I am developing a client/server application with net tcp binding and I need to be notified if my connection to server goes down.
From server-side if a client disconnects, i can detect it instantly with CommunicationObject. Faulted event (with reliable session off). However, from Client side, it seems I have no way to know if server goes down. Same event doesn't fire. By the way I am setting receiveTimeout to infinite. Some people suggested a heartbeat or ping function to check if server is alive. But i think at WCF level such methodologies have big impacts. After all it's not a simple packet you send , it's the whole WCF request. What should I do ?
There seems to be a common misconception that, in order to find out on the client side whether a WCF session is still alive, one has to implement some kind of custom ping or heartbeat operation on the service. However, the WCF framework, when configured correctly, already does this for you in the background.
The trick is to set the ReliableSession.InactivityTimeout to a period that is short enough. For instance, if you set it to 30 seconds, then the ICommunicationObject.Faulted event will be raised on the client proxy after 30 (minimum) to appr. 45 (maximum) seconds after a service breakdown. The exact delay depends on the rhythm of the WCF-internal session keep-alive control timer and the specific time of the breakdown.
Of course, this can only work for reliable-session capable bindings, combined with the right session properties (ServiceContractAttribute.SessionMode, ServiceBehaviorAttribute.InstanceContextMode, OperationContractAttribute.IsInitiating, and OperationContractAttribute.IsTerminating).
Related
Please excuse the Obvious Self-Q/A, but this information is widely misunderstood, and almost always incorrectly answered. So I Wanted to place this information here for people searching for a definitive answer to this problem.
Even so, there's still some information I haven't been able to nail down. I will put this towards the end of the question (skip to that if you are not interested in the preamble).
How do I correctly configure a WCF NetTcp Duplex Reliable Session?
There are many questions and answers regarding this topic, and nearly all of them suggest setting inactivityTimeout="Infinite" in your configuration. This doesn't really seem to work correctly, particularly for the case of NetTcp (It may work correctly for WSDualHttp Bindings, but I have never used those).
There are a number of other issues that are often associated with this: Including, Channel not faulting after client or server unexpectedly disconnected, Channel disconnecting after 10 minutes, Channel randomly disconnecting... Channel throwing exception when trying to open... Unable to configure Metadata on same endpoint...
Please note: There are two concepts that are important below. Infrastructure messages are internal to the way WCF communicates, and are used by the framework to keep things running smoothly. Operation messages are messages that occur because your app has done something, like send a message across the wire. Infrastructure messages are largely invisible to your app (but they still occur in the background) while operation messages are the result of an action your app has taken.
Information I have figured out, through hard won trial and error.
Infinite does not appear to be a valid configuration setting in all situations (and certainly, the visual studio validation schema doesn't know about it).
There are two special configuration converters, called InfiniteIntConverter and InfiniteTimeSpanConverter which will sometimes work to convert the value Infinite to either Int.MaxValue or TimeSpan.MaxValue, but I haven't yet figured out the situations in which this appears to be valid as sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. What's more, it appears that some libraries will allow Infinite in the config, while others will not, so you can succeed in one part of a configuration, but fail in another.
You must configure BOTH inactivityTimeout and receiveTimeout, on both the client and the server. While these values do not HAVE to be the same, they probably should be as they will probably cause confusion if they are not. (technically, you can leave inactivityTimeout to its default value if you want, but you should be aware of its value, and what it does)
inactivityTimeout should NEVER be set to a large value, much less Infinite or TimeSpan.MaxValue.
inactivityTimeout has two functions (and this is not widely understood). The first function defines the maximum amount of time that can elapse on a channel without receiving any "infrastructure" or "operation" messages. The second function defines the time period in which infrastructure messages are sent (half the time specified). If no infrastructure or operation messages have been received during the timeout period, the connection is aborted.
receiveTimeout specifies the maximum amount of time that can elapse between operation messages only. This value can be set to a large value, such as TimeSpan.MaxValue (particularly if your channel runs internally over a trusted network or over a vpn). This value is what defines how long the reliable session will "stay alive" if there is no activity between client and server (other than infrastructure messages). ie, your client does not call any methods of the interface, and your server does not call back into the client.
setting a short inactivityTimeout and a large receiveTimeout keeps your reliable session "tacked up" even when there is no operational activity between your client and server. The short inactivity timeout (i like to keep the default 10 minutes or less) sends infrastructure "ping" messages to keep the TCP connection alive while the long receive timeout keeps the reliable session active. while at the same time providing a reasonable timeout in case of disconnection.
If you set inactivityTimeout to a large value, then the reliable session will not be reliable as it has no way to keep the Tcp connection alive, nor does it have any way to verify the integrity of the connection. It won't know if a user has disconnected unexpectedly until you try and send a message to that client and find out the connection is no longer there. This is why many people who use Infinite for this setting resort to creating a "Ping" method in their service, which is completely unnecessary if you've configured these settings correctly.
