I have created a vb.net application that uses a SQL Server database at a remote location over the internet.
There are 10 vb.net clients that are working on the same time.
The problem is in the delay time that happens when inserting a new row or retrieving rows from the database, the form appears to be freezing for a while when it deals with the database, I don't want to use a background worker to overcome the freeze problem.
I want to eliminate that delay time and decrease it as much as possible
Any tips, advises or information are welcomed, thanks in advance
Well, 2 problems:
The form appears to be freezing for a while when it deals with the database, I don't want to use a background worker
to overcome the freeze problem.
Vanity, arroaance and reality rarely mix. ANY operation that takes more than a SHORT time (0.1-0.5 seconds) SHOULD run async, only way to kep the UI responsive. Regardless what the issue is, if that CAN take longer of is on an internet app, decouple them.
But:
The problem is in the delay time that happens when inserting a new records or retrieving records from the database,
So, what IS The problem? Seriously. Is this a latency problem (too many round trips, work on more efficient sql, batch, so not send 20 q1uestions waiting for a result after each) or is the server overlaoded - it is not clear from the question whether this really is a latency issue.
At the end:
I want to eliminate that delay time
Pray to whatever god you believe in to change the rules of physics (mostly the speed of light) or to your local physician tof finally get quantum teleportation workable for a low cost. Packets take time at the moment to travel, no way to change that.
Check whether you use too many ound trips. NEVER (!) use sql server remotely with SQL - put in a web service and make it fitting the application, possibly even down to a 1:1 match to your screens, so you can ask for data and send updates in ONE round trip, not a dozen. WHen we did something similar 12 years ago with our custom ORM in .NET we used a data access layer for that that acepted multiple queries in one run and retuend multiple result sets for them - so a form with 10 drop downs could ask for all 10 data sets in ONE round trip. If a request takes 0.1 seconds internet time - then this saves 0.9 seconds. We had a form with about 100 (!) round trips (creating a tree) and got that down to less than 5 - talk of "takes time" to "whow, there". Plus it WAS async, sorry.
Then realize moving a lot of data is SLOW unless you have instant high bandwidth connections.
THis is exaclty what async is done for - if you have transfer time or latency time issues that can not be optimized, and do not want to use async, go on delivering a crappy experience.
You can execute the SQL call asynchronously and let Microsoft deal with the background process.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7szdt0kc.aspx
Please note, this does not decrease the response time from the SQL server, for that you'll have to try to improve your network speed or increase the performance of your SQL statements.
There are a few things you could potentially do to speed things up, however it is difficult to say without seeing the code.
If you are using generic inserts - start using stored procedures
If you are closing the connection after every command then... well dont. Establishing a connection is typically one of the more 'expensive' operations
Increase the pipe between the two.
Add an index
Investigate your SQL Server perhaps it not setup in a preferred manner.
Related
I have a web service sitting on IIS that has been quite happy for months but now I'm getting timeouts and I don't know how to diagnose what the problem is.
The client sends up basic information in a 'heartbeat' message to IIS which then updates this in a SQL database (on a different server). There are 250 clients in the wild, all sending up their heartbeat every 5 minutes ... so there's only 250 rows in the table, with appropriate indexing on the column being used for the update.
Ordinarily it only takes 50-100ms to do the update, but since last week you can see that the response time in the IIS log has increased and I'm also getting timeouts too.
Nothing has changed with the setup so I don't know what I'm looking for to determine the reason. The error I get back is:
System.ServiceModel.FaultException: An error occurred while updating
the entries. See the inner exception for details.An error occurred
while updating the entries. See the inner exception for
details.Execution Timeout Expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to
completion of the operation or the server is not responding. The
statement has been terminated.The wait operation timed out
Any advice on where to start looking? I did enable the failed request log trace in IIS but I don't know what it all means if I'm perfectly honest. The difference between a successful requiest and a failed one is that the request log stops after the 'AspNetStart' entry.
Thanks!
Mark
There are lots of reasons a service can gradually or suddenly become slow. Poor code structure can lead to things like memory leaks on the server, small enough they don't really show up or cause problems during testing, but when run over weeks/months start to stack up. Unauthorized requests could be targeting your server if this is a public-facing service, or has a link to public-facing services.
Things to look at:
Does this happen at certain times of the day or throughout the day?
Is this a load issue that starts occurring when multiple users are sending updates concurrently? 250 users isn't a lot. Has the # of users grown over the last few months or has it been relatively stable since the start?
What is the memory and CPU usage looking like on the Web server(s) and DB server?
