Develop Reference

Odd Behavior of Azure Service Bus ReceiveBatch()

Working with a Azure Service Bus Topic currently and running into an issue receiving my messages using ReceiveBatch method. The issue is that the expected results are not actually the results that I am getting. Here is the basic code setup, use cases are below:
SubscriptionClient client = SubscriptionClient.CreateFromConnectionString(connectionString, convoTopic, subName);
IEnumerable<BrokeredMessage> messageList = client.ReceiveBatch(100);
foreach (BrokeredMessage message in messageList)
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine(message.GetBody<string>() + message.MessageId);
message.Complete();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
message.Abandon();
}
}
client.Close();
MessageBox.Show("Done");
Using the above code, if I send 4 messages, then poll on the first run through I get the first message. On the second run through I get the other 3. I'm expecting to get all 4 at the same time. It seems to always return a singular value on the first poll then the rest on subsequent polls. (same result with 3 and 5 where I get n-1 of n messages sent on the second try and 1 message on the first try).
If I have 0 messages to receive, the operation takes between ~30-60 seconds to get the messageList (that has a 0 count). I need this to return instantly.
If I change the code to IEnumerable<BrokeredMessage> messageList = client.ReceiveBatch(100, new Timespan(0,0,0)); then issue #2 goes away because issue 1 still persists where I have to call the code twice to get all the messages.
I'm assuming that issue #2 is because of a default timeout value which I overwrite in #3 (though I find it confusing that if a message is there it immediately responds without waiting the default time). I am not sure why I never receive the full amount of messages in a single ReceiveBatch however.

The way I got ReceiveBatch() to work properly was to do two things.
Disable Partitioning in the Topic (I had to make a new topic for this because you can't toggle that after creation)
Enable Batching on each subscription created like so:
List item
SubscriptionDescription sd = new SubscriptionDescription(topicName, orgSubName);
sd.EnableBatchedOperations = true;
After I did those two things, I was able to get the topics to work as intended using IEnumerable<BrokeredMessage> messageList = client.ReceiveBatch(100, new TimeSpan(0,0,0));

I'm having a similar problem with an ASB Queue. I discovered that I could mitigate it somewhat by increasing the PrefetchCount on the client prior to receiving the batch:
SubscriptionClient client = SubscriptionClient.CreateFromConnectionString(connectionString, convoTopic, subName);
client.PrefetchCount = 100;
IEnumerable<BrokeredMessage> messageList = client.ReceiveBatch(100);
From the Azure Service Bus Best Practices for Performance Improvements Using Service Bus Brokered Messaging:
Prefetching enables the queue or subscription client to load additional messages from the service when it performs a receive operation.
...
When using the default lock expiration of 60 seconds, a good value for
SubscriptionClient.PrefetchCount is 20 times the maximum processing rates of all receivers of the factory. For example, a factory creates 3 receivers, and each receiver can process up to 10 messages per second. The prefetch count should not exceed 20*3*10 = 600.
...
Prefetching messages increases the overall throughput for a queue or subscription because it reduces the overall number of message operations, or round trips. Fetching the first message, however, will take longer (due to the increased message size). Receiving prefetched messages will be faster because these messages have already been downloaded by the client.

Just a few more pieces to the puzzle. I still couldn't get it to work even after Enable Batching and Disable Partitioning - I still had to do two ReceiveBatch calls. I did find however:
Restarting the Service Bus services (I am using Service Bus for Windows Server) cleared up the issue for me.
Doing a single RecieveBatch and taking no action (letting the message locks expire) and then doing another ReceiveBatch caused all of the messages to come through at the same time. (Doing an initial ReceiveBatch and calling Abandon on all of the messages didn't cause that behavior.)
So it appears to be some sort of corruption/bug in Service Bus's in-memory cache.

