Develop Reference

sync local files with server files

Scenario: I want to develop an application.The application should be able to connect to my remote server and download data to the local disk , while downloading it should check for new files and only download the new ones simultaneously creating the required(new) folders.
Problem: I have no idea how to compare the files in the server with the ones in the local disk.How to download only the new files from the server to the local disk?
What am thinking?: I want to sync the files in the local machine with the ones in the server. I am planning to use rsync for syncing but i have no idea how to use it with ASP.NET.
Kindly let me know if my approach is wrong or is there any other better way to accomplish this.

First you can compare the file names, then the file size and when all matches, you can compare the hashes of the files.

I call this kind of a problem a "data mastering" problem. I synchronize our databases with a Fortune 100 company throughout the week and have handled a number of business process issues.
The first rule of handling production data is not to do your users' data entry. They must be responsible for putting any business process into motion which touches production. They must understand the process and have access to logs showing what data was changed, otherwise they cannot handle issues. If you're doing this for them, then you are assuming these responsibilities. They will expect you to fix everything when problems happen, which you cannot feasibly do because IT cannot interpret business data or its relevance. For example, I handle delivery records but had to be taught that a duplicate key indicated a carrier change.
I inherited several mismanaged scenarios where IT simply dumped "newer" data into production without any further concern. Sometimes I get junk data, where I have to manually exclude incoming records from the mastering process because they have invalid negative quantities. Some of my on-hand records are more complete than incoming data, and so I have to skip synchronizing specific columns. When one application's import process simply failed, I had to put an end to complaints by creating a working update script. These are issues you need to think ahead about, because they will encourage you to organize control of each step of the synchronization process.
Synchronization steps:
Log what is there before you update
Download and compare local vs remote copies for differences; you cannot compare the two without a) having them both in the same physical location or b) controlling the other system
Log what you're updating with, and timestamp when you're updating it
Save and close the logs
Only when 1-4 are done should you post an update to production
Now as far as organizing a "mastering" process goes, which is what I call comparing the data and producing the lists of what's different, I have more experience to share. For one application, I had to restructure (decentralize) tables and reports before I could reliably compare both sources. This implies a need to understand the business data and know it is in proper form. You don't say if you're comparing PDFs, spreadsheets or images. For data, you must write a separate mastering process for each table (or worksheet), because the mastering process's comparison step may be specially shaped by business needs. Do not write one process which masters everything. Make each process controllable.
Not all information is compared the same way when imported. We get in PO and delivery data and therefore compare tens of thousands of records to determine which data points have changed, but some invoice information is simply imported without any future checks or synchronization. Business needs can even override updates and keep stale data on your end.
Each mastering process's comparer module can then be customized as needed. You'll want specific APIs when comparing file types like PDFs and spreadsheets. I use EPPlus for workbooks. Anything you cannot open has to be binary compared, of course.
A mastering process should not clean or transform the data, especially financial data. Those steps need to occur prior to mastering so that these issues are caught before mastering is begun.
My tools organize the data in 3 tabs -- Creates, Updates and Deletes -- each with DataGridViews showing the relevant records. Then I can log, review and commit changes or hand the responsibility to someone willing.
Mastering process steps:
(Clean / transform data externally)
Load data sources
Compare external to local data
Hydrate datasets indicating Creates, Updates and Deletes

Caching architecture advise for a specific scenario

SETUP:
We have a .Net application that is distributed over 6 local servers each with a local database(ORACLE), 1 main server and 1 load balance machine. Requests come to the load balancer which redirects the incoming requests to one of the 6 local servers. In certain time intervals data is gathered in the main server and redistributed to the 6 local servers to be able to make decisions with the complete data.
Each local server has a cache component that caches the incoming requests based on different parameters (Location, incoming parameters, etc). With each request a local server decides whether to go to the database (ORACLE) or get the response from the cache. However in both cases the local server has to goto the database to do 1 insert and 1 update per request.
PROBLEM:
On a peak day each local server receives 2000 requests per second and system starts slowing down (CPU: 90% ). I am trying to increase the capacity before adding another local server to the mix. After running some benchmarks the bottleneck as it always is, seems to be the inevitable 1 insert and 1 update per request to database.
TRIED METHODS
To be able decrease the frequency I have created a Windows service that sits between the DB and .NET application. It contains a pipe server and receives each insert and update from the main .NET application and saves them in a Hashtable. The new service then at certain time intervals goes to the database once to do batch inserts and updates. The point was to go to the database less frequently. Although this had a positive effect it didn't benefit to the system load as much as I expected. The most of the cpu load comes from oracle.exe as requests per second increase.
I am trying to avoid going to the database as much as I can and the only way to avoid DB seems to be increasing the cache hit ratio other than the above mentioned solution I tried. My cache hit ratio is around 81 % percent currently. Because each local machine has its own cache I am actually missing lots of cacheable requests. When two similar requests redirects to different servers the second request cannot benefit from the cached result of the first one.
I don't have a lot of experience in system architecture so I would appreciate any help to this problem. Any suggestions on different caching architectures or setup, or any tools are welcome.
Thank you in advance, hopefully I made my question clear.

