We have a webservice, which will be called to provide the delivery date of the product, while purchasing in eComm website.
We are using IBM Sterling Order Management in the backend, and its OOB webservice and its OOB service.
This webservice (WSDL) is taking more time, more than 40 seconds, which create timeoutexception in other integrated systems (Middleware).
So we want to improve the performance of this webservice. Could you please help me to provide the way to improve the performance ? Will it be improved if the Server's spec has been upgraded ? As it the OOB service, we can't customize it.
First of all you need to figure out the performance bottleneck. To start with you could put a verbose trace on the OOB Webservice. Use the logs and see if you can zero-in on any particular component or sql taking consuming majority of the time. If it's sql, you can tune/baseline the OOB query/tables using indexes.
If you have any user exits implemented (for the OOB API), ensure that they are lean and aren't making any expensive API calls like changeOrder API.
One of the questions to be asked here would be if the webservice needs to respond with the actual processing results or if it could move the actual processing to the background eg: separate integration server and just respond with a simple acknowledgement of the webservice request. If the service only needs to respond with an acknowledgement you could possibly move the actual processing to a separate async service.
First try to find out where the actual problem is and hence here the few pointers,
1) Check in OMS how much time the service is taking with the same input which you are using ti invoke the webservice.
2) If from OMS end response time is fine then check the network latency/bandwidth.
3) CPU usage while hitting the webservice.
Related
I am currently using Jmeter to test the response time for an API. Lets call it API A. If API A calls API B, which is hosted on the same server but different port, is there a way for me to capture the response time of API B using Jmeter?
I realize there is a similar question here which is trying to accomplish the same thing but it does not work for me. I don't see the internal call to API B.
JMeter knows nothing about what's going on under the hood of your application, it sends a HTTP Request, waits for the response and measures the time taken as well as some other metrics.
If there is some extra activity under the hood of an API call the only way to capture it is using a profiler tool or an APM tool at the application under test end.
You could not. Jmet is an outsider, Jmet only know there is API-A, and doesn't know the internal implementation(that API-A calls API-B).
A better design would be, for each APIs, itself should metric the total run time and log into metric server. There's a lot of options about server side metrics system you could explore.
We are currently designing a web service based process, in which we will be using the web-service invoke and receive steps to communicate with a Microsoft biz-talk server.
Our main concern is that a task on the receive step can wait for some time (up to one week) until the biz-talk responds to us, which (we think) would incur a performance penalty on the workflow system as it will be polling for response.
My question is, is there any known performance considerations for the receive step, specially for leaving work items for extended periods?
No, I don't think there will be any undue "overhead". Yes, internally the process engine "polls". For just about anything. Including invoking components, or executing timers. But from a system perspective, you're just waiting for a request.
It sounds like a "receive" step is exactly the right solution here.
Oh the joyous question of HTTP vs WebSockets is at it again, however even after quit a bit of reading on the hundreds of versus blog posts, SO questions, etc, etc.. I'm still at a complete loss as to what I should be working towards for our application. In this post I will be supplying information on application functionality, and the types of requests/responses used in our application currently.
Currently our application is a sloppy piece of work, thrown together using AngularJS and AJAX requests to a Apache server running PHP, namely XAMPP. With the launch of our application I've noticed that we're having problems with response times when the server is under any kind of load. This probably has something to do with the sloppy architecture of our server, the hardware, and the fact that our MySQL database isn't exactly optimized.
However, with such a loyal fanbase and investors seeing potential in our application and giving us a chance to roll out a 2.0 I've been studying hard into how to turn this application into a powerhouse of low latency scalability. Honestly the best option would be hire someone with experience, but unfortunately I'm a hobbyist, and a one-man-army without much experience.
After some extensive research, I've decided on writing the backend using NodeJS this time. However I'm having a hard time deciding on HTTP or Websockets. Here's the types of transactions that are done between the Server/Client.
Client sends a request to the server in JSON format. The request has a few different things.
A request id (For processing logic based on the request)
The data associated with the request ID.
The server receives the request, polls the database (if necessary) and then responds to the client in JSON format. Sometimes the server is serving files to the client. Namely images in Base64 format.
Currently the application (When being used) sends a request to the server every time an interface is changed, which on average for our application is once every few seconds. Every action on our interfaces sends another request to the server. The application also sends requests to check for notifications/messages every 8 seconds, (or two seconds depending on if they're on the messaging interface).
Currently here are the benefits I see of a stated connection over a stateless connection with our application.
If the connection is stated, I can eliminate the requests for notifications and messages, as the server can just tell the client whenever one comes available. This can eliminate x(n)/4 requests per second to the server alone.
Handling something like a disconnection from the server is as simple as attempting to reconnect, opposed to handling timeouts/errors per request, this would only be handled on the socket.
Additional security can be obtained by removing security keys for database interaction, this should prevent the possibility of Hijacking(?) of a session_key and using it to manipulate or access another users data. The session_key is only needed due to there being no state in the AJAX setup.
However, I'm someone who started learning programming through TCP game server emulation. So I understand some benefits of a STATED connection, while I don't understand the benefits of a STATELESS connection very much at all. I know they both have their benefits and quirks, but I'm curious what would be the best approach for us.