MVC 5 / .NET 4.5 - Long running process

I have a website on Rackspace which does calculation, the calculation can take anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes. Originally I implemented this with SignalR but had to yank it due to excessive CC usage. Hosted Rackspace sites are really not designed for that kind of use. The Bill went though the roof.
The basic code is as below which work perfectly on my test server but of course gets a timeout error on Rackspace if the calculation take more than 30 seconds due to their watcher killing it. (old code) I have been told that the operation must write to the stream to keep it alive. In the days of old I would have started a thread and polled the site until the thread was done. If there is a better way I would prefer to take it.
It seems that with .NET 4.5 I can use the HttpTaskAsyncHandler to accomplish this. But I'm not getting it. The (new code) below is as I understand the handler you would use by taking the old code in the using and placing it in the ProcessRequestAsync task. When I attempt to call the CalcHandler / Calc I get a 404 error which most likely has to do with routing. I was trying to follow this link but could not get it to work either. The add name is "myHandler" but the example link is "feed", how did we get from one to the other. They mentioned they created a class library but can the code be in the same project as the current code, how?
http://codewala.net/2012/04/30/asynchronous-httphandlers-with-asp-net-4-5/
As a side note, will the HttpTaskAsyncHandler allow me to keep the request alive until it is completed if it takes several minutes? Basically should I use something else for what I am trying to accomplish.
Old code
[Authorize]
[AsyncTimeout(5000)] // does not do anything on RackSpace
public async Task<JsonResult> Calculate(DataModel data)
{
try
{
using (var db = new ApplicationDbContext())
{
var result = await CalcualteResult(data);
return Json(result, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LcDataLink.ProcessError(ex);
}
return Json(null, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
}
new code
public class CalcHandler : HttpTaskAsyncHandler
{
public override System.Threading.Tasks.Task ProcessRequestAsync(HttpContext context)
{
Console.WriteLine("test");
return new Task(() => System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000));
}
}

It's not a best approach. Usually you need to create a separate process ("worker role" in Azure).
This process will handle long-time operations and save result to the database. With SignalR (or by calling api method every 20 seconds) you will update the status of this operation on client side (your browser).
If this process takes too much time to calculate, your server will become potentially vulnerable to DDoS attacks.
Moreover, it depends on configuration, but long-running operations could be killed by the server itself. By default, if I'm not mistaken, after 30 minutes of execution.

How to calculate the time consumed by network transfer in c# [duplicate]

I'm working on a C# Server application for a game engine I'm writing in ActionScript 3. I'm using an authoritative server model as to prevent cheating and ensure fair game. So far, everything works well:
When the client begins moving, it tells the server and starts rendering locally; the server, then, tells everyone else that client X has began moving, among with details so they can also begin rendering. When the client stops moving, it tells the server, which performs calculations based on the time the client began moving and the client render tick delay and replies to everyone, so they can update with the correct values.
The thing is, when I use the default 20ms tick delay on server calculations, when the client moves for a rather long distance, there's a noticeable tilt forward when it stops. If I increase slightly the delay to 22ms, on my local network everything runs very smoothly, but in other locations, the tilt is still there. After experimenting a little, I noticed that the extra delay needed is pretty much tied to the latency between client and server. I even boiled it down to a formula that would work quite nicely: delay = 20 + (latency / 10).
So, how would I proceed to obtain the latency between a certain client and the server (I'm using asynchronous sockets). The CPU effort can't be too much, as to not have the server run slowly. Also, is this really the best way, or is there a more efficient/easier way to do this?

Sorry that this isn't directly answering your question, but generally speaking you shouldn't rely too heavily on measuring latency because it can be quite variable. Not only that, you don't know if the ping time you measure is even symmetrical, which is important. There's no point applying 10ms of latency correction if it turns out that the ping time of 20ms is actually 19ms from server to client and 1ms from client to server. And latency in application terms is not the same as in networking terms - you may be able to ping a certain machine and get a response in 20ms but if you're contacting a server on that machine that only processes network input 50 times a second then your responses will be delayed by an extra 0 to 20ms, and this will vary rather unpredictably.
That's not to say latency measurement it doesn't have a place in smoothing predictions out, but it's not going to solve your problem, just clean it up a bit.
On the face of it, the problem here seems to be that that you're sent information in the first message which you use to extrapolate data from until the last message is received. If all else stays constant then the movement vector given in the first message multiplied by the time between the messages will give the server the correct end position that the client was in at roughly now-(latency/2). But if the latency changes at all, the time between the messages will grow or shrink. The client may know he's moved 10 units, but the server simulated him moving 9 or 11 units before being told to snap him back to 10 units.
The general solution to this is to not assume that latency will stay constant but to send periodic position updates, which allow the server to verify and correct the client's position. With just 2 messages as you have now, all the error is found and corrected after the 2nd message. With more messages, the error is spread over many more sample points allowing for smoother and less visible correction.
It can never be perfect though: all it takes is a lag spike in the last millisecond of movement and the server's representation will overshoot. You can't get around that if you're predicting future movement based on past events, as there's no real alternative to choosing either correct-but-late or incorrect-but-timely since information takes time to travel. (Blame Einstein.)

