Thus far worked with asp.net mvc1 and just started with asp.net mvc2..... what are good candidates for executing a controller asynchronously? Should i use it for long running process or some background processing? What are the pros and cons choosing asynchronous controller in asp.net mvc 2? Any suggestion...
Only use async if the operation is IO bound. A good example would be aggregating RSS feeds from multiple servers and then displaying them in a webpage.
See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ee336138.aspx
http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2008/04/05/improve-scalability-in-aspnet-mvc-using-asynchronous-requests/
for a good overview of asynchronous controllers.
And for more in-depth but non-MVC specific info:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/2010/04/14/performing-asynchronous-work-or-tasks-in-asp-net-applications.aspx
If your controller's method is calling some other system for example query DB or external resources with HTTP and operation lasts long then you should implement those methods as async to let the thread used to doing that be released from waiting on the results and used to service other requests. Our application is getting threads from ThreadPool and number of them is limited. Considering that limitation and the situations of having lot of application users and also long-time queries for data is it very easy to see how important it is.
Related
I was looking at ASP.NET MVC 5 templates and I have notice that many of the actions and marked as async:
public async Task<ActionResult> Login(LoginViewModel model, string returnUrl) { }
When should I do this on an MVC action? When it contains access to a database?
If I call a repository inside the action should I also use Task to make it async?
The core of your questions is: When should I make my MVC actions async? See http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rickandy/archive/2009/11/14/should-my-database-calls-be-asynchronous.aspx for a good discussion of the issue. He talks about the database only, but his points carry over.
Essentially, almost never call the database in an async way.
For database applications using async operations to reduce the number of blocked threads on the web server is almost always a complete waste of time.
Don't be detracted by people telling you to always use async IO if possible. Async is all the rage right now. Lot's of irrational advice is being spread.
Entity Framework 6 (used by default with MVC 5) now supports async database calls, so the action method signatures have been update to reflect async being used. The simple answer is that whenever you have a task that could potentially involve waiting, use async. Hopefully, your database queries won't take long enough to roundtrip to actually benefit much from async, but if your database falls down or is being hammered particularly hard, it'll at least help to not deadlock IIS in the process.
Here's an article what lists some uses cases when using tasks may have benefit and some uses
cases when may have the opposite effect.
The answer is not this simple every time, this is why the last point about testing.
Quote from http://www.asp.net/mvc/overview/performance/using-asynchronous-methods-in-aspnet-mvc-4
In general, use synchronous methods for the following conditions:
The operations are simple or short-running.
Simplicity is more important than efficiency.
The operations are primarily CPU operations instead of operations that involve extensive disk or network overhead. Using asynchronous
action methods on CPU-bound operations provides no benefits and
results in more overhead.
In general, use asynchronous methods for the following conditions:
You're calling services that can be consumed through asynchronous methods, and you're using .NET 4.5 or higher.
The operations are network-bound or I/O-bound instead of CPU-bound.
Parallelism is more important than simplicity of code.
You want to provide a mechanism that lets users cancel a long-running request.
When the benefit of switching threads out weights the cost of the context switch. In general, you should make a method asynchronous if
the synchronous method waits on the ASP.NET request thread while doing
no work. By making the call asynchronous, the ASP.NET request thread
is not stalled doing no work while it waits for the web service
request to complete.
Testing shows that the blocking operations are a bottleneck in site performance and that IIS can service more requests by using
asynchronous methods for these blocking calls.
I was thinking about setting up a project with Web API. Basically build the API first and program the web site using this API.
Although it's sound promising I was wondering:
If I separate the logic in a nice way, I might end up retrieving data on a web-page through multiple API call's, which in turn are multiple connections with the server with all the overhead etc..
For example, if I use, let's say 8 different API call's on one page, I can't imagine it won't have an impact on the web-page's performance.
So, have I misunderstood something? Or is this kind of overhead negligible - or does the need for multiple call's indicates that the design is wrong?
Thanks in advance.
Well, we did it. Web API server providing the REST access to all the data. Independent UI Clients consuming it as the only access-point to underlying peristence.