We're mainly looking for Scalability, as we had a local application launch and managed to bottleneck at nearly 10,000 users in under 48 hours. Luckily I announced this as a BETA and the users are cutting me a lot of slack after learning that I did it all on my own as a learning project. I've disabled registrations while looking into improving the application's front and backend.
IMPORTANT:
If using WebSockets, would we be able to asynchronously download pictures from the server like we can with AJAX? For example, I can make 5 requests to the server using AJAX for 5 different images, and they will all start downloading immediately, using a stated connection would I have to wait for each photo to be streamed before moving to the next request? Would this only bottle-neck a single user, or every user that is waiting on a request to be completed?
It all boils down on how your application works and how it needs to scale. I would use bare WebSockets rather than any wrapper, since it is an already easy to use API and your hands won't be tied when you need to scale out.
Here some links that will give you insight, although not concrete answers to your questions because as I said, it depends on your expectations.
Hard downsides of long polling?
WebSocket/REST: Client connections?
Websockets, and identifying unique peers[PHP]
How HTML5 Web Sockets Interact With Proxy Servers
If your question is Should I use HTTP over Websockets ?, the response is: You should not.
Even if it is faster because you don't lose time opening the connection, you lose also all the HTTP specification like verbs (GET, POST, PATCH, PUT, ...), path, body, and also response, status code. This seams simple but you'll have to re-implement all or part of these protocol things.
So you should use Ajax, as long as it is one ponctual request.
When you need to make an ajax request every 2 seconds, you need in fact that the server sends you data, not YOU request server to check Api change (if changed). So this is a sign that you should implement a websocket server.
I am creating a service which receives some data from mobile phones and saves it to the database.
The phone is sending the data every 250 ms. As I noticed that the delay for data storing is increasing I tried to run WireShark and write a log as well.
I noticed that the web requests from mobile phone are being made without the delay (checked with WireShark), but the in the service log I noticed the request is received every second and a half or almost two seconds.
Does anyone know where could be the problem or the way to test and determine the cause of such delay?
I am creating a service with WCF (webHttpBinding) and the database is MS SQL.
By the way the log stores the time of http request and also the time of writing data to the database. As mentioned above the request is received every 1.5 - 2 seconds and after that it takes 50 ms to store data to the database.
Thanks!
My first guess after reading the question was that maybe you are submitting data so fast, the database server is hitting a write-contention lock (e.g. AutoNumber fields?)
If your database platform is SQL Server, take a look at http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/per/lock_contention_nolock_rowlock_p1.aspx
Anyway please post more information about the overall architecture of the system... what softwares/platforms are used at what parts etc...
Maybe there is some limitation in the connection imposed by the service provider?
What happens if you (for testing) don't write to the database and just log the page hits in the server log with timestamp?
Check that you do not have any tracing running on the web services, this can really kill perf.
This is my setting: I have written a .NET application for local client machines, which implements a feature that could also be used on a webpage. To keep this example simple, assume that the client installs a software into which he can enter some data and gets some data back.
The idea is to create a webpage that holds a form into which the user enters the same data and gets the same results back as above. Due to the company's available web servers, the first idea was to create a mono webservice, but this was dismissed for reasons unknown. The "service" is not to be run as a webservice, but should be called by a PHP script. This is currently realized by calling the mono application via shell_exec from PHP.
So now I am stuck with a mono port of my application, which works fine, but takes way too long to execute. I have already stripped out all unnecessary dlls, methods etc, but calling the application via the command line - submitting the desired data via commandline parameters - takes approximately 700ms. We expect about 10 hits per second, so this could only work when setting up a lot of servers for this task.
I assume the 700m are related to the cost of starting the application every time, because it does not make much difference in terms of time if I handle the request only once or five hundred times (I take the original input, vary it slighty and do 500 iterations with "new" data every time. Starting from the second iteration, the processing time drops down to approximately 1ms per iteration)
My next idea was to setup the mono application as a remoting server, so that it only has to be started once and can then handle incoming requests. I therefore wrote another mono application that serves as the client. Calling the client, letting the client pass the data to the server and retrieving the result now takes 344ms. This is better, but still way slower than I would expect and want it to be.
I have then implemented a new project from scratch based on this blog post and get stuck with the same performance issues.
The question is: am I missing something related to the mono-projects that could improve the speed of the client/server? Although the idea of creating a webservice for this task was dismissed, would a webservice perform better under these circumstances (as I would not need the client application to call the service), although it is said that remoting is faster than webservices?
I could have made that clearer, but implementing a webservice is currently not an option (and please don't ask why, I didn't write the requirements ;))
Meanwhile I have checked that it's indeed the startup of the client, which takes most of the time in the remoting scenario.
I could imagine accessing the server via pipes from the command line, which would be perfectly suitable in my scenario. I guess this would be done using sockets?
You can try to use AOT to reduce the startup time. On .NET you would use ngen for that purpoise, on mono just do a mono --aot on all assemblies used by your application.
AOT'ed code is slower than JIT'ed code, but has the advantage of reducing startup time.
You can even try to AOT framework assemblies such as mscorlib and System.
I believe that remoting is not an ideal thing to use in this scenario. However your idea of having mono on server instead of starting it every time is indeed solid.
Did you consider using SOAP webservices over HTTP? This would also help you with your 'web page' scenario.
Even if it is a little to slow for you in my experience a custom RESTful services implementation would be easier to work with than remoting.