I have WCF client on my WPF app. WCF client is generated with asynchronous operations.
I am doing parallel calls with awaiting to Tasks.
I noticed some delay on data getting and when sniffed traffic with Microsoft Message Analyzer, noticed, that for some calls I did 2 request were sent with about 500ms interval but got one response.
In my app I have only one call.
Question is why 2 underlying calls were sent by WCF client?
P.S. I checked by hosting service under IIS and IIS express. Same result on both cases.
Your issue here is not with your client or service, but with your analysis tooling.
Microsoft Message Analyzer is designed for low level network monitoring.
Higher level protocols such as SOAP will almost certainly utilise more than one network message per logical call.
WCF supports lower-level protocols such as UDP, where the number of messages on the network may bear more resemblance to the number of service calls you make, but this is buy no means garanteed.
As such, the service itself is the ultimate arbiter of how many logical service calls it has received.
If you do need to analyse the underlying traffic, you could also look at WCF Tracing, which will group network calls together into "conversations", that resolve to a single instance of a client-service request/response pair.
Related
I have a web application hosted on iis on windows server. My API uses external APIs as a source for data. There is metrics in my API that show that when there are too many requests to my API, getting response from external APIs takes longer than usual and that elapsed time is usually 3 seconds+time that was really spent by external API to proccess request.
External APIs in fact are soap-services on ESB, if it matters.
Metrics of external APIs and metrics of net channels between my server and ESB and between ESB and external servers don't show these 3 seconds anywhere. It happens not with all external APIs, but with most of them. It seems like it never happens to database requests from my API.
So it seems like there might be a limitation of outbound requests from iis or from app pool or from windows server itself. But I don't know how to check it, where to look. May be perfomance monitor, but there are tons of metrics - what should I choose?
In microservice architecture, It is suggested that:
client app to API gateway communication should be synchronous (like
REST over http).
API gateway to micro-service communication should also be
synchronous
But service to service communication should be asynchronous.
Another rule you should try to follow, as much as possible, is to use
only asynchronous messaging between the internal services, and to use
synchronous communication (such as HTTP) only from the client apps to
the front-end services (API Gateways plus the first level of
microservices).
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/microservices-architecture/architect-microservice-container-applications/asynchronous-message-based-communication
Now, If I understood it right, when user requests to API gateway, and in turn it calls the fist service, it will return a acknowledgement (with some GUID) which will be passed to client application. But services will keep on executing the request.
Now the question pop ups, how will they notify the client application when the request is processed completely. One way is that client can check the status using the GUID passed to it.
But can it be done with some push notification? How can we integrate server to server push notification?
I have little bit different understanding on this as it says communication between services should be asynchronous while communication to API gateway and API gateway to service should be rest API.
so we don't need to do anything as these are simple API calls and pipeline will handle request-response tracking while asynchronous calls between services will increase the throughput of the service.
Now, If I understood it right, when user requests to API gateway, and in turn it calls the fist service, it will return a acknowledgement (with some GUID) which will be passed to client application. But services will keep on executing the request.
No, the microservices should not continue to execute the request, it is already finished. They will, when it is required, update their internal cache (local representation to be more precise) of the needed remote data (data from the microservice that executed the request) when that remote data has changed. The best way to do that update is using integration events (i.e. when a microservice executes a request that mutates the data, it publishes an event to the subscribed microservices).
The microservices should not communicate not even asynchronously in order to fulfill a request from the gateway or clients. They should use background tasks to prepare the data ahead of time for when a request comes.
You're depicting a scenario where the whole interaction between the system and external actors (to be rude, the users) follows an asynchronous model. This is perfectly reasonable, but just if you really need it. Matter of fact, if you are choosing to let 'the outside' interact with your system through REST APIs, maybe you don't need it at all.
If the system receives requests through a synchronous application endpoint, such as REST endpoint, it has to complete requests before to send a response, otherwise it would be meaningless. consider an API like
POST users/:username/notifications
a notification is synchronous by it's nature, but the the request just states that 'a new notification should be appendend to the notifications collection of user'. The API responds 201 that means 'ok, the notification is already associated with the user, it will be pushed on some channel, eventually'. This is a 'transactional' way to describe an asynchronous interaction
Another scenario comes when the user wants to subscribe the notification channel. I expect that this would be implemented with a bi-directional, asynchronous, pubsub communication protocol, such as websockets.
In both cases, however, doesn't matter how microservices communicate with each other, if the request is synchronous, the first service of 'the chain' should wait until is ready to respond. This is the reason beacause API gateway forwards the request in http.
On the other hand, aynchronous communication could be used to enforce consistency between services, instead of to make the actual communication. Let's say that the Orders service sends data to a broker. each time some attribute on the orders[orderId] is changed, it published the change in /orders/:orderId topic. At the same time, expose an internal http point. each service caches data from the services which depends on. The user service make a GET /orders/:orderId , while sends a response to the requester, puts the data in a local cache and subscribes the orders/:orderId topic. each time that a 'mutation' is sent on this topic, the User service catches it and applies the mutation on the corresponding cached object. The communication is syncrhonous, keeps to be synchronous and it' relatively simple to manage; at the same time your system can hold replicated data and be still [eventually] consistent
I have two different service fabric applications. Both are stateless web api models. I do have a situation that from service 1 inside application 1, I need to invoke service 2 which is part of application 2. I am deploying both applications in the same cluster. Can someone advise the best practice here. What could be best way to communicate. Please provide some sample as well.
