MVC's AsyncController Be Used To Service Large Number Of Concurrent Hanging Requests (long Poll)??
Feb 13, 2011
Frameworks like Node.js, Tornado, and Twisted let developers create server-push applications that supports large number of concurrent hanging requests (10k+). From what I understand, they all achieve this by not creating threads to service each hanging request.
Can AsyncController be used to service large number of inactive concurrent requests?If so, are there any reasonably large ASP.NET MVC websites using this approach to create long-poll applications?
In my ASP.NET MVC2 web app I have a page which goes off and gets results from a number of different web service feeds. These return times vary so I want to basically display them as they return after the page loads. I also want my user to be able to kick of requests that can run concurrently with these other requests.
At the minute my page just seems to queue up the requests. The web service calls returning one at a time in the order they are called and then the user can kick of requests.
Is this a case for the asyncController or is there an easier/better way of working this?
I am working on a website in which more than a thousand users can login at a time and there may be more than 50000 total users. I am worried about the performance of the application in case of concurrent access.
what is the best way to manage that, so that my application runs without any performance issues.
we are using the WCF service and hosted using a console application, now we are using LoadRunner and hitting it concurrently
Where giving 50 hits at a time few requests (26) gets completed successfully and remaining gives error TCP error code 10061: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it.
heavy operation which takes long time to be completed in my asp.net application. I don't want to run the entire operation in one request which may result in a TimeOut error. Instead I want to invoke the operation in a separate thread and poll for the result every x seconds. How can I do this?If the operation gets completed I need to register a script in the ajax postback to hide the loading panel and show the content. However I'm not able to register new scripts and invoke it during ajax postbacks.
in one request i am updating session variable. in the other request, i am trying to access that session value, but it was blocked until the first request finish. I am using C# with ASP.NET 2.0 UPDATE: My page code looks like this.
concerning requests being blocked from a main window after a popup window had initiated a file download. Further requests from the same session are being queued until the download is complete. So, is there any way to override this? Is there anyway to tell asp.net to not serialize same session requests? Is there any way to tell asp.net to ignore session for a specific request...httphander(module) or otherwise?
why requests from the same session are being queued until the download is complete. please tell me the funda behind it and how to overcome it.
I would like to know the number of users logged into my ASP.NET 2.0 application.
Points to be considered:
1) Simplest way would be to use Application or Cache object to have the counts on Session start or end. However this would fail if there is a worker process recycle. Wouldn't it?
2) Should't make a difference whether the session is inproc/state server managed/ or SQL server managed.
3) Should preferably be seamless to a web-farm architecture.
i want datalist to show only 6-8items ,as these datalist is connected to datasource which has more than 20 items..
like in facebook,we have lots of friends but in friend box only 6 friends is shown and when we click that we go to next page which display all list of friends...
I have a standard ASMX web service which uses a lock object to process the first request it receives and reject other requests that come in before processing completes. The web service is hosted on a Windows Server 2003 box with a single-core processor. To test whether this works as expected, I wrote a client that spawns 100 threads. Each thread makes an asynchronous POST call to the web server (i.e., HttpWebRequest.BeginGetResponse()). From my own logging, what I'm seeing on IIS is that two threads are spawned. Let's say thread IDs 1 and 7. Thread 1 is assigned a small number of requests. It accepts and processes them, one after another. Thread 7 is assigned a large number of requests. It rejects them. Does anyone have theories on the following: Why are two threads spawned? And not four or a hundred? Why does there seem to be thread discrimination? Thread 1 looks like it has control of the lock object at all times.
I have a long poll HTTP request using ASP.NET 4, MVC 2 and AsyncController. If a user closes their browser and kills the HTTP connection without the request completing, I'd like to know about it and completely clean up after them. If I don't, the open and incomplete requests just sit there and eventually IIS stops accepting new requests.
You can simulate my long running HTTP request by making a normal ASP.NET application with a page that has a Thread.Sleep. Even if you close the browser, the request carries on as if it hasn't.
There is a property called Response.IsClientConnected that gets switched to false if the client disconnects, and I can poll this to achieve the desired effect but it's not very clean and I'd like to avoid polling. Is there a way of getting notified when this happens rather than having to poll this property?
This works in other browsers but not in chrome. I am trying to allow users to upload large files and have an ajax call to update them on the progress of the file upload.
So a unique ID is generated on the client side and added to the action of the form before sending. Then the form is submitted (form only contains a file upload input) and an ajax call is made to get the progress of the upload. The ajax call goes to another page and uses the ID to lookup the upload.
I am using JQuery 1.5.1. Debugging this and putting something on the error function give me nothing other than "error". Not very helpful. I used Chrome's debugger and it just says failed to load resource xxxx.aspx. xxx.aspx is the URL i needed. Turns out that there seems to be some sort of conflict between the form and the ajax call.
