In my website I am using thread to perform the function which downloads the CSV from a website and parses the data into the database.
Now if I am not able to stop the thread then what could be the impact on the performance?
Also If I unknowingly start another thread then would it impact my website's performance?
In my website, I am using thread to perform a repetitive process in background. Now the process takes around 30 to 45 seconds to update the database.
Basically the function performs the following:
1) Download the CSV from a website.
2) Parse the CSV and update the database tables.
I want to optimize the performance and decrease the time it takes to 15 seconds.
How can I do this?
EDIT:
Here is the Code:
[code]....
Bit of a long shot, but is there a way in ASP.NET to dynamically get the website's URL [URL] when there is no HttpContext.Current available.
There is no HttpContext because the code is running in a background thread* (but under the ASP.NET AppDomain). I have a background process that sends emails out every evening, and needs to include the Web address, but I don't want to hard code it because of deployments and testing (it changes from [URL] to[URL] and then to [URL] for the live site).
i want a continously running thread in my web application for sending mail to admin if the logged complaint of the user in not solved by technician within 24 hours.
i am able to send mail to administrator
i just want a watch on database for unsolved issues with timespan of more than 24 hours and inform to administrator about the same
I would like to know the performance impact of using the culture invariant resources instead of culture specific ones.
For example, we plan to deploy a website and not have any en-US resources. This is because our culture invariant resources are always identical to the en-US resources.
When adding a new page or user control to an ASP.NET webforms application, the code-behind class contains an empty Page_Load() event handler:
public partial class Default : System.Web.UI.Page
{
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
}
I have an existing web app, where many pages and controls still contain these empty event handlers (they are not used).
Question: Is there any performance impact due to these empty event handlers and should they therefore be removed from all pages and controls?
Does putting multiple classes in one file impact performance? Has anyone had any experience with this.
I've read various discussions around application structure and logic of where code can be found with regard to design best practice but little has been said as whether there is any negative/positive/neutral impact on performance.
I tried to find out about subject but with no success. The point is that in the beginning I've made many user controls. My site is too slow. I have not idea yet if it is because of user controls.
View 7 RepliesI need an explanation regarding some advice I got on this site. I'm doing a newsletter sending app, and I have my mail sent in a seperate thread so the process doesn't slow down the whole web site. A couple of people advised me to set the threads IsBackground property to true. I did this, but was also courious about what this does, so I googled a bit.
As it turns out, setting the IsBackground property to true indicates that "it's okay if the process shuts down while this thread is still running.". Or as microsoft puts it "Any remaining background threads are stopped and do not complete." I don't know if I got this the wrong way but, wouldn't it be better to leave the IsBackground property to false, so that the spawned thread can complete its work regarding the main thread?
I have developed a website in asp.net framework 2 . This website is being hosted in two different servers without any change in code. My issue is about the performance of these 2 sites. One website is taking much time for inserting datas to the DB (SQL server 2005). 2 websites are having different DB server.
I think the issue is for the DB server. How can we rectify the DB performance while insertion and Is there any other cause for this permance issue?
I'm trying to find the best server architecture solution to deploy monthly updates to an Asp.net external public facing website. What I'm looking for are ways to release a new version of a website with minimal impact to users. Besides deploying the standard way (ie. stop IIS, copy new website over existing website, start IIS), what are some "better" solutions for deployment out there? It would be nice if they kept their session and didn't have to see a "Website under maintenance" message during the update. My server configuration
We have 2 IIS web servers (2003) and are trying to figure out the best way to utilize them for deployments. My first thought was to update the non-active web server with the latest release. Then to gracefully point the web traffic to that server with minimal impact to users (best case, the user doesn't lose his session). How would you go about "repointing" the web traffic from server 1 to server 2? Changing firewall NAT? Changing DNS records? Some other way?? We need to be able to test the live site immediately after we release the new changes (duh). BTW, we are using nant and cruise control to automate the builds, and a custom web service to deploy the build to production. So it's all automated with the click of a button. Could a better solution be achieved using a 3rd server? If so how?
The following code is part of a WCF service. Will eventWatcher take up a thread in the ASP .NET thread pool, even if it is set IsBackground = true?
