I have made a test project that makes HTTP POST requests in silverlight (using the HttpWebRequest and WebClient classes). I consistently get a performance of approximately 20 calls/s, which I think is very slow. The only data I send and receive are small strings (some 20 characters). What surprised me was that WCF (SOAP over HTTP) showed a similar performance. However, when I did the same test, but made sure all program logic ran in the main thread, performance went up considerably, up to some 150 calls/s.
Can anyone explain what could cause this effect? I mean, multithreading cannot cause such a slowness by itself.
Note: all my tests are using a localhost connection.
Update: after extensive research, I conclude that the performance problem is inherent to Silverlight v3.
When you do your WCF calls without starting up a separate thread, they are executed on the UI thread, and they are not executed immediately, they are instead executed when the UI thread has enough time to do it.
Check this blog post, it may be just what you are after. Contrary to what you found, he finds that WCF calls on a background thread are faster - obviously because the thread is not required to do any other work.
Related
I am using send_message(client_id, message) in google.appengine.api.channel to fan out messages. The most common use case is two users. A typical trace looks like the following:
The two calls to send_message are independent. Can I perform them in parallel to save latency?
Well there's no async api available, so you might need to implement a custom solution.
Have you already tried with native threading? It could work in theory, but because of the GIL, the xmpp api must block by I/O, which I'm not sure it does.
A custom implementation will invariably come with some overhead, so it might not be the best idea for your simple case, unless it breaks the experience for the >2 user cases.
There is, however, another problem that might make it worth your while: what happens if the instance crashes and only got to send the first message? The api isn't transactional, so you should have some kind of safeguard. Maybe a simple recovery mode will suffice, given how infrequently this will happen, but I'm willing to bet a transactional message channel sounds more appealing, right?
Two ways you could go about it, off the top of my head:
Push a task for every message, they're transactional and guaranteed to run, and will execute in parallel with a fairly identical run time. It'll increase the time it takes for the first message to go out but will keep it consistent between all of them.
Use a service built for this exact use case, like firebase (though it might even be too powerful lol), in my experience the channel api is not very consistent and the performance is underwhelming for gaming, so this might make your system even better.
Fixed that for you
I just posted a patch on googleappengine issue 9157, adding:
channel.send_message_async for asynchronously sending a message to a recipient.
channel.send_message_multi_async for asynchronously broadcasting a single message to multiple recipients.
Some helper methods to make those possible.
Until the patch is pushed into the SDK, you'll need to include the channel_async.py file (that's attached on that thread).
Usage
import channel_async as channel
# this is synchronous D:
channel.send_message(<client-id>, <message>)
# this is asynchronous :D
channel.send_message_async(<client-id>, <message>)
# this is good for broadcasting a single message to multiple recipients
channel.send_message_multi_async([<client-id>, <client-id>], <message>)
# or
channel.send_message_multi_async(<list-of-client-ids>, <message>)
Benefits
Speed comparison on production:
Synchronous model: 2 - 80 ms per recipient (and blocking -.-)
Asynchronous model: 0.15 - 0.25 ms per recipient
Scenario : I am working on LOB application, as in silverlight every call to service is Async so automatically UI is not blocked when the request is processed at server side.
Silverlight also supports threading as per my understanding if you are developing LOB application threads are most useful when you need to do some IO operation but as i am not using OOB application it is not possible to access client resource and for all server request it is by default Async.
In above scenario is there any usage of Threading or can anyone provide some good example where by using threading we can improve performance.
I have tried to search a lot on this topic but everywhere i have identified some simple threading example from which it is very difficult to understand the real benefit.
Thanks for help
Tomasz Janczuk has also pointed out that if the UI thread is fairly busy, you can significantly improve the performance even of async WCF calls by marshaling them onto a separate thread. And I should note that the UI thread can get awfully busy doing things that you wouldn't anticipate would chew up cycles, like calculating drop-shadows and what-not, so this might be worth investigating (and measuring) for your application.
That said, I've been writing LOB apps for the better part of two decades, and synchronous IO aside, I haven't found a lot of scenarios where adding multiple threads in an LOB application was worth the additional complexity.
