I found that it's possible to automatically extend Liferay's session. So that the session doesn't expire till you close your browser. Is there any limitations or disadvantages of such approach. Any performance degrade or load issues?
As with any abstract question about hypothetical performance impact (or preliminary optimization) this question is basically unanswerable - but here's some criteria:
Naturally, pinging the server in order to extend a session will incur some extra load - if that results in a performance decrease, you'll most likely have a highly congested installation in the first place. If your server is bored all day, the extra ping won't bring it down.
You may or may not have custom applications running in your installation that store data in the user's session. If those are a few bytes (like Liferay does, e.g. the currently logged in user's information): There's probably no degradation. If you store 1MB of information per session (in your own custom apps - Liferay doesn't do this), things might differ: Just multiply your session storage size by the number of concurrent users that you expect. In case this use of memory indicates a problem: Make your custom apps use the session less - it's bad style anyway.
Will your particular installation suffer from any degradation? Measure. There's no way around this.
From a system maintenance point of view: If you're running a cluster and want to take individual machines out of the load balancer: Artificially extending sessions might indicate that a machine still has sessions open, even though they're mostly on unattended browsers - you'll get inflated numbers and it takes longer to bring machines down when you need to wait for the session count to come close to zero.
Related
Do I really need Session Replication?
I am working on a number of web projects for a firm. Most of the projects are about one or two pages of input and then doing a save to a mysql database. Very Basic projects. My SA's are pushing to try to get session replication working in JBoss but I don't really see any need for it and all of its overhead.
We need load balancing and clustering so if the server does go down we can move the new requests to the backup service but I am not to big in session replication.
This is very low volume projects. I my eyes what is the odds of a user being in the project as the server goes down on the one or two pages.
I need to convince the SAs that session replication is an un-necessary complication in this instance. I am looking for pros and cons of session replication so that I can better structure my argument.
Well, the "pro" is that you have session failover, either in deliberate cluster member restarting or in inadvertent cluster-member failure. That's it.
Some of the "cons" are:
Session objects and their included objects have to be Serializable
You have to choose Session persistence or replication and manage their configurations and/or datastore
You have to think about Session persistence/replication policies (e.g. every write, request end, time scheduled) and still risk losing the session or losing the most current state of it if a failure occurs before recent changes have been stored/replicated
Non-zero performance impact of replicating or or persisting, inversely related to how robust the replication policy is. (That is, the more likely that you'll get every session change replicated promptly, the worse the performance.)
We do session replication because we considered failover to be an absolute requirement years ago when we started this, but I think if I had it to do over again I'd suggest we don't bother for the majority of our applications.
What is the best way to check memory usage in an ASP.NET MVC3 application?
I have been told by my hosting provider to recyle the IIS application pool every so often to improve the speed of the site. Is this what is 'recommended practice'? Surely I shouldn't need to restart my application every so often? I'd much rather find out if it is an issue with memory usage in my application and correct it. So any tips & best practices you use would be quite helpful too.
The application is based on ASP.NET MVC3, C# and EF Code First. Any guidance, links appreciated.
EDIT:
I found this page after I posted, which is quite useful. But I'd still like to hear any other views.
ASP.NET MVC and EF Code First Memory Usage
Thank you
I have a site that never recycles (until the machine is rebooted weekly)
Your application generally should keep performing fine. If it doesn't, there is some leak.
This can occur because
Cache never expires
Cache never expires
Session storage keeps growing and never times out
ObjectContexts are never disposed and kept in the session, etc
Objects that should be disposed aren't
Objects that are created via a dependency injection container aren't setup to release after each request, and thus potentially have internal collections that keep growing.
There are more causes - but these are a few main ones.
So the question really is 'there is no best practice - it depends on your app'
If you are worried about current sessions during a restart, keep in mind a restart can be quick and current requests are allowed to finish (sometimes) and forms authentication tokens will survive the restart, however sessions will not unless you configure an out of process state server.