This is the first clue to check to see if either server is under considerable load. From there you can investigate why it might be under load or if it possibly needs a bit more grunt to deal with the load. Look at the running processes. If these servers are managed by an IT department or such some culprits can include things like Virus Scanners hogging resources. (I.e. policy changes in the last few months have lead to additional load on the servers)
What recovery model is your database set up for?
What is the size of your Tx Log (.mdx file)
Do you have a regular scheduled database backup and index maintenance?
This is one that new projects tend to forget. An empty database is small and has no Tx Log history being recorded, but as it runs over time that Tx Log grows silently in the background, especially with Full recovery. Larger Tx Logs can lead to slower performance over time especially if the log file needs to be enlarged. A good thing to check is whether the log file is set to grow by a # of bytes or percentage. Percentage is I believe the default but this can cause exponential "grow" time/space issues so it's better to set it to a fixed size per grow. You'll want regular backups being done that allow the Tx Log to reset. Ideally don't shrink the file if the Log size between backups stays consistent.
How many records across all tables are being inserted or updated in a given day?
This is important to build a picture of how much the database will be tracking through the day between backups. You may have 250 clients, but every heartbeat is potentially updating a row and inserting others.
What are you using for PKs for inserted records? (Ints vs. UUIDs) If using UUIDs are you using NEWSEQUENTIALID() or NEWID()/Guid.New()?
GUIDs can be a time bomb for indexing if done poorly. A GUID combined with NEWID() or Guid.New() will lead to considerable index fragmentation when inserting rows. Provided the GUIDs are not visible to clients you should use NEWSEQUENTIALID(). If IDs are set via code then there are implementations you can find to generate sequential GUIDs. (It's a matter of re-arranging the parts that make up the GUID) Regular index maintenance is a requirement for using UUID columns in indexed fields.
Are you using Dependency Injection in your web service?
What is the lifetime scope of the DbContexts performing the updates?
This is a potential time bomb for web servers if the lifetime scope for a DbContext is set up incorrectly. You want a DbContext to be alive for no longer than it is needed. At a maximum the lifetime scope should be set to PerRequest. A DbContext set up for Singleton for instance would be tracking entities across requests. The more entities a DbContext is tracking, the slower read and update operations become. This would be a possible culprit if the web server memory usage is climbing.
Are you running an SQL Profiler?
In a test environment with nothing else touching the database, running scenarios through the application with an SQL Profiler can reveal potential issues such as unexpected queries being kicked off due to things like lazy loading. For one operation you might expect one or a small number of queries to be run, only to find dozens or even hundreds. Multiply this across concurrent requests and you have a recipe for the database server to say "Just sit down and wait, dammit!" :) Any queries you don't expect based on the code that is running should be investigated for either eager loading relationships or implementing projection. (Recommended for best performance)
Do the web servers get restarted periodically?
For some tricky to debug issues and memory leaks, sometimes the easiest "fix" is to schedule regular restarts of the web server. It's a hack, but compared to the considerable cost of trying to track down memory leaks or fix up inefficient code that slows down over time, it is a cheap and effective fix. (At least while you do research options to address the issues and optimize the code)
That should give you a start into things to check with the service & database.
I have got a bug case from the service desk, which was a result of different system times on the application server (JBoss) and DB(Oracle) server. As a result, timeouts lied.
It doesn't happen often, but for the future, it will be better if the app server could raise alarm about the bad time on the DB server before it results in some deeper problems.
Of course, I can simply read
Select CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
, and compare it against the local time. But it is probable that the time of sending the query and getting its result will get some noticeable time and I will recognize good time as bad one or vice versa.
I can also check the time from sending the query to the return of the result. But this way will work correctly in the case of the good net without lags. And if the time on the DB server fails, it is highly probable that the net around the DB server is not OK. The queues on the DB server can make the times of sending and receiving noticeably unequal.
What is the best way you know to check the time on the DB server?
Limitations: preciseness of 5 sec
false alarms <10%
To be optimized(minimized): lost alarms.
Maybe I am inventing the bicycle and JBoss and/or Oracle have some tool for that? (I could not find it)
Have a program running on the app server get the current time there, then query the database time (CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) and the app server gets the current time there after the query returns.
Confirm that the DB time is between the two times on the App Server (with any tolerance you need). You can include a separate check on how long it took to get the response from the DB but it should be trivial.
If the environment is some form of VM, issues are most likely to arise when the VM is started or resumed from a pause. There might be situations where a clock is running fast or slow so recording the times would allow you to look for trends in either direction and allow you to take preemptive action.
I have inherited a legacy Delphi application that uses ADO to connect to SQL Server.
The application has a notion of a "Global Connection" -- that is a single connection that it opens at the start, and then keeps open all throughout the running of the application (which can be days, weeks, or longer....)