Edit 4/2/10: I had lunch with Tomasz Janczuk and some other folks from the WCF team the other day, and they clarified a few issues for me about how WCF works with Silverlight background threads. There are two things to be concerned with: sending data, and receiving it (say, from duplex callbacks or async call completions). When you send data, the call will always be made from the thread that actually makes the call. So if you have a lot of data that needs to be serialized, you might get a small performance boost by marshaling the outgoing call onto a background thread (say, by using ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem). But it's not likely to be a substantial performance boost.
However, when you receive data, either through a duplex callback, or through an async xxxCompleted method, the data is always received on the thread on which the connection was originally opened. This means that if you're opening the connection explicitly, it will receive data on that thread; but if you're opening the connection implicitly, it will receive data on the thread on which you made your first outbound connection. This won't make a lot of difference if you need to update the UI on every callback, since you'd just have to marshal the call back onto the UI thread. But if there are times when you just need to store the data for future reference or processing, you can get yourself a significant performance boost by opening your connection on a separate thread, so that you can receive and process callbacks without waiting on the UI thread.
Hope this helps. Thought I'd write it down while I still have it reasonably fresh in my head.
The same advantages apply to Silverlight as to other applications. If your are doing a long running calculation on the client and don't want to tie up the main/ui thread, then threading is an obvious choice.
Also, I haven't researched it, but I would imagine if you are running a multi-core machine, you could improve performance by splitting work into multiple separate threads.
I have a C# winform application. it has many forms with different functionalities. These forms wrap to a WCF service. for example
form1 calls serviceMethod1 continuously and updates the results
form2 calls serviceMethod2 continuously and updates the results
The calls are made in a different thread per each form, but this is ending up with too many threads as we have many forms. Is this bad and why? and is there a way to avoid this given my scenario?
Regards
How many threads are you talking about? If you have a lot of threads, you'll lose a bit of performance due to context switching - but in practice I wouldn't expect this to become a significant problem until you have an awful lot of them.
One alternative would be to use a Timer though (it sounds like a System.Timers.Timer or System.Threading.Timer would be most appropriate) - schedule each service call to be made on a regular basis, and the timer will use the threadpool to fire the calls. I suspect that although you say you're calling the services "continuously" you actually mean you're doing it regularly - which is exactly the kind of situation a timer is good for.
To answer the question frankly: It depends entirely on the OS and app design, but this question may indicate a shortcoming in the program's design.
Detail:
You want to learn the allocation requirements of a thread on your target architecture/OS, as well as keep your threads relatively busy/avoid polling, and to configure priorities correctly if you really do have a lot of threads. 'Many' threads may be 8 (or fewer, if busy), or 100+ if they have relatively little work to do, it ultimately depends on your needs and design.
As tests for some tests/objects/operations, I have used more than 100, and occasionally more than 1000 working threads. No explosions happened, though I have never had a true need for those operations to be that parallel in a shipping app (unless the aforementioned programs are being used in very unusual circumstances), and it made more sense to put the actual implementation into some centralized task manager. If you have time-critical/real time applications, then these tasks may be best on another thread. If they are short lived, consider a thread pool.. well, there are many ways to attack many problem classes...
You can use WCF asynchronious proxy
In Visual Studio, when you add Web Reference you can check "Generate Asynchronous operations" to generate an asynchronious proxy.
While the threads spend most of their time waiting for server response - even hundreds of threads are unlikely to degrade performance (CPU-wise). Otherwise, use thread pool and queue "request and update form once" tasks when previous update completes.
More important problem might be loading service with too many simultaneous requests.
As a general rule, you won't gain anything by having more threads than you have CPU cores. There are exceptions to the general rule, but I doubt they apply to your case.
From the OS' point of view, threads are no longer the lightweight things they used to be, but are almost as costly as full processes. Implementing thread synchronization correctly is not a simple task, debugging multi-threaded applications is a lot harder than a single threaded one.
With green threads, it is not an issue. Green threads being sort of a virtual thread, which is what you will generally get with Java and C#.