If your memory usage keeps growing, then setup a restart schedule, otherwise do once a week or never - or setup once memory goes to XYZ then reset. ASP.NET will restart automatically once a certain threshold is reached as well based on what the hoster has setup on memoryLimit:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7w2sway1.aspx
By default IIS recycles the application pool automatically at an interval (I think is 29 hours or so) but that is surely set by the host, no matter how little or how much memory you're the process is using. THe recycling trigger can be a time interval or when the process hits a certain memory usage limit. I'm sure any shared host has both of them set.
About memory usage, you can use the GC.GetTotalMemory method which will give you an approximate usage. Even when using Perfmon the readings aren't very accurate but it gives you an idea.
//global.asax.cs
void Application_EndRequest(object o,EventArgs a)
{
var ctype=Context.Response.Headers["Content-Type"];
if (ctype == null || !ctype.Contains("text/html")) return;
Context.Response.Write(string.format("<p>Memory usage: {0}</p>",GC.GetTotalMemory(false)));
}
Be aware that you'll see the usage increasing increasing until the GC kicks in and the usage will drop to a more 'realistic' value.
If you have the money I recommend a specialized tool such as the Memory profiler
Other things you can do to at least be ready if the application has memory or performance problems:
Proper layering of the application, means you can refactor the more inefficient parts without affecting the others.
The Repository pattern will be very helpful, because you can start using EF , find out that EF uses to much memory (like in the link you've found), but then you could switch the repository implementation to use PetaPoco or Dapper.net.
In general an OR\M is more of a heavy library, if the application doesn't need ORM features but just a quick way to work with a db, use from the beginning a mico-Orm like those mentioned above.
Always dispose objects implementing IDisposable.
When dealing with large db records, use pagination. It's good for both server resources usage and user experience
Apply the YAGNI (You Aint Gonna Need It) principle as much as possible, this somehow implies a bit of TDD :)
I have a site that is moving incredibly slowly right now. Both Safari's inspector and Firebug are reporting that most of the load time is due to latency. The actual download is happening in less than a second. There's a lot of database activity in play (though the metrics on that indicate that it's pretty healthy), but what else can cause really high latency? Is it a purely network thing or are there changes I can make to the app to improve the latency numbers?
I'm using YSlow to help identify performance improvements, but on the whole, I don't see it reporting anything that seems crazy unreasonable. Opportunities for improvement, certainly, but nothing that seems like it would cause the huge load times I'm seeing.
Thanks.
UPDATE
Some background and metrics, in case it's useful. This is a CakePHP application and I'm using my UsersController::login action as the benchmark. For the sake of identifying how much of a factor the application code plays in this, I've printed a stacktrace immediately upon entering UsersController::beforeFilter(). Here's output:
UsersController::beforeFilter() - APP/controllers/users_controller.php, line 13
Controller::startupProcess() - CORE/cake/libs/controller/controller.php, line 522
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/cake/dispatcher.php, line 187
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/cake/dispatcher.php, line 171
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 83
Load times, as shown by Safari's inspector range from 11.2 seconds to 52.2 seconds. This would seem to point me away from the application code and maybe something with my host, but maybe I'm completely misinterpreting this or oversimplifying it?
If you cannot identify directly a slow moving component of your application, there are a number of other steps along the way that can certainly slow your site down. Whenever I'm experiencing unusually long polling, I typically start by looking at the local DNS and then onto my hosted DNS. Sometimes a cache refresh (on their part, not yours) can cause a lot of polling until their database has caught up.
Else, they might actually have a service outage and your requests are being made to their secondary or backup server. If everything seems fine in terms of domain resolution, your hosting provider might be experiencing a service outage that can take a number of different shapes like serving static content from their backups or over-allocating shared resources until everything is running as it should. You can experience a ton of what they call throttling on shared cloud architectures when they have a box go down. On the plus side, you don't have a total outage in this circumstance.
One time, and this was just in a shared grid configuration, I had a processor go to hell. The bizarre part of it was that static content was still serving from a backup, but it was still polling against our database (which was on a different server) and causing our account to throttle because of over allocation on the backup. Wasn't our fault, but the host started sending nasty emails about our excessive long-polls. Moral of the story is, if it's not your application, and it's out of the blue, somewhere along the line I'll bet you'll find some hardware failure or misconfiguration.