The first request takes some time. It is significantly longer. It must init all the UI Client stuff, and get the least needed data from a server. (Menu, user, access rights, metadata...list-view data)
The point, the real advantage, is hidden in the second, the third... request. Lot of stuff is already there on a UI Client. And even, if this is requested again, caching (Server, Client, both) could be introduced.
So, this would mean more requests (at least during the UI Client start up)... but it does not imply ... slower application.
The maintenance benefit is hidden (maybe it is not hidden, it should be obvious) in the Separation of Concern. On the server, we are no longer solving the issue, where to place the user data handling, the base-controller or child-controller... should there by the Master-page, the Layout-controller...
Solved. We are taking care about single, specific stuff, published via REST. One method, one business operation. And that's the dream if we'd like to keep that application alive and be the repairman and extender.
One aspect is that you can display the page to the end user very very fast . Once the page is loaded, use Jquery async calls and any Javscript template tool (like angularjs or mustacheJs) to call the web api simultaneously to build the client page views.
I have used this approach in multiple project and experience of the user is tremendous.
Most modern browsers support 6-8 parallel connections to the same site. So you do have to be careful about that. Unless you are connecting to that many separate systems, I would try to reduce the number of connections. Or ensure the calls are called asynchronously by different events to reduce the chance of parallel connections.
Making a series of HTTP calls to obtain data for your page will have an overhead. Only testing will tell you how that might impact in your scenario.
There is little point using Web API just because you can. You should have a legitimate reason for building a RESTful API. Even then, if it is primarily for your own consumption, design it to deliver a ViewModel for each page in one call.
I'm learning about the AsyncController in ASP.NET MVC and using it with the TPL, but I'm struggling to see its need, I can understand when you would want to run an Action asynchronously to do something like send out an email, but in reality would you ever use it to return a view from an action?
For example if the Action gets some data from a database, which is set to work async, then return a View, if the data fails to retrieve in time will the View not just return with no data in the model?
Would you ever use it to return a view from an action?
The main advantage of asynchrony in ASP.NET is scalability. While the asynchronous work executes, you're not consuming any threads. This means your application will consume less memory and it may be also faster.
If the data fails to retrieve in time will the View not just return with no data in the model?
That depends on you and how exactly will you handle that failure.
Async controllers are used primarily to give up the current thread pool thread to allow other incoming connections to process work while you are waiting for a long running process to complete.
This has nothing to do with pass a view back. The process will still "block" from the end users perspective, but on the server the resources the server needs to respond to incoming requests will not be consumed.
By default, there are 250 thread pool threads per cpu core in an IIS worker process to respond to incoming connections (this can be tuned, but in general you should know what you're doing). If you have to people waiting for long requests to complete, then nobody else will be able to connect to your server until one of them finishes. Async controllers fix that problem.
You can also offload CPU bound work to a dedicated thread when using async controllers, where that was more difficult in synchronous controllers. And, it allows you to perform tasks in parallel. For instance, suppose you have to go out to 10 web sites and retrieve data. Most of the time is spent waiting for those web requests to return, and they can be done in parallel if you are doing things async.
This question describes two approaches of solving the sophisticated architectural problem related to ASP.NET MVC. Unfortunately our team is quite new to this technology and we haven’t found any solid sources of information on this particular topic (except overviews where it’s said that MVC is more about separation than componentization). So as for now we are hesitating: whether our solution is appropriate or there is a different obvious way to solve this problem.
We have a requirement to make ASP.NET MVC-based design with componentization in mind. View engine Razor is also a requirement for us. The key feature here is that any level of controller’s nesting is expected (obviously thru Html.Action directive within .cshtml). Any controller could potentially obtain the data thru a webservice call (the final design can break this limitation, as it’s described below).
The issue is that the data must be obtained in async and maximum parallel fashion. E.g. if two backend calls within the controllers are independent they must be performed in parallel.
At first glance the usage of async MVC controllers could solve all the problems. But there is a hidden caveat: nested controller must be specified within cshtml only (within a view). And a .cshtml view is being parsed after the original controller finished its own async execution. So all the async operations within the nested controller will be performed in a separate async slot and therefore not in parallel with the first parent controller. This is a limitation of synchronous nature of .cshtml processing.
