreading purpose.
I don't know how to do it. Any suggestions? If needed I will show some code, but at the moment I don't know what to show.
Firstly, you should rewrite it to use avoid synchronously doing this on the UI thread. If you do a lot of work on the UI thread, it simply will freeze the UI thread. There are a few options here:
If your web service proxy supports asynchronous calls, and if you're using VB 11, you can use Async / Await to call the web service asynchronously from the UI thread in an asynchronous method, and control will return back to the UI thread at the same point in the asynchronous method when the call has completed. It takes a little while to get your head round asynchrony, but this is probably the best option if it's possible.
You can use the Task Parallel Library to make calls on a different thread, but then you'll need to think carefully about how that thread is going to interact with your UI thread.
You can use BackgroundWorker to run some code on another thread, but report progress and completion back on the UI thread
You could potentially call Application.DoEvents between each web service call, to let the UI handle events. This is dangerous - it can lead to re-entrant code, so locks won't behave as you expect them to, and similar hard-to-diagnose errors. This should be your last option, if all else fails.
I have some functions in a web application that do a lot of calculations and as a result have high CPU usage which affects the rest of the application when other users are accessing it.
I have tried backgroundworker to no avail , the only thing that seems to work in using another thread and setting the priority to low, can the UI be updated from a worker thread? specifically I am trying to bind a grid to a dataset processed in the worker thread
If you call Application.DoEvents() periodically to process the windows message queue, this will allow the UI to be updated and respond to user input.
You need to understand that many people consider DoEvents to be evil. As the UI will respond to events such as click, you should beware of any issues this can cause such as allowing many of your heavy CPU BackgroundWorker threads to be spawned. However, used correctly DoEvents provides a valid strategy for keeping your application responsive during processing.
Why do the Silerlight-generated WCF proxy class(es) offer only async calls?
There are cases where I don't really need the async pattern (for example in a BackgroundWorker)
EDIT : Sometimes I need to process the results of two WCF calls. It would have been much simpler if I could have waited (the business of the app allows that) for both calls to end and then process.. but noooo.... async! :P
As I understand it, the aim here is to make it hard for people to do the wrong thing (sync. IO from the UI). If you are using the WCF classes, you'll probably have to live with it.
There's actually a technical reason you can't do sync calls, at least from the 'main' browser thread, which is that the browser invokes all the plug-in API calls on the same thread, so if SL were to block that thread while waiting for the network callback, the network callback wouldn't get through and the app would deadlock. That said, the sync API would work fine if initiated from a different thread -- ie, if the application first does a QueueUserWorkItem to get off the browser thread -- but we felt it would be confusing to offer the sync option and have it only work some of the time.
Andrei, there ar emethods that even using the async pattern, allows you write expressive code, esasy to read and maintian, without becoming crazy wating 4 async requests, by just simplifying the way you write your code.
give a look to this library http://syncwcf.codeplex.com/