Develop Reference

C# Tcp communication Threadpool or asyn call

I have a C# application which listens for incoming TCP connections and receive data from previously accepted connections. Please help me whether i use Threadpool or Async methods to write the program?? Note that, once a connection is accepted, it doesn't close it and continuously receive data from the connection, at the same time it accept more connections

A threadpool thread works best when the code takes less than half a second and does not a lot of I/O that will block the thread. Which is exactly the opposite scenario you describe.
Using Socket.BeginReceive() is strongly indicated here. Highly optimized at both the operating level and the framework, your program uses a single thread to wait for all pending reads to complete. Scaling to handle thousands of active connections is quite feasible.
Writing asynchronous code cleanly can be quite difficult, variables that you'd normally make local variables in a method that runs on the threadpool thread turn into fields of a class. You need a state machine to keep track of the connection state. You'll greatly benefit from the async/await support available in C# version 5 which allows you to turn those state variables back into local variables. The little wrappers you find in this answer or this blog post will help a great deal.

It mainly depends on what do you want to do with your connections. If you have unknown number of connections which you don't know how long they will be open, I think it's better to do it with async calls.
But if you at least know the avg. number of connection and the connections are short-term connections like a web server's connections, then it's better to do it with threadpool since you won't waste time creating threads for each socket.

First off, if you possibly can, don't use TCP/IP. I recommend you self-host WebAPI and/or SignalR instead. But if you do decide to use TCP/IP...
You should always use asynchronous APIs for sockets. Ideally, you want to be constantly reading from the socket and periodically writing (keepalive messages, if nothing else). What you don't want to do is to have time where you're only reading (e.g., waiting for the next message), or time where you're only writing (e.g., sending a message). When you're reading, you should be periodically writing; and when you're writing, you should be continuously reading.
This helps you detect half-open connections, and also avoids deadlocks.
You may find my TCP/IP .NET Sockets FAQ helpful.

Definately use asynchronous sockets... It's never a good idea to block a thread waiting for IO.
If you decide you have high performance needs, you should consider using the EAP design pattern for your sockets.
This will allow you to create an asynchronous solution with a lower memory profile. However, some find that using events with sockets is awkard and a bit clunky... if you fall into this category, you could take a look at this blog post to use .NET 4.5's async/await keywords with it: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2011/12/15/10248293.aspx#comments

How to improve TCP/IP server scalability when restricted by application thread pool

I have a TCP/IP server written in C# .net which can have 10,000 connections at once easy. However, when a callback is received from a socket, it is dealt with by a new thread in the application thread pool. This means that the real concurrent communication limitation is down to the number of threads within the thread pool. For example if those 10,000 connections all attempt to send data at the same time, the majority will have to wait whilst the thread pool runs through as fast as it can. Can anyone share their experience with high performance socket services and advise how a large corporation would go about ensuring the 10,000 connections can not only be connected at the same time, but can also communicate at the same time? Thanks

Don't process the packets inline in the callback. Do the absolute minimum work there, and then hand them off to a separate worker thread pool via a producer-consumer queue that (ideally) never blocks the producer threads, which are your socket listeners. BlockingCollection<T> may be useful here.
You have to be careful that the queue does not grow unbounded - if your consumers are a lot slower than producers, and the queue grows under normal load, you have a problem to which throttling the network receives is the obvious solution, despite its undesirability.

YOu make a thought mistake here. Regardless how many thread you have, data always has to wait unless you have one CPU CORE PER CONNECTION. Scalability is not having unlimited paralellism, but being ab le to handle a lot of conenctions and keep the cpu at full power.
The thread pool is perfectly sized for that. Once the CPU reaches full utilization, you can not do anything else anyway.
and advise how a large corporation would go about ensuring the 10,000 connections can not only be
connected at the same time, but can also communicate at the same time?
MANY computers that have like a total of 500 processor cores. The trick is: what latency is acceptable. You dont need instant communication. You try to sovle that from the wrong end.

Are Socket.*Async methods threaded?

I'm currently trying to figure what is the best way to minimize the amount of threads I use in a TCP master server, in order to maximize performance.
As I've been reading a lot recently with the new async features of C# 5.0, asynchronous does not necessarily mean multithreaded. It could mean separated in smaller chunks of finite state objects, then processed alongside other operations, by alternating. However, I don't see how this could be done in networking, since I'm basically "waiting" for input (from the client).
Therefore, I wouldn't use ReceiveAsync() for all my sockets, it would just be creating and ending threads continuously (assuming it does create threads).
Consequently, my question is more or less: what architecture can a master server take without having one "thread" per connection?
Side question for bonus coolness points: Why is having multiple threads bad, considering that having an amount of threads that is over your amount of processing cores simply makes the machine "fake" multithreading, just like any other asynchronous method would?