Also now that I think of it, if you are syndicating some outside content (be it server or browser side) it might not be in your chain of responsibility altogether. If you are serving ads for example from a subscriber service, they might be having a high-load period or outage. These are just the steps that I would take to narrow down the culprit.
Probably this will be not the solution for you, but when I has doggy slow safari (and FF too) I simply changed the DNS servers to opendns (208.67.222.222, 208.67.220.220) and all my problems are resolved.
We have a JPA -> Hibernate -> Oracle setup, where we are only able to crank up to 22 transactions per seconds (two reads and one write per transaction). The CPU and disk and network are not bottlenecking.
Is there something I am missing? I wonder if there could be some sort of oracle imposed limit that the DBA's have applied?
Network is not the problem, as when I do raw reads on the table, i can do 2000 reads per second. The problem is clearly writes.
CPU is not the problem on the app server, the CPU is basically idling.
Disk is not the problem on the app server, the data is completely loaded into memory before the processing starts
Might be worth comparing performance with a different client technology (or even just a simple test using SQL*Plus) to see if you can beat this performance anyway - it may simply be an under-resourced or misconfigured database.
I'd also compare the results for SQLPlus running directly on the d/b server, to it running locally on whatever machine your Java code is running on (where it is communicating over SQLNet). This would confirm if the problem is below your Java tier.
To be honest there are so many layers between your JPA code and the database itself, diagnosing the cause is going to be fun . . . I recall one mysterious d/b performance problem resolved itself as a misconfigured network card - the DBAs were rightly insistent that the database wasn't showing any bottlenecks.
It sounds like the application is doing a transaction in a bit less than 0.05 seconds. If the SELECT and UPDATE statements are extracted from the app and run them by themselves, using SQL*Plus or some other tool, how long do they take, and if you add up the times for the statements do they come pretty near to 0.05? Where does the data come from that is used in the queries, and which eventually gets used in the UPDATE? It's entirely possible that the slowdown is not the database but somewhere else in the app, such a the data acquisition phase. Perhaps something like a profiler could be used to find out where the app is spending its time.
Share and enjoy.
One approach to high scalability is to use network load balancing to split processing load between several servers.
One challenge that this approach presents is where servers are state aware - storing user state in a "session".
One solution to this problem is "sticky session" (aka "session affinity") where each user is assigned to a single server and his/her state data is contained on that server exclusively throughout the duration of the session.
What are the Pros and Cons of the "sticky session" approach? Do you use it and if so are you satisfied with it?
Pros:
It's easy-- no app changes required.
Better utilizes local RAM caches (e.g. look up user profile once, cache it, and can re-use it on subsequent visits from same user)
Cons:
If the server goes down, session is lost. (Note that this is a con of storing session info locally on the web server, not of sticky sessions per se). If what's in the session is really important to the user (e.g. a draft email) or to the site (e.g. a shopping cart) then losing one of your servers can be very painful.
Depending on "sticky" implementation in your load balancer, may direct unequal load to some servers vs. others
Bringing a new server online doesn't immediately give the new server lots of load. If you have a dynamic load-balancing system to deal with spikes, stickiness may slow your ability to respond quickly to a spike. That said, this is somewhat of a corner case and really only applies to very large and sophisticated sites.
If you have relatively few users but a single user's traffic can swamp one server (e.g. complex pages with SSL, AJAX, dynamically-generated images, dynamic compression, etc.), then stickiness may hurt end-user response time since you're not spreading a single user's load evenly across servers. If you have a lot of concurrent users, this is a non-issue since all your servers will be swamped!
But if you must use server-local session state, sticky sessions are definitely the way to go. Even if you don't use server-local session state, stickiness has benefits when it comes to cache utilization (see above). Your load balancer should be able to look at HTTP cookies (not only IP address) to determine stickiness, since IP addresses can change during a single session (e.g. docking a laptop between a wired and wireless network).
Even better, don't use session state on the web server at all! If session state is very painful to lose (e.g. shopping carts), store it in a central database and clear out old sessions periodically. If session state is not critical (e.g. username/avatar URL), then stick it in a cookie-- just make sure you're not shoving too much data into the cookie.
Modern versions of Rails, by default, store session variables in a cookie for the reasons above. Other web frameworks may have a "store in cookie" and/or "store in DB" option.