For me this looks like a application for a timesten solution. In that case you can eliminate the local databases and return to just one. Where you now have the local oracle databases, you can implement a cache grid. Most likely this is going to be a AWT (Async, Write Through) cache. See Oracle In-Memory Database Cache Concepts
It's not a cheap option but if could be worth investigating.
You can keep concentrating on the business logic and have no worries about speed. This of course only works good, if the aplication code is already tuned and the sql is performant and scalable. The SQL has to be prepared (using bind variables) to have the best performance.
Your application connects to the cache and no longer to the database. You create the cache tables in the cache group for which you want to have caching. All tables in a SQL should be cached, otherwise, the complete SQL is passed through to the Oracle database. In the grid a cache fusion mechanism is in place so you have no worries about where the data in your grid is located.
In the current release support for .net is included.
The data is consistent and asynchronously updated to the Oracle database. If the data that is needed is in the cache and you take the Oracle database down, the app can keep running. As soon as the database is back again, the synchronization pick up again. Very powerful.

2000 requests per second per server, about 24000 rps to database. It's a HUGE load for DB.
Try to optimize, scaleup or clusterize database.
May be NoSQL DB (Redis\Raven\Mongo) as middleware will be suitable for you. Local server will read\write sharded NoSQL DB, aggregated data will by synchronized with Oracle off-peak times.

I know the question is old now, but I wanted let everyone know how we solved our issue.
After trying many optimizations it turned out that all we needed was Solid State Drives for the 6 local machines. The CPU dropped down to 30% percent immediately after we installed them. This is the first time that I've seen any kind of hardware update contributes this much to performance.
If you have high load setup, before making any software or architecture changes try upgrading to a SSD.
Thanks everyone for your answers.

C# + SQL Server - Fastest / Most Efficient way to read new rows into memory

I have an SQL Server 2008 Database and am using C# 4.0 with Linq to Entities classes setup for Database interaction.
There exists a table which is indexed on a DateTime column where the value is the insertion time for the row. Several new rows are added a second (~20) and I need to effectively pull them into memory so that I can display them in a GUI. For simplicity lets just say I need to show the newest 50 rows in a list displayed via WPF.
I am concerned with the load polling may place on the database and the time it will take to process new results forcing me to become a slow consumer (Getting stuck behind a backlog). I was hoping for some advice on an approach. The ones I'm considering are;
Poll the database in a tight loop (~1 result per query)
Poll the database every second (~20 results per query)
Create a database trigger for Inserts and tie it to an event in C# (SqlDependency)
I also have some options for access;
Linq-to-Entities Table Select
Raw SQL Query
Linq-to-Entities Stored Procedure
If you could shed some light on the pros and cons or suggest another way entirely I'd love to hear it.
The process which adds the rows to the table is not under my control, I wish only to read the rows never to modify or add. The most important things are to not overload the SQL Server, keep the GUI up to date and responsive and use as little memory as possible... you know, the basics ;)
Thanks!

I'm a little late to the party here, but if you have the feature on your edition of SQL Server 2008, there is a feature known as Change Data Capture that may help. Basically, you have to enable this feature both for the database and for the specific tables you need to capture. The built-in Change Data Capture process looks at the transaction log to determine what changes have been made to the table and records them in a pre-defined table structure. You can then query this table or pull results from the table into something friendlier (perhaps on another server altogether?). We are in the early stages of using this feature for a particular business requirement, and it seems to be working quite well thus far.
You would have to test whether this feature would meet your needs as far as speed, but it may help maintenance since no triggers are required and the data capture does not tie up your database tables themselves.

Rather than polling the database, maybe you can use the SQL Server Service broker and perform the read from there, even pushing which rows are new. Then you can select from the table.
The most important thing I would see here is having an index on the way you identify new rows (a timestamp?). That way your query would select the top entries from the index instead of querying the table every time.
Test, test, test! Benchmark your performance for any tactic you want to try. The biggest issues to resolve are how the data is stored and any locking and consistency issues you need to deal with.