[code].....
I have a thread running in the background that will sleep and pull data from the database when something wakes it up. I am sending the emails using google apps using SmtpClient (code below).
I wanted to know if there is anything i be aware of? I plan to send only one email at a time (a registration or forgot password email). I am a little worried something can happen like an invalid email locking up the thread because i didnt set a timeout or maybe google apps happen to be done and causing the app to blow up. What should i be aware off? I should ask how i should test as well?
[code]....
I was reading Walkthrough: Creating an Asynchronous HTTP Handler and noticed they pass the HttpContext from the handler thread and use it in a WaitCallback which runs on a background thread. It makes calls like _context.Response.Write(). Am I correct in assuming that this doesn't violate the fact that HttpContext is not thread safe because the handler thread will not be using it after the async work has started?
Also, Using an HTTPContext across threads has some good information about HttpContext and threads. Is all of HttpContext not thread safe, or just items like Response? Can multiple background threads access the Items property, if only in read mode?
In my app I am using the open xml sdk to generate a word document and write the file to the response.output stream for the user to download.
At the time that the letter is generated I also need to call a SP via linq data context to update a row in my db.
I think that I need to execute this SP in a seperate thread so that I can simultaneouly write the file to the output. my method looks like this...
protected void btnPrint_Click(object sender, EventArge e)
{
//call sp to update
//create letter and send to client
}
Is this feasible or should I avoid seperate threads?
I have a web service that uses ThreadPool to delegate a task to a thread but it runs on ASPNET (System.Environment.UserName) while the main thread runs as windows account. How can I make this thread run with same windows account. Note that I have impersonate=true in web.config. This is causing problems accessing database.
View 1 RepliesI have a problem with a Model Popup Extender that monitoring a background thread.
I need to give feedback to the user about tasks that happend in the server side.
So searching on internet this give me a solution [URL]
Launch a thread, passing the Session variable, update a flag and a mesage and show the info in the web with a timer.
almost all, is fine, in one server (sadly, close to production) after the task (and thread) is completed, the Session variable is set to null and the user is redirected to a "Session Expired" Page.
[code].....
I noticed that this is a very slow server and some websites are very slow.
Session is managed with cookies and the timeout is set to 30 min.
I want to start a new thread to query a database while my web application continues running. I was under the impression that by using threads I can run the querying process independently while the normal web application page cycle carries on, but I could be wrong.
public class DbAsyncQuery
{
Dictionary<string, object> serviceResults = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public void UpdateBillingDB()
{
QueryAllServices();
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, object> p in serviceResults)
{
IEnumerable results = (IEnumerable)p.Value;
IEnumerable<object> sessions = results.Cast<object>();
DbUtil.MakeBillingDBEntry(sessions, p.Key);
}
}
public static string[] servicesToQuery = new string[] // Must go in config file ultimately
{
"xxx.x.xxx.xx"
};
public delegate void Worker();
private Thread worker;
public void InitializeThread(Worker wrk)
{
worker = new Thread(new ThreadStart(wrk));
worker.Start();
}
public void InitializeQuery()
{
Worker worker = QueryAllServices;
InitializeThread(worker);
}
private void QueryAllServices()
{
Dictionary<string, DateTime> lastEntries = DbUtil.GetLastEntries();
foreach (string ip in servicesToQuery)
{
string fullServicePath =
"http://" + ip + ":800/MyWebService.asmx";
//object[] lastEntry = new object[] { lastEntries[ip] };
object[] lastEntry = new object[] { new DateTime(2011, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0) };
object obj = WebServiceHandler.CallWebService
(fullServicePath, "MyWebService", "GetBillingDBEntries", lastEntry);
serviceResults.Add(ip, obj);
}
}
}
It seems to basically stall and wait to finish the query before loading the page (which can be thousands of rows, so it takes awhile). I put this in the following section of Global.asax:
protected void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
DbAsyncQuery query = new DbAsyncQuery();
query.UpdateBillingDB();
}
This is one of my first web pages, and I'm new to threading. I understand there is a difference between creating your own thread and using the ThreadPool. In this method, I am using my own thread, I think. Not sure if that's the best way. The querying process can be completely independent, and its only going to occur on scheduled intervals (every 8 hours or so). The user doesn't need to have up to the minute data, so it can take awhile. I just don't want the site to wait for it to finish, if that's possible.