One thing to keep in mind when using ICMP based pings is that networking equipment will often give ICMP traffic lower priority than normal packets, especially when the packets cross network boundaries such as WAN links. This can lead to pings being dropped or showing higher latency than traffic is actually experiencing and lends itself to being an indicator of problems rather than a measurement tool.
The increasing use of Quality of Service (QoS) in networks only exacerbates this and as a consequence though ping still remains a useful tool, it needs to be understood that it may not be a true reflection of the network latency for non-ICMP based real traffic.
There is a good post at the Itrinegy blog How do you measure Latency (RTT) in a network these days? about this.

You could use the already available Ping Class. Should be preferred over writing your own IMHO.

Have a "ping" command, where you send a message from the server to the client, then time how long it takes to get a response. Barring CPU overload scenarios, it should be pretty reliable. To get the one-way trip time, just divide the time by 2.

We can measure the round-trip time using the Ping class of the .NET Framework.
Instantiate a Ping and subscribe to the PingCompleted event:
Ping pingSender = new Ping();
pingSender.PingCompleted += PingCompletedCallback;
Add code to configure and action the ping.
Our PingCompleted event handler (PingCompletedEventHandler) has a PingCompletedEventArgs argument. The PingCompletedEventArgs.Reply gets us a PingReply object. PingReply.RoundtripTime returns the round trip time (the "number of milliseconds taken to send an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo request and receive the corresponding ICMP echo reply message"):
public static void PingCompletedCallback(object sender, PingCompletedEventArgs e)
{
...
Console.WriteLine($"Roundtrip Time: {e.Reply.RoundtripTime}");
...
}
Code-dump of a full working example, based on MSDN's example. I have modified it to write the RTT to the console:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
string who = "www.google.com";
AutoResetEvent waiter = new AutoResetEvent(false);
Ping pingSender = new Ping();
// When the PingCompleted event is raised,
// the PingCompletedCallback method is called.
pingSender.PingCompleted += PingCompletedCallback;
// Create a buffer of 32 bytes of data to be transmitted.
string data = "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa";
byte[] buffer = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(data);
// Wait 12 seconds for a reply.
int timeout = 12000;
// Set options for transmission:
// The data can go through 64 gateways or routers
// before it is destroyed, and the data packet
// cannot be fragmented.
PingOptions options = new PingOptions(64, true);
Console.WriteLine("Time to live: {0}", options.Ttl);
Console.WriteLine("Don't fragment: {0}", options.DontFragment);
// Send the ping asynchronously.
// Use the waiter as the user token.
// When the callback completes, it can wake up this thread.
pingSender.SendAsync(who, timeout, buffer, options, waiter);
// Prevent this example application from ending.
// A real application should do something useful
// when possible.
waiter.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Ping example completed.");
}
public static void PingCompletedCallback(object sender, PingCompletedEventArgs e)
{
// If the operation was canceled, display a message to the user.
if (e.Cancelled)
{
Console.WriteLine("Ping canceled.");
// Let the main thread resume.
// UserToken is the AutoResetEvent object that the main thread
// is waiting for.
((AutoResetEvent)e.UserState).Set();
}
// If an error occurred, display the exception to the user.
if (e.Error != null)
{
Console.WriteLine("Ping failed:");
Console.WriteLine(e.Error.ToString());
// Let the main thread resume.
((AutoResetEvent)e.UserState).Set();
}
Console.WriteLine($"Roundtrip Time: {e.Reply.RoundtripTime}");
// Let the main thread resume.
((AutoResetEvent)e.UserState).Set();
}
You might want to perform several pings and then calculate an average, depending on your requirements of course.