If you set inactivityTimeout to a value larger than receiveTimeout then it will likewise also be unreliable, as you will still be governed by the receiveTimeout for operation messages. ie. if you forget to set receiveTimeout and leave it at the default 10 minutes, then if the user is idle for 10 minutes, the connection will be aborted.
When the client or server unexpectedly disconnects (app crashes, network failure, someone trips over the power cord, etc..), the other side may not notice right away. I have attached various ChannelFaulted event handlers in various test situations, and sometimes the connection is faulted right away... other times it doesn't seem to fault at all. What i have discovered through trial and error is that the when it doesn't seem to fault, it will actually fault after the inactivityTimeout expires on that end. (so if it's set to 10 minutes, then after 10 minutes it will call the ChannelFaulted event).
I have not yet figured out why in some situations it notices the disconnection right away, and others it waits for the timer to expire. In both cases, I notice internal first chance communication exceptions thrown and handled by the framework, and there are calls to Abort the connection... but somehow the call to the event handler gets lost and it must wait for the timeout. My suspicion is this is somehow thread related.
When trying to configure Metadata to work across the NetTcp channel, I have had sporadic results. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I've read many reports that Metadata doesn't work over NetTcp and that you have to use an Http channel for the Metadata, but I have in fact had it work on several occasions using the net.tcp:// url to generate the proxy. Then I would change something, recompile and it would no longer work. Changing things back, it wouldn't work again. So it was very confusing what magic incantation was necessary to make Metadata function over net.tcp, shared with the endpoint on the same port (obviously with a different address).
When configuring both a NetTcp and Metatdata endpoint on the same service, and specifying non-default settings for connection parameters like listenBacklog, and maxConnections, you also need to make sure the Metadata endpoint uses the same settings, which typically means you have to define a custom binding, since these settings are not available from the standard tcp mex binding. This includes setting listenBacklog and maxPendingConnections on tcpTransport, and groupName and maxOutboundConnectionsPerEndpoint on connectionPoolSettings.
The default setting for the Ordered setting of ReliableSession is True. This uses a lot more overhead than turning it off. If you don't need ordered messages, i would suggest turning it off (need to set this on both sides)
-
Configuration I still need to understand:
How do I correctly configure the shared net.tcp Metadata endpoint? (I will add an example when I get a chance) Currently, i'm specifying an http get url to bypass the problem. It's so inconsistent as to why it sometimes works and sometimes does not. I kept getting the error `The URI Prefix is not recognized' when generating the proxy in Visual Studio.
Why does WCF sometimes Fault the channel immediately upon disconnect, and sometimes waits for inactivityTimeout to expire? What controls/causes one vs the other behavior?
I'm using perfmon to examine my service behaviour. What I do is I launch 6 instances of client application on separate machines and send requests to server in 120 threads (20threads per client application).
I have examined counters and maximum number of instances (I use PerSession model and set number of instances to 100) is 12, what I consider strange as my response times from service revolve around 120 seconds... I thought that increasing number of instances will cause WCF to create more instances, and as a result response times would be quicker.
Any idea why WCF doesn't create even more instances of service?
Thanks Pawel
WCF services are throttled by default - it's a service behavior, which you can tweak easily.
See the MSDN docs on ServiceThrottling.
Here are the defaults:
<serviceThrottling
maxConcurrentCalls="16"
maxConcurrentInstances="Int.MaxValue"
maxConcurrentSessions="10" />
With these settings, you can easily control how many sessions or concurrent calls can be handled, and you can make sure your server isn't overwhelmed by (fraudulent) requests and brought to its knees.
Ufff, last attempt to understand that silly WCF.
What I did now is:
create client that starts 20 threads, every thread sends requests to service in a loop. Performance counter on server claims that only 2 instances of service object are created all the time. Average request time is about 40seconds (I start measuring before proxy call and finish after call returns).
modify that client to start 5 threads and launch 4 instances of that client (to simulate 20 threads behaviour from previous example). Performance monitor shows that 8 instances of service object are created all the time. Average request time is 20seconds.
Could somebody tell me what is going on? I thought that there is a problem with server that it doesn't want to handle more requests at concurently, but apparently it is client that causes a stir and don't want to send more requests concurently... Maybe there is some kind of configuration option that limits client from sending more then two requests at one time... (buffer,throttling etc...)
Channel factory is created in every thread.
You might want to refer to this article and make adjustment to your WCF configuration (specifically maxConnections) to get the number of connections you want.
Consider using something like http://www.codeplex.com/WCFLoadTest to hit the service.
Also, perfmon will only get you so far. If you want to debug WCF service you should look at the SvcTraceViewer and SvcConfigEditor in the Windows SDK.
On your service binding what have you set the maxconnections to? Calls to connect will block once the limit is reached.
