I am new to Windows Server AppFabric Cache.
Does anyone know how to implement AppFabric cache using AppFabric hosting services and caching services with help of WF and WCF...?
Or is there any good and simple tutorial/ebooks for AppFabric implementation.....?
What is difference between AppFabric hosting and caching services..?
Our requirement is to convert an existing asp.net cache to AppFabric cache in order to reduce DB read/write overhead. Can we achieve this with limited code change...?
Thanks.
Here is a link to AppFabric product documentation:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh351389.aspx
Hey, have you also looked into NCache for your caching needs? NCache is a very feature rich
distributed caching solution for .NET applications and much more powerful than
AppFabric, especially in your case when you want to reduce the database overhead. Whereas, AppFabric has limited set of topologies (architectures), Ncache provides numerous topologies according to your application needs in terms of high-availability and fault-tolerance
I know that NCache provides all of ASP.NET Cache features like Cache Dependency and
SqlDependency which AppFabric does not.
Related
I am new to web development in general.
I am developing a social media website (very much like twitter) using django rest framework as backend and react as front end. I am going to deploy the app to Heroku.
Now, I just heard about this thing called memcached and redis. So, what is the usecase here? Should I use it or It's just for high traffic websites?
Cache in generally called in-memory cache, which store data primarily in memory(like memcached and Redis), and will provide faster way for data access in heavy traffic case.
And Cache-database consistency is always been an issue as you do have multiple different data sources. There are some good solutions to improve it but it still not perfect in sync.
So based on your read/write traffic, if db can handle the traffic perfectly and no performance issue, you don't need to consider cache(most of the productive database also have caching, like MySQL, or DynamoDB). And if db cannot handle your traffic, you should consider using cache.
This is about a Reporting Server solution.
I need some advice to choose a product, which will hold a SQL Database Server and a Web Service App (one that will make a call to a stored procedure and run an SSIS package - not much processing here -) and SSRS. I'm not familiar with this, it needs to be available 24/7, as I said there's no much processing just synchronizing data (few hundreds of thousands of records), what do you suggest me?
Requirements:
SQL Server Enterprise 2017: this will hold the database and execute
the SSIS package.
We have an SSIS package that will be executed from a .Net Web Service app which will execute a Stored Procedure on users demand.
The Server needs to run Reporting Services (SSRS).
Considerations:
Storage: Database will hold around 750K records (all text).
Bandwidth: There will be synchronization (data retrieval or updates
only) with an external system.
Use: the client has asked to consider a dedicated instance since they
will use it at their own discretion.
Now the only issue is, as far as I know, we can't call a Stored Procedure from the outside system (outside the server), or at least I have not found a way to do that, that's why I want to host both solutions in one place, so the Web Service App can call the Stored Procedure Locally.
So now I'm wondering, what should I do? should I leverage a full VM? how much will cost?
If you want to do PaaS and not have to manage infrastructure, take a look at the Azure App Service Environment is an Azure App Service feature that provides a fully isolated and dedicated environment for securely running App Service apps at high scale. This capability can host your:
Windows web apps
Linux web apps
Docker containers
Mobile apps
Functions
For SQL you can use Azure SQL Database Managed instance,a new deployment option of Azure SQL Database, providing near 100% compatibility with the latest SQL Server on-premises (Enterprise Edition) Database Engine, providing a native virtual network (VNet) implementation that addresses common security concerns, and a business model favorable for on-premises SQL Server customers. This is a fully isolated instance of SQL server.
I suggest you host a static site on blob, an Azure function on consumption model to make calls to SQL database and a SQL database. Of course, there are alternative architecture you can use, however all depends on detailed requirements.
Start to learn and use appfabric cache.
From the whitepaper, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg186017%28v=azure.10%29.aspx, it says:
Bulk get calls result in better network utilization.Direct cache access is much faster than proxies (ASP.NET, WCF).
I am not sure what this means. What is a proxy in appfabric world?
We do websites base on asp.net/mvc, so if we write some logic to access our abpfabric cluster, it will be called from asp.net/mvc code?