Load testing a website

I am currently writing a small application to load test a website and am having a few problems.
List<string> pageUrls = new List<string();
// NOT SHOWN ... populate the pageUrls with thousands of links
var parallelOptions = new System.Threading.Tasks.ParallelOptions();
parallelOptions.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 100;
System.Threading.Tasks.Parallel.ForEach(pageUrls, parallelOptions, pageUrl =>
{
var startedOn = DateTime.UtcNow;
var request = System.Net.HttpWebRequest.Create(pageUrl);
var responseTimeBefore = DateTime.UtcNow;
try
{
var response = (System.Net.HttpWebResponse)request.GetResponse();
responseCode = response.StatusCode.ToString();
response.Close();
}
catch (System.Net.WebException ex)
{
// NOT SHOWN ... write to the error log
}
var responseTimeAfter = DateTime.UtcNow;
var responseDuration = responseTimeAfter - responseTimeBefore;
// NOT SHOWN ... write the response duration out to a file
var endedOn = DateTime.UtcNow;
var threadDuration = endedOn - startedOn;
// sleep for one second
var oneSecond = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 1);
if (threadDuration < oneSecond)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(oneSecond - threadDuration);
}
}
);
When I set the MaxDegreeOfParallelism to a low value such as 10 everything works fine, the responseDuration stays between 1 and 3 seconds. If I increase the value to 100 (as in the example) the responseDuration climbs quickly until after around 300 requests the it has reached 25 seconds (and still climbing).
I thought I may be doing something wrong so I also ran Apache jMeter with the standard web test plan setup and set the users to 100. After about 300 samples the response times had rocketed to around 40 seconds.
I'm skeptical that my server is reaching its limit. The task manager on the server shows that only 2GB of the 16GB is being used and the processor hangs around 5% effort.
Could I be hitting some limit on the number of simultaneous connections on my client computer? If so, how do I change this?
Am I forgetting to do something in my code? Clean-up/close connections?
Could it be that my code is OK and it is in fact my server that just can't handle the traffic?
For reference my client computer that is running the code above is running Windows 7 and is on the same network as the server I am testing. The server is running Windows Server 2008 IIS 7.5 and is a dedicated 8-core 16GB RAM machine.

MaxDegreeOfParallelism should be used only when you are trying to limit the number of cores to be used as part of your program strategy.
By default, Parallel library utilizes the most number of available threads - so setting this option to any number mostly will limit the performance depending on the environment running it.
I would suggest you to try running this code without setting this option and that should improve the performance.
ParallelOptions.MaxDegreeOfParallelism Property in MSDN - read remarks section for more information.

Several suggestions:
How large is your recorded Jmeter test script and did you insert some think time? The larger the test, the heavier the load.
Make sure the LAN is not in use by competing traffic during test runs. Having a Gigabit ethernet switch should be mandatory.
Do use 2-3 slave machines and avoid using heavy results loggers in Jmeter like tree.You were right to minimize these graphs and results.

Optimizing download of multiple web pages. C#

I am developing an app where I need to download a bunch of web pages, preferably as fast as possible. The way that I do that right now is that I have multiple threads (100's) that have their own System.Net.HttpWebRequest. This sort of works, but I am not getting the performance I would like. Currently I have a beefy 600+ Mb/s connection to work with, and this is only utilized at most 10% (at peaks). I guess my strategy is flawed, but I am unable to find any other good way of doing this.
Also: If the use of HttpWebRequest is not a good way to download web pages, please say so :)
The code has been semi-auto-converted from java.
Thanks :)
Update:
public String getPage(String link){
myURL = new System.Uri(link);
myHttpConn = (System.Net.HttpWebRequest)System.Net.WebRequest.Create(myURL);
myStreamReader = new System.IO.StreamReader(new System.IO.StreamReader(myHttpConn.GetResponse().GetResponseStream(),
System.Text.Encoding.Default).BaseStream,
new System.IO.StreamReader(myHttpConn.GetResponse().GetResponseStream(),
System.Text.Encoding.Default).CurrentEncoding);
System.Text.StringBuilder buffer = new System.Text.StringBuilder();
//myLineBuff is a String
while ((myLineBuff = myStreamReader.ReadLine()) != null)
{
buffer.Append(myLineBuff);
}
return buffer.toString();
}

One problem is that it appears you're issuing each request twice:
myStreamReader = new System.IO.StreamReader(
new System.IO.StreamReader(
myHttpConn.GetResponse().GetResponseStream(),
System.Text.Encoding.Default).BaseStream,
new System.IO.StreamReader(myHttpConn.GetResponse().GetResponseStream(),
System.Text.Encoding.Default).CurrentEncoding);
It makes two calls to GetResponse. For reasons I fail to understand, you're also creating two stream readers. You can split that up and simplify it, and also do a better job of error handling...
var response = (HttpWebResponse)myHttpCon.GetResponse();
myStreamReader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.Default)
That should double your effective throughput.
Also, you probably want to make sure to dispose of the objects you're using. When you're downloading a lot of pages, you can quickly run out of resources if you don't clean up after yourself. In this case, you should call response.Close(). See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.httpwebresponse.close.aspx

