Is it possible to check the number of existing available connections a wcf service has? programmatically?
I want to see if connections to the web service were closed properly in the ASP.NET code.
thanks
You could check out something like Windows Server AppFabric for that purpose.
In WCF, most of the time, the "connections" are only open very briefly anyway - for as long as a service call lasts. So you can't really go check if there are any connections around - they'll be gone when the call terminates.
You can also check into the WCF performance counters that are available on the server side to keep an eye on the number of concurrent sessions. You can definitely query performance counters from .NET code. The Service Performance Counters offer e.g. a number of instances (of your service class) that are in memory at any given time - that's the number of requests being handled at any given time (which is probably what you could call a "connection" to a WCF service).
Related
Looking at the node-postgres documentation on connecting to a database server it looks like the Client and Pool constructor are functionally equivalent.
My understanding is that using the Pool constructor provides you with the same functionality as using the Client constructor except that connections are made from a connection pool.
Isn't this always desirable? What are the conditions that I would choose to use the Client constructor over the Pool constructor?
One fairly good explanation can be found here: https://gist.github.com/brianc/f906bacc17409203aee0. As part of this post:
I would definitely use a single pool of clients throughout the application. node-postgres ships with a pool implementation that has always met my needs, but it's also fine to just use the require('pg').Client prototype and implement your own pool if you know what you're doing & have some custom requirements on the pool.
The drawback to using a pool for each piece of middleware or using multiple pools in your application is you need to control how many open clients you have connected to the backend, it's more code to maintain, and likely wont improve performance over using a single pool. If you find requests often waiting on available clients from the pool you can increase the size of the built in pool with pg.defaults.poolSize = 100 or something. I've set the default at 20 which is a sane default I think. If you have long running queries during web requests you probably have bigger problems than increasing your pool size is going to solve.
I'm in process of upgrading our client-server ERP app to multi-tier. We want to offer our customers the possibility having their databases in cloud(hosted in our server).So, clients are written in Delphi, server is a http IOCP server written also in Delphi (from mORMot framework), for dbs we use Firebird embedded.
Our customers(let's say 200), can have 25-30 Firebird databases (total 5000-6000 databases), accessed by 4-5 user per each customer. This is not happening all at once. One user can work in one db, other 2 users can work in another db, but all the dbs should be available and online. So, I can have 800-1000 users working at 700-900 dbs. Databases are not big, typically 20-30 MB each but can go to 200 MB.
This is not data sharding so please don't suggest to merge all databases together, I really need them individually with possibility to backup/restore/replace each one of them.
So, I need multiple pools of connections - for every database I need a pool of let's say 2 connections. I read about Firedac connection pooling. It seems that TFDManager should be perfect for me. I define multiple "ConnectionDef"s with "Pooled=true" and it can maintain multiple pools of connections (each connection lasting until some minutes of inactivity).
Questions:
I have to create all "ConnectionDef"s before server starts serving requests?
Can TFDManager "handle" requests (and time-out connections on inactivity), while in other thread I need to create a new database , so automatically I need to create a new pool of connections and start serving requests from newly created database. Practically can I call FDManager.AddConnectionDef(..) while other pools are in use?
AFAIK Firebird embedded does not have any "connection". As its name states, it is embedded within the same process, so there is no connection pool needed. Connection pools are needed when several clients connect/disconnect to the same DB over the network, whereas here all is embedded, and you would have direct access to the Firebird engine.
As such, you may:
Define one "connnection" per Firebird embedded database;
Protect your SOA code via a mutex (aka critical section) per DB. In fact, mORMot's HTTP IOCP server would run the incoming requests from a thread pool, so ensure that all DB access is safely made.
Ensure you use at least Firebird 2.5 since the embedded version is told to be threadsafe only since revision 2.5 (see the release notes).
Instead of FireDAC, consider using ZDBC/Zeos (in latest 7.2/7.3 branch), which has nice features, together with the native mORMot SynDB libraries.
Looking at Firedac sources, seems that all about adding connection definitions and acquiring connections in pooled mode is thread-safe.
Adding a connection definition or matching one is guarded by a TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer and acquiring a connection from the pool is guarded by a TCriticalSection.