Many Thanks
If you look at the document refernced by that page it explains what is meant by caching:
In some cases, the cache client is wrapped and accessed via a proxy
with additional application or domain logic. Oftentimes, performance
of such applications is much different from the Windows Server
AppFabric Cache cluster itself. The goal of the tests in this category
is to show performance of a middle tier application with additional
logic and compare it with performance of direct access to the cache.
To accomplish the goal, a simple WCF application was implemented that
provided access to the cache and contained additional logic of
populating the cache from an external data source if the requested
object is not yet in the cache.
The document contains details on how this affected performance, but if you need more detail the source code used is available.
Using the DataCacheFactory (and/or AppFabric Session provider) from your MVC site will access the cache cluster directly, once you've granted access to the Application Pool user.
I am very interested in the replacment ASP.NET Session Manager portion of Appfabric, and somewhat interested in the distributed cache manager. We don't have a need for its hosting features. While we do have a clustered SQLServer inhouse, adding that as a dependency for our aspnet/oracle application probably would not be well received.
There is a network based XML file option that the appfabric videos suggest is okay for small deployments, which we would be (one 2-node farn, one 5-node farm).
So are there any success stories w/o SQLServer on the backend? Would a DFS network share prove reliable enough for Appfabric instead of SQLServer?
I think this is precisely the situation where the AppFabric team intended the XML provider to be used i.e. where SQL Server is not available/not desired. I doubt that there are any case studies available yet where this has been done, purely because AppFabric is so new that they haven't been written yet. However I don't believe there are any quirks to using the XML provider over the SQL provider - all I can suggest is try it and see! You could always switch over to SQL Server at a later date if the XML provider proves problematic. Or if you're felling brave, you should be able to write an Oracle provider (though the documentation on this seems, um, sketchy).
I'm planing to deploy a django powered site. But I feel confused about the choice of web servers, which includes apache, lighttpd, nginx and others.
I've read some articles about the performance of each of these choice. But it seems no one agrees. So I'm wondering why not test the performance by myself?
I can't find information about the best approach to performance testing web servers. So my questions are:
Is there any easy approach to test the performance without the production site?
Or can I have a method to simulate the heavy traffic to have a fair test?
How can I keep my test fair and close to production situation?
After the test, I want to figure out:
Why some ones say nginx has a better performance when serving static files.
The cpu and memory needs of each web server.
My best choice.
Tools like ab are commonly used towards testing how much load you can take from a battering of requests at once, alongside cacti/munin/your system monitoring tool or choice you can generate data on system load & requests/sec. The problem with this is many people benchmarking don't realise that they need to request a lot of different requests, as different parts of your code executes it will take varying amounts of time. Profiling and benchmarking code and not requests is also important, to which plenty of folk have already done so for django, benchrun is also not a bad tool either.
The other issue, is how many HTTP requests each page view takes. The less amount of requests, and the quicker they can be processed is the key to having websites that can sustain a high amount of traffic, as the quicker you can finish and close connections, the quicker you allocate resources for new ones.
In terms of general speed of web servers, it goes without saying that a proxy server (running reverse at your end) will always perform faster than a webserver with static content. As for Apache vs nginx in regards to your django app, it seems that mod_python is indeed faster than nginx/lighty + FastCGI but that's no surprise because CGI, regardless of any speed ups is still slow. Executing and caching code at the webserver and letting it manage it is always faster (mod_perl vs use CGI, mod_php vs CGI, etc) if you do it right.
Apache JMeter is an excellent tool for stress-testing web applications. It can be used with any web server, not just Apache.
You need to set up the web server + website of your choice on a machine somewhere, preferably a physical machine with similar hardware specs to the one you will eventually be deploying to.
You then need to use a load testing framework, for example The Grinder (free), to simulate many users using your site at the same time.
The load testing framework should be on separate machine(s) and you should monitor the network and CPU usage of those machines as well to make sure that the limiting factor of your testing is in fact the web server and not your load injectors.
Other than that its just about altering the content and monitoring response times, throughput, memory and CPU use etc... to see how they change depending on what web server you use and what sort of content you are hosting.