Default is 10 I think.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731379.aspx
Using techniques as hinted at in:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.servicemodel.servicecontractattribute.callbackcontract.aspx
I am implementing a ServerPush setup for my API to get realtime notifications from a server of events (no polling). Basically, the Server has a RegisterMe() and UnregisterMe() method and the client has a callback method called Announcement(string message) that, through the CallbackContract mechanisms in WCF, the server can call. This seems to work well.
Unfortunately, in this setup, if the Server were to crash or is otherwise unavailable, the Client won't know since it is only listening for messages. Silence on the line could mean no Announcements or it could mean that the server is not available.
Since my goal is to reduce polling rather than immediacy, I don't mind adding a void Ping() method on the Server alongside RegisterMe() and UnregisterMe() that merely exists to test connectivity of to the server. Periodically testing this method would, I believe, ensure that we're still connected (and also that no Announcements have been dropped by the transport, since this is TCP)
But is the Ping() method necessary or is this connectivity test otherwise available as part of WCF by default - like serverProxy.IsStillConnected() or something. As I understand it, the channel's State would only return Faulted or Closed AFTER a failed Ping(), but not instead of it.
2) From a broader perspective, is this callback approach solid? This is not for http or ajax - the number of connected clients will be few (tens of clients, max). Are there serious problems with this approach? As this seems to be a mild risk, how can I limit a slow/malicious client from blocking the server by not processing it's callback queue fast enough? Is there a kind of timeout specific to the callback that I can set without affecting other operations?
Your approach sounds reasonable, here are some links that may or may not help (they are not quite exactly related):
Detecting Client Death in WCF Duplex Contracts
http://tomasz.janczuk.org/2009/08/performance-of-http-polling-duplex.html
Having some health check built into your application protocol makes sense.
If you are worried about malicious clients, then add authorization.
The second link I shared above has a sample pub/sub server, you might be able to use this code. A couple things to watch out for -- consider pushing notifications via async calls or on a separate thread. And set the sendTimeout on the tcp binding.
HTH
I wrote a WCF application and encountered a similar problem. My server checked clients had not 'plug pulled' by periodically sending a ping to them. The actual send method (it was asynchronous being a server) had a timeout of 30 seconds. The client simply checked it received the data every 30 seconds, while the server would catch an exception if the timeout was reached.
Authorisation was required to connect to the server (by using the built-in feature of WCF that force the connecting person to call a particular method first) so from a malicious client perspective you could easily add code to check and ban their account if they do something suspicious, while disconnecting users who do not authenticate.
As the server I wrote was asynchronous, there wasn't any way to really block it. I guess that addresses your last point, as the asynchronous send method fires off the ping (and any other sending of data) and returns immediately. In the SendEnd method it would catch the timeout exception (sometimes multiple for the client) and disconnect them, without any blocking or freezing of the server.
Hope that helps.
You could use a publisher / subscriber service similar to the one suggested by Juval:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163537.aspx
This would allow you to persist the subscribers if losing the server is a typical scenario. The publish method in this example also calls each subscribers on a separate thread, so a few dead subscribers will not block others...
I have a Windows service that logs speed readings from a radar gun to a database. In addition, I made the service a WCF server. I have a Forms and a CF client that subscribe to the service and get called back whenever there is a reading that satisfies certain criteria.
This works in principle, but after some time the channel times out. It seems that there are some fundamental issues with long-running connections (see
http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2007/11/05/custom-transport-retry-logic.aspx) and a duplex HTTP callback may not be the right solution. Are there any other ways I can realize a publish/subscribe pattern with WCF?
Edit: Even with a 2 hour timeout the channel is eventually compromised. I get this error:
The operation 'SignalSpeedData' could not be completed because the sessionful channel timed out waiting to receive a message. To increase the timeout, either set the receiveTimeout property on the binding in your configuration file, or set the ReceiveTimeout property on the Binding directly.
This happened 15 minutes after the last successful call. I am wondering if instead of keeping the session open, it is possible to re-establish a fresh session for every call.
Reliable messaging will take care of your needs. The channel reestablishes itself if there is a problem. WSDualHTTPBinding provides this for the http binding, and there is also a tcp binding that allows this. If you are on the same computer, named pipe binding will provide this by default.
I have client application that uses WCF service to insert some data to backend database. Client application is going to call service on per event basis (it can be every hour or every second).
I'm wondering what's the best way of calling that service.
Should I create communication channel and keep it open all the time, or should I close channel after each call and create it again?
The first question is whether your server needs to maintain any state about the client directly (i.e. are you doing session-like transactions?) If you are, you will need to be able to manage how the server holds the information between communications.
My initial feeling of your question is that if there is no need to leave a connection open, then close it each time and recreate a new connection on demand. This will avoid issues where a connection can be placed into a faulted state between calls. The overhead of creating and destroying connections is minimal, and it will (probably) save you a lot of time in debugging when something goes wrong.
I would think you probably wanna implement a Keep Alive pattern, with a configurable duration to inform your underlying mechanism to close the connection if past beyond the Keep-alive duration with zero communication activity.