So, answers:
I don't have to create all "ConnectionDef"s before server starts serving requests.
Yes, I can call safely FDManager.AddConnectionDef(..) while other pools are in use.
Using Firedac, acquiring a connection for any of those databases will be guarded by one TCriticalSection. The solution proposed by #Arnaud Bouchez presents a more grained access by creating one TCriticalSection per database and I think will scale better, but you should be aware of a bug when using multiple TCriticalSection, especially that all will be initiated at once:
https://www.delphitools.info/2011/11/30/fixing-tcriticalsection/
In that article present a very simple fix for this bug.
Please read before tagging as duplicate.
I'm creating a set of applications which rely on smart cards for authentication. Up to now, each application has controlled the smart card reader individually. In a few weeks, some of my customers will be using more than one application at the same time. So, I thought maybe it would be more practical to create a service application which controls the authentication process. I'd like my desktop applications to tell the service application they are interested in the authentication process, and the service application would then provide them with information about current user. This part is easy, using named pipes. The hard part is, how can the service tell the desktop applications that an event has occurred (UserLogIn, UserLogOut, PermissionsChanged, ... to name a few). So far I have two methods in mind. CallBack functions, and Messages. Does anyone have a better idea? I'm sure someone has.
You want do to IPC (Inter Process Communication) with Delphi.
There are many links that can help you, Cromis IPC is just one to give you an idea what you are after.
A similar SO question to yours is here.
If you want to go pure Windows API, then take a look at how OutputDebugString communications is implemented.
Several tools can listen to the mechanism and many apps can send information to it.
Search for DBWIN_DATA_READY and DbWin32 for more information on how the protocol for OutputDebugString works.
This and this are good reading.
When it gets into IPC, some tips:
Do not be tied on one protocol: for instance, if you implements named pipe communication, you would later perhaps need to run it over a network, or even over HTTP;
Do not reinvent the wheel, nor use proprietary messages, but standard formats (like XML / JSON / BSON);
Callbacks events are somewhat difficult to implement, since the common pattern could be to implement a server for each Desktop client, to receive notifications from the server.
My recommendation is not to use callbacks, but polling on a stateless architecture, on the Desktop applications. You open a communication channel with the server, then every second / half second (use a TTimer in your UI), you make a small request asking for what did change (you can put a revision number or a time stamp of your last retrieval). Therefore, you synchronize your desktop data with pending events. Asking for updates on an existing connection is very fast, and will just send one IP packet over the network back and forth, if nothing changed. It is a very small task, and won't slow down nor the client nor the server (if you use some in-memory cache).
On practice, with real application, such a stateless architecture is very responsive, from the end-user point of view, and is much more easy to deploy. You do not need to create a server on each desktop application, so you don't have to open firewall ports or such. Since HTTP is stateless, it is even Internet friendly.
If you want to develop services, you can use DataSnap, something like RemObjects or you can try our Open Source mORmot framework which is able to create interface-based services with light JSON messages over REST, either in-process, using GDI messages, named pipes or TCP/HTTP - for free, with unbeatable performance, build-in security, and from Delphi 6 up to XE2. For your event-based task, just using the Client-Server ORM available in mORMot could be enough: create a table/class storing the events (you can even define a round-robin in-memory storage - no need to use SQLite3 engine nor a DB here), then ask for all pending events since the last refresh. And the server can safely be a background service, or a normal application - some mORMot users even have the same executable able to be either a stand-alone application, a server service, an application server, or a UI client, just by changing the configuration.
Edit / announcement:
On the mORMot roadmap, we added a new upcoming feature, to easily implement one-way callbacks from the server.
That is, add transparent "push" mode to our Service Oriented Architecture framework.
Aim is to implement notification events triggered from the server side, very easily from Delphi code, via some interface definitions, even over a single HTTP connection - for instance, WCF does not allow this: it will need a dual binding, so will need to open a firewall port and such.
It will used for easy Event Collaboration, via a publish / subscribe pattern, and allow Event Sourcing. I will try to make it implement the two modes: polling and lock-and-wait. A direct answer to your question.