No, you would not necessarily be creating threads. There are two possible ways you can do async without setting up and tearing down threads all the time:
You can have a "small" number of long-lived threads, and have them sleep when there's no work to do (this means that the OS will never schedule them for execution, so the resource drain is minimal). Then, when work arrives (i.e. Async method called), wake one of them up and tell it what needs to be done. Pleased to meet you, managed thread pool.
In Windows, the most efficient mechanism for async is I/O completion ports which synchronizes access to I/O operations and allows a small number of threads to manage massive workloads.
Regarding multiple threads:
Having multiple threads is not bad for performance, if
the number of threads is not excessive
the threads do not oversaturate the CPU
If the number of threads is excessive then obviously we are taxing the OS with having to keep track of and schedule all these threads, which uses up global resources and slows it down.
If the threads are CPU-bound, then the OS will need to perform much more frequent context switches in order to maintain fairness, and context switches kill performance. In fact, with user-mode threads (which all highly scalable systems use -- think RDBMS) we make our lives harder just so we can avoid context switches.
Update:
I just found this question, which lends support to the position that you can't say how many threads are too much beforehand -- there are just too many unknown variables.

Seems like the *Async methods use IOCP (by looking at the code with Reflector).

Jon's answer is great. As for the 'side question'... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law. Amdel's law says that serial code quickly diminishes the gains to be had from parallel code. We also know that thread coordination (scheduling, context switching, etc) is serial - so at some point more threads means there are so many serial steps that parallelization benefits are lost and you have a net negative performance. This is tricky stuff. That's why there is so much effort going into letting .NET manage threads while we define 'tasks' for the framework to decide what thread to run on. The framework can switch between tasks much more efficiently than the OS can switch between threads because the OS has a lot of extra things it needs to worry about when doing so.

Asynchronous work can be done without one-thread-per-connection or a thread pool with OS support for select or poll (and Windows supports this and it is exposed via Socket.Select). I am not sure of the performance on windows, but this is a very common idiom elsewhere.
One thread is the "pump" that manages the IO connections and monitors changes to the streams and then dispatches messages to/from other threads (conceivably 0 ... n depending upon model). Approaches with 0 or 1 additional threads may fall into the "Event Machine" category like twisted (Python) or POE (Perl). With >1 threads the callers form an "implicit thread pool" (themselves) and basically just offload the blocking IO.
There are also approaches like Actors, Continuations or Fibres exposed in the underlying models of some languages which alter how the basic problem is approached -- don't wait, react.
Happy coding.

How do I pick the best number of threads for hyptherthreading/multicore?

I have some embarrassingly-parallelizable work in a .NET 3.5 console app and I want to take advantage of hyperthreading and multi-core processors. How do I pick the best number of worker threads to utilize either of these the best on an arbitrary system? For example, if it's a dual core I will want 2 threads; quad core I will want 4 threads. What I'm ultimately after is determining the processor characteristics so I can know how many threads to create.
I'm not asking how to split up the work nor how to do threading, I'm asking how do I determine the "optimal" number of the threads on an arbitrary machine this console app will run on.

I'd suggest that you don't try to determine it yourself. Use the ThreadPool and let .NET manage the threads for you.

You can use Environment.ProcessorCount if that's the only thing you're after. But usually using a ThreadPool is indeed the better option.
The .NET thread pool also has provisions for sometimes allocating more threads than you have cores to maximise throughput in certain scenarios where many threads are waiting for I/O to finish.

The correct number is obviously 42.
Now on the serious note. Just use the thread pool, always.
1) If you have a lengthy processing task (ie. CPU intensive) that can be partitioned into multiple work piece meals then you should partition your task and then submit all individual work items to the ThreadPool. The thread pool will pick up work items and start churning on them in a dynamic fashion as it has self monitoring capabilities that include starting new threads as needed and can be configured at deployment by administrators according to the deployment site requirements, as opposed to pre-compute the numbers at development time. While is true that the proper partitioning size of your processing task can take into account the number of CPUs available, the right answer depends so much on the nature of the task and the data that is not even worth talking about at this stage (and besides the primary concerns should be your NUMA nodes, memory locality and interlocked cache contention, and only after that the number of cores).
2) If you're doing I/O (including DB calls) then you should use Asynchronous I/O and complete the calls in ThreadPool called completion routines.
These two are the the only valid reasons why you should have multiple threads, and they're both best handled by using the ThreadPool. Anything else, including starting a thread per 'request' or 'connection' are in fact anti patterns on the Win32 API world (fork is a valid pattern in *nix, but definitely not on Windows).
For a more specialized and way, way more detailed discussion of the topic I can only recommend the Rick Vicik papers on the subject:
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-1.aspx
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-ii.aspx
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-iii.aspx

The optimal number would just be the processor count. Optimally you would always have one thread running on a CPU (logical or physical) to minimise context switches and the overhead that has with it.
Whether that is the right number depends (very much as everyone has said) on what you are doing. The threadpool (if I understand it correctly) pretty much tries to use as few threads as possible but spins up another one each time a thread blocks.
The blocking is never optimal but if you are doing any form of blocking then the answer would change dramatically.
The simplest and easiest way to get good (not necessarily optimal) behaviour is to use the threadpool. In my opinion its really hard to do any better than the threadpool so thats simply the best place to start and only ever think about something else if you can demonstrate why that is not good enough.