I am adding this answer as another possibility which people may encounter when
downloading from multiple servers using multi-threaded apps
using Windows XP or Vista as the operating system
The tcpip.sys driver for these operating systems has a limit of 10 outbound connections per second. This is a rate limit, not a connection limit, so you can have hundreds of connections, but you cannot initiate more than 10/s. The limit was imposed by Microsoft to curtail the spread of certain types of virus/worm. Whether such methods are effective is outside the scope of this answer.
In a multi-threaded application that downloads from multitudes of servers, this limitation can manifest as a series of timeouts. Windows puts into a queue all of the "half-open" (newly open but not yet established) connections once the 10/s limit is reached. In my application, for example, I had 20 threads ready to process connections, but I found that sometimes I would get timeouts from servers I knew were operating and reachable.
To verify that this is happening, check the operating system's event log, under System. The error is:
EventID 4226: TCP/IP has reached the security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect attempts.
There are many references to this error and plenty of patches and fixes to apply to remove the limit. However because this problem is frequently encountered by P2P (Torrent) users, there's quite a prolific amount of malware disguised as this patch.
I have a requirement to collect data from over 1200 servers (that are actually data sensors) on 5-minute intervals. I initially developed the application (on WinXP) to reuse 20 threads repeatedly to crawl the list of servers and aggregate the data into a SQL database. Because the connections were initiated based on a timer tick event, this error happened often because at their invocation, none of the connections are established, thus 10 are immediately queued.
Note that this isn't a problem necessarily, because as connections are established, those queued are then processed. However if non-queued connections are slow to establish, that time can negatively impact the timeout limits of the queued connections (in my experience). The result, looking at my application log file, was that I would see a batch of connections that timed out, followed by a majority of connections that were successful. Opening a web browser to test "timed out" connections was confusing, because the servers were available and quick to respond.
I decided to try HEX editing the tcpip.sys file, which was suggested on a guide at speedguide.net. The checksum of my file differed from the guide (I had SP3 not SP2) and comments in the guide weren't necessarily helpful. However, I did find a patch that worked for SP3 and noticed an immediate difference after applying it.
From what I can find, Windows 7 does not have this limitation, and since moving the application to a Windows 7-based machine, the timeout problem has remained absent.

I do this very same thing, but with thousands of sensors that provide XML and Text content. Factors that will definitely affect performance are not limited to the speed and power of your bandwidth and computer, but the bandwidth and response time of each server you are contacting, the timeout delays, the size of each download, and the reliability of the remote internet connections.
As comments indicate, hundreds of threads is not necessarily a good idea. Currently I've found that running between 20 and 50 threads at a time seems optimal. In my technique, as each thread completes a download, it is given the next item from a queue.
I run a custom ThreaderEngine Class on a separate thread that is responsible for maintaining the queue of work items and assigning threads as needed. Essentially it is a while loop that iterates through an array of threads. As the threads finish, it grabs the next item from the queue and starts the thread again.
Each of my threads are actually downloading several separate items, but the method call is the same (.NET 4.0):
public static string FileDownload(string _ip, int _port, string _file, int Timeout, int ReadWriteTimeout, NetworkCredential _cred = null)
{
string uri = String.Format("http://{0}:{1}/{2}", _ip, _port, _file);
string Data = String.Empty;
try
{
HttpWebRequest Request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(uri);
if (_cred != null) Request.Credentials = _cred;
Request.Timeout = Timeout; // applies to .GetResponse()
Request.ReadWriteTimeout = ReadWriteTimeout; // applies to .GetResponseStream()
Request.Proxy = null;
Request.CachePolicy = new System.Net.Cache.RequestCachePolicy(System.Net.Cache.RequestCacheLevel.NoCacheNoStore);
using (HttpWebResponse Response = (HttpWebResponse)Request.GetResponse())
{
using (Stream dataStream = Response.GetResponseStream())
{
if (dataStream != null)
using (BufferedStream buffer = new BufferedStream(dataStream))
using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(buffer))
{
Data = reader.ReadToEnd();
}
}
return Data;
}
}
catch (AccessViolationException ave)
{
// ...
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
// ...
}
}
Using this I am able to download about 60KB each from 1200+ remote machines (72MB) in less than 5 minutes. The machine is a Core 2 Quad with 2GB RAM and utilizes four bonded T1 connections (~6Mbps).