So my question is this: Should I keep this way of doing things or should I switch to a "connect-query-disconnect" mode of doing things? Does it matter?
Switching would be a non-trivial task, but I'll do it if it means better performance, data management, etc.
Well, it depends on what you're expecting to get out of it, and what kind of application it is.
There's nothing in particular wrong with using a single long-running connection, as long as the application can gracefully handle disconnections and recover or log/notify when it can't reconnect.
The problem with a connect-query-disconnect setup is that you're adding the overhead of connecting and disconnecting on every query. That's going to slow things down, and in an interactive GUI application users may notice the additional overhead. You also have to make sure that authorization is transparently handled if it isn't already.
At the same time, there may be interactive performance gains to be had if you can push all the queries off onto background threads and asynchronously update the GUI. If contention appears because the queries are serialized, you can migrate to a connection-pool system fairly readily as well and improve things even more. This has a fairly high complexity cost to it though, so now you're looking to balancing what the gains are compared to the work involved.
Right now, my ultimate response is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Changes along the lines you propose are a lot of work -- how much do the users of this application stand to gain? Are there other problems to solve that might benefit them more?
Edit: Okay, so it's broke. Well, slow at least, which is all the same to me. If you've ruled out problems with the SQL Server itself, and the queries are performing as fast as they can (i.e. DB schema is sane, the right indexes are available, queries aren't completely braindead, server has enough RAM and fast enough I/O, network isn't flaky, etc.), then yes, it's time to find ways to improve the performance of the app itself.
Simply moving to a connect-query-disconnect is going to make things worse, and the more queries you're issuing the bigger the drop off is going to be. It sounds like you're going to need to rearchitect the app so that you can run fewer queries, run them in the background, cache more aggressively on the client, or some combination of all 3.
Don't forget the making the clients perform better means that server side performance gets more important since it's probably going to be handling a higher load if clients start making multiple connections and issuing multiple queries in parallel.
As mr Frazier told before - the one global connection is not bad per se.
If you intend to change, first detect WHAT is the problem. Let's see some scenarios:
1
Some screens(IOW: an set of 1..n forms to operate in a business entity) are slow. Possible causes:
insuficient filtering resulting in a pletora of records being pulled from database without necessity.
the number of records are ok, but takes too much to render it. Solution: faster controls or intelligent rendering (ex.: Virtual list views)
too much queries each time you open an screen. Possible solutions: use TClientDatasets (or any in-memory dataset) to hold infrequently modified lookup tables. An more sophisticated cache for more extensive tables or opening those datasets in other threads can improve response times.
Scrolling on datasets with controls bound can be slow (just to remember, because those little details can be easily forgotten).
2
Whole app simply slows down. Checklist:
Network cards are ok? An few net cards mal-functioning can wreak havoc even on good structured networks as they create unnecessary noise on the line.
[MSSQL DBA HAT ON] The next on the line of attack is SQL Server. Ask the DBA to trace blocks and deadlocks. Register slow queries and work on them speed up. This relate directly to #1.1 and #1.3
Detect if some naive developer have done SELECT inside transactions. In read committed isolation, it's just overhead, as it'll create more network traffic. Open the query, retrieve the data and close the dataset.
Review the database schema, if you can.
Are any data-bound operations on a bulk of records (let's say, remarking the price of some/majority/all products) being done on the app? Make an SP or refactor the operation on an query, it'll be much faster and will reduce the load of the entire server.
Extensive operations on a group of records? Learn how to do that operations at once on the server instead of one-by-one record. See an examination of most used alternatives on the MSSQL MVP Erland Sommarskog's article on array and list on MSSQL.
Beware of queries with WHERE like : WHERE SomeFunction(table1.blabla) = #SomeParam . Most of time, that ones will not use an index causing to read the entire table to select the desired data. If is a big table.... Indexing on a persisted computed columns can make miracles...[MSSQL HAT OFF]
That's what I can think of without a little more detail... ;-)
Database connections are time consuming resources to create and the rule of thumb should be create as little as possible and reuse as much as possible. That's why some other technologies have database connection pools, which are typically established at application/service startup and then kept as long as possible and shared among threads.
From your comment, the application has performances issues, but it's difficult without more details to make any recommendation.
Should try to nail down what is slow - are all queries slow or just some specific ones?
If just some specific ones is there some correlation.
My 2 cents.
I am developing a web-app right now, where clients will frequently (every few seconds), send read/write requests on certain data. As of right now, I have my server immediately write to the database when a user changes something, and immediately read from the database when they want to view something. This is working fine for me, but I am guessing that it would be quite slow if there were thousands of users online.