If you table is updated constantly with 20 rows a second, then there is nothing better to do that pull every second or every few seconds. As long as you have an efficient way (meaning an index or clustered index) that can retrieve the last rows that were inserted, this method will consume the fewest resources.
IF the updates occur in burst of 20 updates per second but with significant periods of inactivity (minutes) in between, then you can use SqlDependency (which has absolutely nothing to do with triggers, by the way, read The Mysterious Notification for to udneratand how it actually works). You can mix LINQ with SqlDependency, see linq2cache.

Do you have to query to be notified of new data?
You may be better off using push notifications from a Service Bus (eg: NServiceBus).
Using notifications (i.e events) is almost always a better solution than using polling.

What is the most cost-effective way to break up a centralised database?

Following on from this question...
What to do when you’ve really screwed up the design of a distributed system?
... the client has reluctantly asked me to quote for option 3 (the expensive one), so they can compare prices to a company in India.
So, they want me to quote (hmm). In order for me to get this as accurate as possible, I will need to decide how I'm actually going to do it. Here's 3 scenarios...
Scenarios
Split the database
My original idea (perhaps the most tricky) will yield the best speed on both the website and the desktop application. However, it may require some synchronising between the two databases as the two "systems" so heavily connected. If not done properly and not tested thouroughly, I've learnt that synchronisation can be hell on earth.
Implement caching on the smallest system
To side-step the sync option (which I'm not fond of), I figured it may be more productive (and cheaper) to move the entire central database and web service to their office (i.e. in-house), and have the website (still on the hosted server) download data from the central office and store it in a small database (acting as a cache)...
Set up a new server in the customer's office (in-house).
Move the central database and web service to the new in-house server.
Keep the web site on the hosted server, but alter the web service URL so that it points to the office server.
Implement a simple cache system for images and most frequently accessed data (such as product information).
... the down-side is that when the end-user in the office updates something, their customers will effectively be downloading the data from a 60KB/s upload connection (albeit once, as it will be cached).
Also, not all data can be cached, for example when a customer updates their order. Also, connection redundancy becomes a huge factor here; what if the office connection is offline? Nothing to do but show an error message to the customers, which is nasty, but a necessary evil.
Mystery option number 3
Suggestions welcome!
SQL replication
I had considered MSSQL replication. But I have no experience with it, so I'm worried about how conflicts are handled, etc. Is this an option? Considering there are physical files involved, and so on. Also, I believe we'd need to upgrade from SQL express to SQL non-free, and buy two licenses.
Technical
Components
ASP.Net website
ASP.net web service
.Net desktop application
MSSQL 2008 express database
Connections
Office connection: 8 mbit down and 1 mbit up contended line (50:1)
Hosted virtual server: Windows 2008 with 10 megabit line

Having just read for the first time your original question related to this I'd say that you may have laid the foundation for resolving the problem simply because you are communicating with the database by a web service.
This web service may well be the saving grace as it allows you to split the communications without affecting the client.
A good while back I was involved in designing just such a system.
The first thing that we identified was that data which rarely changes - and immediately locked all of this out of consideration for distribution. A manual process for administering using the web server was the only way to change this data.
The second thing we identified was that data that should be owned locally. By this I mean data that only one person or location at a time would need to update; but that may need to be viewed at other locations. We fixed all of the keys on the related tables to ensure that duplication could never occur and that no auto-incrementing fields were used.
The third item was the tables that were truly shared - and although we worried a lot about these during stages 1 & 2 - in our case this part was straight-forwards.
When I'm talking about a server here I mean a DB Server with a set of web services that communicate between themselves.
As designed our architecture had 1 designated 'master' server. This was the definitive for resolving conflicts.
The rest of the servers were in the first instance a large cache of anything covered by item1. In fact it wasn't a large cache but a database duplication but you get the idea.
The second function of the each non-master server was to coordinate changes with the master. This involved a very simplistic process of actually passing through most of the work transparently to the master server.
We spent a lot of time designing and optimising all of the above - to finally discover that the single best performance improvement came from simply compressing the web service requests to reduce bandwidth (but it was over a single channel ISDN, which probably made the most difference).
The fact is that if you do have a web service then this will give you greater flexibility about how you implement this.
I'd probably start by investigating the feasability of implementing one of the SQL server replication methods
Usual disclaimers apply:

Splitting the database will not help a lot but it'll add a lot of nightmare. IMO, you should first try to optimize the database, update some indexes or may be add several more, optimize some queries and so on. For database performance tuning I recommend to read some articles from simple-talk.com.
Also in order to save bandwidth you can add bulk processing to your windows client and also add zipping (archiving) to your web service.
And probably you should upgrade to MS SQL 2008 Express, it's also free.
It's hard to recommend a good solution for your problem using the information I have. It's not clear where is the bottleneck. I strongly recommend you to profile your application to find exact place of the bottleneck (e.g. is it in the database or in fully used up channel and so on) and add a description of it to the question.
EDIT 01/03:
When the bottleneck is an up connection then you can do only the following:
1. Add archiving of messages to service and client
2. Implement bulk operations and use them
3. Try to reduce operations count per user case for the most frequent cases
4. Add a local database for windows clients and perform all operations using it and synchronize the local db and the main one on some timer.
And sql replication will not help you a lot in this case. The most fastest and cheapest solution is to increase up connection because all other ways (except the first one) will take a lot of time.
If you choose to rewrite the service to support bulking I recommend you to have a look at Agatha Project

Actually hearing how many they have on that one connection it may be time to up the bandwidth at the office (not at all my normal response) If you factor out the CRM system what else is a top user of the bandwidth? It maybe the they have reached the point of needing more bandwidth period.
But I am still curious to see how much information you are passing that is getting used. Make sure you are transferring efferently any chance you could add some easy quick measures to see how much people are actually consuming when looking at the data.

SQL Insert Performance Improvement

I am writing an application that logs status updates (GPS locations) from devices to a database. The updates occur at a set interval for each device, which is currently every 3 seconds. I'm using a simple table in SQL Server 08 for storing each update.
I've noticed that running the inserts is an area of slow down in my application. Its not a severe slow down, but noticable. Naturally, I'd like to write to the database in as an efficient way as possible. I have an idea to improve the performance and am looking for input and advice to see if it will help:
The status updates come in from an asynchronous Socket thread. In my current implementation, the database insert call is executed from this thread. I'm thinking I can create a queue for holding update data that the Socket thread can quickly add its update to and then go on its merry way. There would then be a separate thread whose sole responsibility would be checking the update queue and inserting the updates into the database.
Basically this whole process rests on the assumption that writing to the database from one location with a bunch of data all at once is more efficient than writing one row of data at a random time. Is my assumption correct, or way off base? Also, on the SQL side, is there a command to tell it to write a bunch of rows at once that would improve write performance?
This is how the database is being written to:
I'm using LinqToSQL in C#, so for each insert, I first create a DataContext instance. From the DataContext object I then call a stored procedure which inserts the location update.
The table is indexed by datetime, for the time of the update.

Have a look at the SqlBulkCopy class - this allows you to use BCP to insert chunks of data very quickly.
Also, make sure your indexes are efficient. If you have a clustered index on anything that does not increase sequentially (integer, date) then you will suffer performance slowdowns as the pages are filled up.

Have you looked MSMQ ( Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ)) ? That seems to me an option to take a look.

Yes, inserting in batches will typically be faster than separate inserts given your description. Each insert will require a connection to be set up and packets to be transferred. If you have a single small insert that takes one packet and you issue three of those, but you alternatively have three inserts that are small enough that they can all fit in one packet then it will help.
Quantifying it is difficult just based on your description - you'll need to do testing for that. For example, if you are keeping a dedicated connection open at all times anyway, as hova suggests, then you might see less of an impact.

Another area you might want to take a look at is whether you are setting up and tearing down a connection for each insert. That alone might make a performance improvement, negating the need for batching.
You'll also want to have as few indexes on the table as possible.

It sounds like a good idea. Why not give it a shot and see how it performs?

On the SQL side you'd want to have a look at making sure you are using parameterized queries.
Also batching your INSERT statements will certainly increase the performance.
Connection management is also key, of course that depends on how the application is built and whether it depends on a connection being there.

Are you not afraid to loose data while are you collecting data to batch copy?
I'm writing application doing the same. At start I will have to write data from 3,5k GPS devices. One device should send data each minute but it can send faster. Destination number of devices is 10,5k.
I'm wondering about inserting performance too. For now I'm saving received data to db on every packet using pure ADO.NET ICommand and stored procedure. On my test serwer (Xeon 3,4GHz and one 1TB hard disk - normal desktop ;) it takes for now 1ms or less.
#GRIMUS - should I wondering if there will be more devices?