I have a web in asp.net and code in vb and sql database. There is a dropdownlist ina page the length is too big. How can I set to multi row or some other kind....
I want to provide status updates during a long-running task on an ASP.NET WebForms page with AJAX.Is there a way to get the ScriptManager to execute and process a script for a web service request concurrently with an async postback? I have a script on the page that makes a web service request. It runs on page load and periodically using setInterval(). It's running correctly before the async postback is initiated, but it stops running during the async postback, and doesn't run again until after the async postback completes.
we have console-hosted WCF Service and ASP.NET WEB Service (on IIS). After some tough operation WCF Service must return some data(large data) to ASP.NET Web Service for next processing. I tested on small results - everything is ok. But after testing on real data(serialized result object is near 4.5 mb) error occurs on ASP.NET Web Service (which is client in wcf-client-server communication).
Messages size are configured by next binding (on server and client): NetTcpBinding netTcpBinding = new NetTcpBinding(); netTcpBinding.TransactionFlow = true; netTcpBinding.SendTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 4,0, 0); netTcpBinding.Security.Mode = SecurityMode.None; [code]...
I have just started to look at the new "System.Threading.Tasks" goodness in .Net 4.0, and would like to know if there is any build in support for limiting the number of concurrent tasks that run at once, or if this should be manually handled.
E.G: If I need to call a calculation method 100 times, is there a way to set up 100 Tasks, but have only 5 execute simultaneously? The answer may just be to create 5 tasks, call Task.WaitAny, and create a new Task as each previous one finishes. I just want to make sure I am not missing a trick if there is a better way to do this.
I'm running a ASP.NET website on my development box (.NET 2.0 on Vista/IIS7).
The Session_Start method in global.asax.cs logs every call to a file (log4net).
The Session_End method also logs every call.
I'm using InProc session state, and set the session timeout to 5 mins (to avoid waiting for 20 mins).
I hit the website, wait for 5 minutes unit I see the Session_End logging. Then I F5 the website. The browsers still has the session cookie and sends it to the server. Session_Start is called and a new session is created using the same session id (btw: I need this to be the same session id, because it is used to store data in database).
Result:
Every time I hit F5 on a previously ended session, the Session_Start method is called.
When I open a different browser, the Session_Start method is called just once. Then after 5 minutes the Session_End each F5 causes the Session_Start method to execute.
Update:
After the Session timeout, all subsequent requests have a session start & session end. So in the end my question is: why are the sessions on these subsequent request closed immediatly?
I want to insert a large amount( approx 7000 records) of data into a table, My scenarios is that i need to check whether the record already exists then it will not insert it. Currently i am using a stored procedure for this which gets called for each record.
IF EXISTS(SELECT 'True' FROM MYTABLE WHERE ID = @ID) BEGIN
--This means it exists, return it to ASP and tell us
SELECT 'This record already exists!' END ELSE BEGIN
--This means the record isn't in there already, let's go ahead and add it
SELECT 'Record Added' IF EXISTS(SELECT 'True' FROM [Aadil].[dbo].[SharePointSitesData] WHERE ID <> @ID)
Working on a heavy ajax based site with over 100 methods from all the ajax calls inside each of each controller all with basically the same code.Was thinking of changing them to a big case statement for readability which would keep the code a bit more dry and make it easier to read.What I am wondering is: Will there be a performance hit and is there a better way to deal with it?
I have one application and there are 1500 users of that application.When 200 users logged in application that time login page and other pages of applications are not opend. I want to manage 1000 of users at a time.
I have 65 columns in the grid, if the columns are reduced to 20 then the speed when accessing from client is more or less similar to that accessing from web browser. Does it mean that all this performance issue is due to the data only ???
A customer wants us to create an ajax-enabled web application that can be used to manage their IT environment (Active directory, mail, file security, ...). However, as the team that will support the web application does not know anything about these IT systems, they would like to split the coding so that all interfacing with the IT environment is done via PowerShell, which is known by the administrators of these systems. This would mean that if new functionality is required, the web team can just create an additional web page and interface and use PowerShell scripts that get created by technically skilled people in that specific topic (ie mail administrators). I don't see an issue using this approach for requests like adding a user where latency is not an issue, but I do wonder if this is feasible for interactive content with Ajax.
Ie I would like to implement a google suggest like search for AD users. This would mean that ie for every x keystrokes (or x seconds whatever approach I implement) an Ajax request will be made and the web application or web service will than use PowerShell to get the data. Taken into account that up to about 75 users can use this feature, is this something that would work? Not only performace-wise but also the number of connections (I read about the Powershell 5 remote session limit but also that it could be put to a higher number)? The example above is probably the most resource heavy Ajax requests (and can be optimized by caching), so taken into account they don't want this nice feature, are basic PowerShell scripts in ajax request really an option. My gut feeling is telling me this is a no-go, but I don't want to exclude the option just because it's not something I usually would do.