You can use a simple TCP socket connection (bidirectional) to allow asynchronous server to client messages on the same socket.
An example is the Indy TIdTelnetClient class, it uses a thread for incoming messages from the server.
You can build a similar text-based protocol and only need a Indy TCP server instance in the service, and one Indy Client instance in the application(s).
I'm a little confused at the memory use of my WCF service. Brief overview, my wcf service is an odata providor that allows my ipad application to talk to our sql server database.
The problem is that when a client (ipad device using objective c odata library) calls for a simple set of data (say get all customers from the database) the memory of the w3wp process goes up by a few mb's, and never really comes back down. Being the fact that all the client wants to do is one off calls (retrieve a data set, update a data set, delete a data set) than once it has finished its call the memory it used to do the action should be relinquished. This is not the case at all? I gather there is some caching happening or maybe the calling instance is not being disposed.
Can anybody steer me in the right direction so the w3wp is lean and blows the memory away after the call has completed.
Thanks in advance
does you database reside on the same machine as your web server? if your indexes are not properly applied you will end up consuming much resources. if you are using MS SQL Server check the minimum memory setting for the server. once reached the minimum memory limit MS SQL Server will probably not free it up until restarted. you should also take a look at you binding configuration. if you use a state full (session) binding and not closing the session the service instance is gonna stay in memory for 10 mins (default) waiting for new client requests from the same proxy object.
I need to add a "real-time" element to my web application. Basically, I need to detect "changes" which are stored in a SQL Server table, and update various parts of the UI when a change has occured.
I'm currently doing this by polling. I send an ajax request to the server every 3 seconds asking for any new changes - these are then returned and processed. It works, but I don't like it - it means that for each browser I'll be issuing these requests frequently, and the server will always be busy processing them. In short, it doesn't scale well.
Is there any clever alternative that avoids polling overhead?
Edit
In the interests of completeness, I'm updating this to mention the solution we eventually went with - SignalR. It's OS and comes from Microsoft. It's risen in popularity, and I can heartily recommend this, or indeed WebSync which we also looked at.
Check out WebSync, a comet server designed for ASP.NET/IIS.
In particular, what I would do is use the SQL Dependency class, and when you detect a change, use RequestHandler.Publish("/channel", data); to send out the info to the appropriate listening clients.
Should work pretty nicely.
taken directly from the link refernced by Jakub (i.e.):
Reverse AJAX with IIS/ASP.NET
PokeIn on codeplex gives you an enhanced JSON functionality to make your server side objects available in client side. Simply, it is a Reverse Ajax library which makes it easy to call JavaScript functions from C#/VB.NET and to call C#/VB.NET functions from JavaScript. It has numerous features like event ordering, resource management, exception handling, marshaling, Ajax upload control, mono compatibility, WCF & .NET Remoting integration and scalable server push.
There is a free community license option for this library and the licensing option is quite cost effective in comparison to others.
I've actually used this and the community edition is pretty special. well worth a look as this type of tech will begin to dominate the landscape in the coming months/years. the codeplex site comes complete with asp.net mvc samples.
No matter what: you will always be limited to the fact that HTTP is (mostly) a one-way street. Unless you implement some sensible code on the client (ie. to listen to incoming network requests) anything else will involve polling the server for updates, no-matter what others will tell you.
We had a similar requirement: to have very fast response time in one of our real-time web applications, serving about 400 - 500 clients per web server. Server would need to notify the clients almost within 0.1 of a second (telephony & VoIP).
In the end we implemented an Async Handler. On each polling request we put the request to sleep for 5 seconds, waiting for a semaphore pulse signal to respond to the client. If the 5 seconds are up, we respond with a "no event" and the client will post the request again (immediately). This resulted in very fast response times, and we never had any problems with up to 500 clients per machine.. no idea how many more we could add before the polling requests might create a problem.
take a look at this article
I've read somewhere (didn't remember where) that using this WCF feature make the host process handle requests in a way that didn't consume blocked threads.
Depending on the restrictions on you application you can use Silverlight to do this connection. You don't need to have any UI for Silverlight, but you can use Sockets have a connection that accepts server side pushes of data.