Fabric Transport (aka Service Remoting) is the sdk built-in communication model. Compared to communication over HTTP or WCF it does a little more, especially on the client side of the communication.
When it comes to communicating with Service Fabric services (or really, any distributed systems service) your communication should take into account that the connection could be fail to established on an initial try, or be interrupted mid communication and that you really shouldn't build your solution to expect it to always work flawlessly. The reason for this is in the nature of how Service Fabric at any time can decide to move primaries from a node to another node, the nodes themselves can go down and the services can crash. Nothing strange about he great thing with Service Fabric is that it does a lot of the heavy lifting for you when it comes to maintaining your services and nodes over time.
So, in terms of communication this means that a client needs to be able to do three things (for it to truly work in a distributed environment);
resolve the address to the service (figure out which node it is on, which port it is listening on, which partition id and replica to target and so on)
connect to the service, package and send requests and then recieve and unpack responses
retry the resolve and connect if the communication fails
Fabric Transport does all this when you are using the Service Remoting clients (like ServiceProxy) and service side listeners.
Thats the good part with Fabric Transport, you get all that out of the box and most of the time you don't have to change the default setup either. The bad part is that it only works for communication inside the cluster, i.e. you cannot communicate from the outside to a service running in the cluster using Fabric Transport. For that you need HTTP or WCF.
HTTP(s) and WCF (over HTTP(s)) communication allow you to build your own clients and handle the communication yourself. There are a number of samples on how you can do the resolve, connect and retry for HTTP clients, this one for instance
According to Microsoft there are three built-in communication options. It's up to you to decide which one works best for you. I'm personally using service remoting which is easy to quickly set up. It also allows you to exception handling in your client service.
I have a service, foo, running on machine A. I need to access that service from machine B. One way is to launch a web server on A and do it via HTTP; code running under web server on A accesses foo and returns the results. Another is to write socket server on A; socket server access service foo and returns the result.
HTTP connection initiation and handshake is expensive; sockets can be written, but I want to avoid that. What other options are available for high performance remote calls?
HTTP is just the protocol over the socket. If you are using TCP/IP networks, you are going to be using a socket. The HTTP connection initiation and handshake are not the expensive bits, it's TCP initiation that's really the expensive bit.
If you use HTTP 1.1, you can use persistent connections (Keep-Alive), which drastically reduces this cost, closer to that of keeping a persistent socket open.
It all depends on whether you want/need the higher-level protocol. Using HTTP means you will be able to do things like consume this service from a lot more clients, while writing much less documentation (if you write your own protocol, you will have to document it). HTTP servers also supports things like authentication, cookies, logging, out of the box. If you don't need these sorts of capabilities, then HTTP might be a waste. But I've seen few projects that don't need at least some of these things.
Adding to the answer of #Rob, as the question is not precisely pointing to an application or performance boundaries, it would be good to look into the options available in a broader context, which is Inter process communication.
The wikipedia page cleanly lists down the options available and would be a good place to start with.
What technology are you going to use? Let me answer for Java world.
If your request rate is below 100/sec, you should not care about optimizations and use most versatile solution - HTTP.
Well-written asynchronous server like Netty-HTTP can easily handle 1000 requests per second on medium-level hardware.
If you need more or have constrained resources, you can go to binary format. Most popular one out there is Google Protobuf(multilanguage) + Netty (Java).
What you should know about HTTP performance:
Http can use Keep-Alive which removes reconnection cost for every request
Http adds traffic overhead for every request and response - around 50-100 bytes.
Http client and server consumes additional CPU for parsing HTTP headers - that is noticeable after abovementioned 100 req/sec
Be careful when selecting technology. Even in 21 century it is hard to find well-written HTTP server and client.
I am using a WCF service to administer a windows service running on a remote machine. We have an administration client we use for modifying the windows service configuration, as well as monitoring the state of the service in real-time. For the real-time monitoring, we poll the service for it's state every second.
Currently, we are leaving the client connected all the time while monitoring the service but I continually read that it is recommended to connect and disconnect for each call, much like you would for a database.
Would it be recommended in our situation where we are making frequent calls to the service, or would connecting and disconnecting add too much overhead to the process?
Thanks
By default and as a recommended best practice, you're using the per-call activation in WCF, e.g. each request to your WCF service gets a new instance of a service class, that instance handles your request, returns a result, and then is disposed.
In this case, I don't really see any point in constantly breaking and re-establishing the communication channel (e.g. constantly disposing and re-creating the proxy client). There's nothing on the WCF service side that "lingers around" in memory and takes up resources or anything like that. Also, contrary to most databases, there's usually no "per-connection" licensing or anything involved, either.
What you need to be able to deal with in this scenario would be a situation where your communication channel goes into "faulted state", e.g. when something bad happens - when the service call fails and throws an exception, or when a network fluke causes your channel to break. In such a case, you need to have recovery mechanisms on your client side to handle this and re-establish the connection again.
The situation might be a bit different if you have session-oriented WCF services - but those should definitely be the exception, and only used when needed by all means.