The benefit of threads in many apps is not to crunch more numbers but to allow lots of things to go on at once with good responsiveness, so having a lot of threads can be very useful for some things and will not always have any real cost.
Note: This is not for unit testing or integration testing. This is for when the application is running.
I am working on a system which communicates to multiple back end systems, which can be grouped into three types
Relational database
SOAP or WCF service
File system (network share)
Due to the environment this will run in, there are no guarantees that any of those will be available at run time. In fact some of them seem pretty brittle and go down multiple times a day :(
The thinking is to have a small bit of test code which runs before the actual code. If there is a problem then persist the request and poll until the target system until it is available. Tests could possibly be rerun within the code to check it is still available at logical points. The ultimate goal is to have a very stable system, regardless of the stability (or lack thereof) of the systems it communicates to.
My questions around this design are:
Are there major issues with it? (small things like the fact it may fail between the test completing and the code running are understandable)
Are there better ways to implement this sort of design?
Would using traditional exception handling and/or transactions be better?
Updates
The system needs to talk to the back end systems in a coordinated way.
The system is very async in nature so using things like queuing technologies is fine.
The system must run even if one or more backend systems are down as others may be up and processing of some information is possible.
You will be needing that traditional exception handling no matter what, since as you point out there's always the chance that things'll fail between your last check and the actual request. So I really think any solution you find should try to interact smoothly with this.
You are not stating if these flaky resources need to interact in some kind of coordinated manner, which would indicate that you should probably be using a transaction manager of some sort to do this. I do not believe you want to get into the footwork of transaction management in application code for most needs.
Sometimes I have also seen people use AOP to encapsulate retry logic to back-end systems that fail (for instance due to time-out issues). Used sparingly this may be a decent solution.
In some cases you can also use message queuing technology to alleviate unstable back-ends. You could for instance commit to a message queue as part of a transaction, and only pop off the queue when successful. But this design is normally only possible when you're able to live with an asynchronous process.
And as always, real stability can only be achieved by attacking the root cause of the problem. I had a 25-year old bug fixed in a mainframe TCP/IP stack fixed because we were overrunning it, so it is possible.
The Microsoft Smartclient framework provides a ConnectionMonitor class. Should be easy to use or duplicate.
Our approach to this kind of issue was to run a really basic 'sanity tester' prior to bringing up our main application. This was thick client so we could run the test every time the app started. This sanity test would go out and check things like database availability, and external network (extranet) access, and it could have been extended to do webservices as well.
If there was a failure, the user was informed, and crucially an email was also sent to the support/dev team. These emails soon became unweildy as so many were being created, but we then setup filters, so we knew when somethings really bad was happening. Overall the approach worked pretty well, our biggest win was being able to tell users that the system was down, before they had entered data, and got part way through a long winded process. They absolutely loved it.
At a technica level the sanity was written in C#, it used exception handling in a conventional way not to find the problems it was looking for. The sanity program became a mini app in its own right, and it was standalone from the main app. If I were doing it again I'd using a logging framework to capture issues, which is more flexible then our hard coded approach.
I have a certain service where specific functions will take longer to call than others, sometimes they might take seconds to return. In order to prevent the client's UI being blocked when this happens what is the preferred solution:
Use a Duplex channel and simply use the callbacks to update the UI when data is received.
Use a separate thread to call the service, and simply use request-reply operations, and then update the ui thread when data is returned.
Which solution is better, particularly when interoperability is favored but not strictly necessary, and in your opinion, which one is faster (and cleaner) to implement and maintain?
If you implement callback contracts then you are removing the need for the client to implement multithreading code. This might not be a significant advantage when working with .Net clients (as VS will auto generate the asynch proxy code for you), though could prove beneficial when working with clients of other platforms/languages.
Which one is cleaner? Well, that depends whether you are a client or server developer. If, as I suspect in your case, you are both, and you can just use .Net for client and server, then I'd probably be tempted to avoid callbacks for now. If you'd have implied that the service calls where taking 45 seconds then I'd say call back contracts, it really is subjective, but if I were to stick my neck out then I'd say that if responses take longer than 5 seconds then it is time to move to callbacks.
You should implement a CallBackcontract.
Here is an example.