After a deep investigation we revealed that two options are available.
1) Have only one parent async controller which will retrieve all the data and put this data into container (dictionary or whatever). The nested controllers aren’t allowed to perform any backend calls. Instead of this they will have a reference to the initialized container with the results of all the backend calls. Bu this way the consumer of the framework must differentiate between parent and child controller which is not a brilliant solution.
2) Retrieve all the data from backends within a special async HttpModule. This module will initialize the same container which will reside, for instance within HttpContext. Obviously all the controllers in such a case will not be allowed to perform any backend calls, but they will have a unified internal structure (in comparison with #1 option).
As for now we think that the option #2 is more desirable, but we are more interested in the solid community-adopted way to solve this problem in a real enterprise-level MVC projects.
Literally any links/comments are welcomed.
[UPD] A requirement of any level of nesting of controllers came from our customer which wants a system where fully reusable MVC components will be presented. And they could be combined in any sequence with any level of nesting - as it is already done in the existing webforms-based implementation. This is a business rule for existing app that the components could be combined anyhow so we're not targeted to break this rule. As for now we think that such a component is a combination of "controller+view+metadata" where "metadata" part describes the backend calls to be performed in the scenario 1 or 2.
Why are you considering async calls here? Keep in mind if your async calls are so the asp.net threads don't get all used up since the db is taking a while to return, as soon as new requests come in they too will go to the db, thus increasing the workload and in turn gaining nothing.
To be honest though, Im having a hard time following exactly what you have in mind here. Nested controllers for...?
"The key feature here is that any level of controller’s nesting is expected"
I think I (we?) need a bit more information on that part here.
However, the warning on async still stands :)
E.g. if two backend calls within the controllers are
independent they must be performed in parallel.
If they are truly independent you might be able to use asynch JavaScript calls from the client and achieve some degree of parallelism that way.
I have a particularly long running method that I need to execute from my controller. The Method is in it's own Model. I am using an async controller, and I have the method setup using asyncFunc library to make it asynchronous. I have also tried invoking it on it's own process. The problem is I want to controller to go ahead and return a view so the user can continue doing other things as the method will notify the user it is completed or has any errors via e-mail.
The problem is even thogh it is an asynchronous method the controller will not move forward to return the view until the process is done. 15+ mins. and if you navigate to a different page the method stops trying to execute.
so how can I get the method to execute as a worker and free up the controller?
Any Help would be greatly appreciated.
all the best,
Chase Q, Aucoin
Use ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem() as a fire-and-forget approach in the ASPX page.
Do the long-running work in the WaitCallback you pass to QUWI.
when the work is complete, that WaitCallback can send an email, or whatever it wants.
You need to take care to handle the case that the w3wp.exe is stopped during the 15 minute run. What will you do if the work is 2/3 complete? Some options are, making the work restartable, or just allowing the interrupted work to be forgotten.
Making it restartable might mean, when w3wp.exe restarts, your ASP.NET logic makes sure to begin again, any work that was interrupted. It might mean that your ASP.NET logic sets "syncpoints" so that it knows where to restart.
If you want the restartable option, you might think about Workflow, which is specifically designed for this purpose - maintaining state of long-running workflows, restarting automatically, and so on. If you use Workflow, you can set it to run asynchronously, and you may decide you do not need QueueUserWorkItem.
see also:
Moving a time taking process away from my asp.net application
the Workflow Foundation tag
This will help > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms227433.aspx
It is the standard way of running a background process on the server in the .NET stack.
I don't know why, but I still live in conviction that this should not be done. Executing background threads in ASP.NET smells. You will also steal threads from ASP.NET thread pool which is controlled by IIS. It can decide that something is wrong with your worker process and restart it any time just to keep memory consumption, processing time consumption or thread consumption low. If you need background logic create custom NT service and call the process on that service either via old .NET remoting or WCF.
Btw. approach I described is used frequently in commercial applications and those which doesn't use it often self-host the whole web server.