Would it be more efficient to save write requests in an object on the server side, then do a bulk update at a certain time interval? This would help in situations where the same data is edited multiple times, since it would now only require one db insert. It would also mean that I would read from the object for any data that hasn't yet been synced, which could mean increased efficiency by avoiding db reads. At the same time though, I feel like this would be a liability for two reasons: 1. A server crash would erase all data that hasn't yet been synced. 2. A bulk insert has the possibility of creating sudden spikes of lag due to mass database calls.
How should I approach this? Is my current approach ok, or should I queue inserts for a later time?
If a user makes a change to data and takes an action that (s)he expects will save the data, you should do everything you can to ensure the data is actually saved. Example: Let's say you delay the write for a while. The user is in a hurry, makes a change then closes the browser. If you don't save right when they take an action that they expect saves the data, there would be a data loss.
Web stacks generally scale horizontally. Don't start to optimize this kind of thing unless there's evidence that you really have to.
Sorry for the long introduction but before I can ask my question, I think giving the background would help understanding our problem much better.
We are using sql server 2008 for our web services as the backend and from time to time it takes too much time for responding back for the requests that supposed to run really fast, like taking more than 20 seconds for a select request that queries a table that has only 22 rows. We went through many potential areas that could cause the issue from indexes to stored procedures, triggers etc, and tried to optimize whatever we can like removing indexes that are not read but write frequently or adding NOLOCK for our select queries to reduce the locking of the tables (we are OK with dirty reads).
We also had our DBA's reviewed the server and benchmarked the components to see any bottlenecks in CPU, memory or disk subsystem, and found out that hardware-wise we are OK as well. And since the pikes are occurring occasionally, it is really hard to reproduce the error on production or development because most of the time when we rerun the same query it yields response times that we are expecting, which are short, not the one that has been experienced earlier.
Having said that, I almost have been suspicious about I/O although it is not seem to be a bottleneck. But I think I was just be able to reproduce the error after running an index fragmentation report for a specific table on the server, which immediately caused pikes in requests not only run against that table but also in other requests that query other tables. And since the DB, and the server, is shared with other applications we use and also from time to time queries can be run on the server and database that take long time is a common scenario for us, my suspicion regarding occasional I/O bottleneck is, I believe, becoming a fact.
Therefore I want to find out a way that would prioritize requests that are coming from web services which will be processed even if there are other resource sensitive queries being run. I have been looking for some kind of prioritization I described above since very beginning of the resolution process and found out that SQL Server 2008 has a feature called 'Resource Governor' that allows prioritization of the requests.
However, since I am not an expert on Resource Governor nor a DBA, I would like to ask other people's experience who may have used or is using Resource Governor, as well as whether I can prioritize I/O for a specific login or a specific stored procedure (For example, if one I/O intensive process is being run at the time we receive a web service request, can SQL server stops, or slows down, I/O activity for that process and give a priority to the request we just received?).
Thank you for anyone that spends time on reading or helping out in advance.
Some Hardware Details:
CPU: 2x Quad Core AMD Opteron 8354
Memory: 64GB
Disk Subsystem: Compaq EVA8100 series (I am not sure but it should be RAID 0+1 accross 8 HP HSV210 SCSI drives)
PS:And I can almost 100 percent sure that application servers are not causing the error and there is no bottleneck we can identify there.
Update 1:
I'll try to answer as much as I can for the following questions that gbn asked below. Please let me know if you are looking something else.
1) What kind of index and statistics maintenance do you have please?
We have a weekly running job that defrags indexes every Friday. In addition to that, Auto Create Statistics and Auto Update Statistics are enabled. And the spikes are occurring in other times than the fragmentation job as well.
2) What kind of write data volumes do you have?
Hard to answer.In addition to our web services, there is a front end application that accesses the same database and periodically resource intensive queries needs to be run to my knowledge, however, I don't know how to get, let's say weekly or daily, write amount to DB.
3) Have you profiled Recompilation and statistics update events?
Sorry for not be able to figure out this one. I didn't understand what you are asking about by this question. Can you provide more information for this question, if possible?
first thought is that statistics are being updated because of the data change threshold is reached causing execution plans to be rebuilt.
What kind of index and statistics maintenance do you have please? Note: index maintenance updates index stats, not column stats: you may need separate stats updates.
What kind of write data volumes do you have?
Have you profiled Recompilation and statistics update events?
In response to question 3) of your Update to the original question, take a look at the following reference on SQL Server Pedia. It provides an explanation of what query recompiles are and also goes on to explain how you can monitor for these events. What I believe gbn is asking (feel free to correct me sir :-) ) is are you seeing recompile events prior to the slow execution of the troublesome query. You can look for this occurring by using the SQL Server Profiler.
Reasons for Recompiling a Query Execution Plan