There's a web app I've been assigned to, which is running very slow. It is a site that sells products so it is database driven, however even pages that do not query the database are loading very slow. The pages use master pages, and the code is in VB.NETI checked with fiddler and the time it takes to load basic (non database driven) pages are about 5.5 seconds on average.
What are some tools that can help me determine the cause of the slow speeds, and any recommendations as to how to speed it up, or potential issues that could cause it?UpdateSo I messed around with the code piece by piece as I wasn't getting anywhere with these tools. As soon as I remove master pages, and I include the same code that's on the master pages in the .aspx page itself, the speed improves drastically (approximately 5 times faster load times).What might cause the master pages to cause load times to slow down so much?
I want to remove checked items from checklistbox (winform control) in class file method which i am calling asynchronously using deletegate. but it showing me this error message:-
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'checkedListBox1' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.
i have tried invoke required but again got the same error. Sample code is below:
[code]....
I was thinking to create a timer to display the elapsed time for a long running task in my asp.net application. I was able to create the timer to run using javascript but i have a problem with it, that is, how can i maintain the elapsed time so that even the user navigate away from the page, the timer will still running and when user return to that page again, he/she still can see the timer running. Beside that, another user that access that page from another computer will also see the timer running. How i can achieve this??
View 1 RepliesHere is the simple scenario that I want to apply; There is a .NET application(console or windows) appA and this code updates a large global variable(+50MB) in the project every 30sec. I have another application appB which is a .NET web application and I want to be able to access the updated value of global variable in appA from appB whenever I want.
View 3 RepliesI want to be able to run an ASP.NET application when a file is upload via FTP. I understand how to use the filewatcher class to monitor the directory but I don't know where to put the code so it is always running.
Files will be uploaded once per month for each group of users of the system and the next time the user logs on after the upload I would like the application to reflect the new data. I don't want to check for a new upload when each user logs on because the processing could take a log time.
The uploads are automatic from multiple other computer systems and not done by any user.
The Application is hosted (by GoDaddy) so I don't have full control of the server.
Is there any way to have a process running all the time in the background and if so how? The application is written in VB.net.
I have a web application that initializes a third-party com application to perform few calculations. The website is deployed on a windows 2008 server (standard edition).
The problem I have been facing is that when I am logged in to the server (Remote Desktop Connection only as the server is not local), the com application initializes fine. But when I log-off or just close the remote desktop connection, the application doesn't get initialized. I have searched for a solution and found this:
[URL]
I created the scheduled task as I didn't know how to create the windows service (the description at
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/251192 is too confusing), and got the application to run when windows starts before even the user logs-in. But in even in this case, the application doesn't work unless the user is logged in and when I log-in, a second instance is created (with exactly the same user (admin)) and the original instance is never used.
I cannot get the application to run without logging off or atleast having to close the remote desktop connection.Is there anything I am doing wrong?
We have an ASP.NET / Silveright web application. The silverlight client displays user specific data in a graphical form - it requests the data from the server: Problem: Getting this data is expensive, due to the underlying database queries that the server has to perform - so the client has to wait... Optimisation Idea: We run the database queries at regular intervals on the server, writing the results to a 'userdata' table in a database 'close' to where the ASP.NET server runs. The process of running the queries and writing the data to the tables is performed by a 'data collection' service, which is separated from the ASP.NET server.
When the client requests data the server retrieves it from a 'userdata' table. This should be nice and quick - we probably have the 'userdata' tables on the same machine as the ASP.NET server. We also have the added benefit that the client sees data even if the underlying database is offline. Of course the data is not live - but all data is potentially old as soon as it reaches the client. So now my Problem: The 'data collection' service needs the user credentials in order to perform these database queries (because each user gets different results for the same query).
How can I store user credentials in a database, in an acceptable 'secure' way? Such that the 'data collection' can impersonate a user to perform the database queries. Our initial scenario is based upon using windows integrated login to the database.