A good rule of the thumb, given that you're completely CPU-bound, is processorCount+1.
That's +1 because you will always get some tasks started/stopped/interrupted and n tasks will almost never completely fill up n processors.

The only way is a combination of data and code analysis based on performance data.
Different CPU families and speeds vs. memory speed vs other activities on the system are all going to make the tuning different.
Potentially some self-tuning is possible, but this will mean having some form of live performance tuning and self adjustment.

Or even better than the ThreadPool, use .NET 4.0 Task instances from the TPL. The Task Parallel Library is built on a foundation in the .NET 4.0 framework that will actually determine the optimal number of threads to perform the tasks as efficiently as possible for you.

I read something on this recently (see the accepted answer to this question for example).
The simple answer is that you let the operating system decide. It can do a far better job of deciding what's optimal than you can.
There are a number of questions on a similar theme - search for "optimal number threads" (without the quotes) gives you a couple of pages of results.

I would say it also depends on what you are doing, if your making a server application then using all you can out of the CPU`s via either Environment.ProcessorCount or a thread pool is a good idea.
But if this is running on a desktop or a machine that not dedicated to this task, you might want to leave some CPU idle so the machine "functions" for the user.

It can be argued that the real way to pick the best number of threads is for the application to profile itself and adaptively change its threading behavior based on what gives the best performance.

I wrote a simple number crunching app that used multiple threads, and found that on my Quad-core system, it completed the most work in a fixed period using 6 threads.
I think the only real way to determine is through trialling or profiling.

In addition to processor count, you may want to take into account the process's processor affinity by counting bits in the affinity mask returned by the GetProcessAffinityMask function.

If there is no excessive i/o processing or system calls when the threads are running, then the number of thread (except the main thread) is in general equal to the number of processors/cores in your system, otherwise you can try to increase the number of threads by testing.

Alternative to Threads

I've read that threads are very problematic. What alternatives are available? Something that handles blocking and stuff automatically?
A lot of people recommend the background worker, but I've no idea why.
Anyone care to explain "easy" alternatives? The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Any ideas?

To summarize the problems with threads:
if threads share memory, you can get
race conditions
if you avoid races by liberally using locks, you
can get deadlocks (see the dining philosophers problem)
An example of a race: suppose two threads share access to some memory where a number is stored. Thread 1 reads from the memory address and stores it in a CPU register. Thread 2 does the same. Now thread 1 increments the number and writes it back to memory. Thread 2 then does the same. End result: the number was only incremented by 1, while both threads tried to increment it. The outcome of such interactions depend on timing. Worse, your code may seem to work bug-free but once in a blue moon the timing is wrong and bad things happen.
To avoid these problems, the answer is simple: avoid sharing writable memory. Instead, use message passing to communicate between threads. An extreme example is to put the threads in separate processes and communicate via TCP/IP connections or named pipes.
Another approach is to share only read-only data structures, which is why functional programming languages can work so well with multiple threads.

This is a bit higher-level answer, but it may be useful if you want to consider other alternatives to threads. Anyway, most of the answers discussed solutions based on threads (or thread pools) or maybe tasks from .NET 4.0, but there is one more alternative, which is called message-passing. This has been successfuly used in Erlang (a functional language used by Ericsson). Since functional programming is becoming more mainstream in these days (e.g. F#), I thought I could mention it. In genral:
Threads (or thread pools) can usually used when you have some relatively long-running computation. When it needs to share state with other threads, it gets tricky (you have to correctly use locks or other synchronization primitives).
Tasks (available in TPL in .NET 4.0) are very lightweight - you can split your program into thousands of tasks and then let the runtime run them (it will use optimal number of threads). If you can write your algorithm using tasks instead of threads, it sounds like a good idea - you can avoid some synchronization when you run computation using smaller steps.
Declarative approaches (PLINQ in .NET 4.0 is a great option) if you have some higher-level data processing operation that can be encoded using LINQ primitives, then you can use this technique. The runtime will automatically parallelize your code, because LINQ doesn't specify how exactly should it evaluate the results (you just say what results you want to get).
Message-passing allows you two write program as concurrently running processes that perform some (relatively simple) tasks and communicate by sending messages to each other. This is great, because you can share some state (send messages) without the usual synchronization issues (you just send a message, then do other thing or wait for messages). Here is a good introduction to message-passing in F# from Robert Pickering.
Note that the last three techniques are quite related to functional programming - in functional programming, you desing programs differently - as computations that return result (which makes it easier to use Tasks). You also often write declarative and higher-level code (which makes it easier to use Declarative approaches).
When it comes to actual implementation, F# has a wonderful message-passing library right in the core libraries. In C#, you can use Concurrency & Coordination Runtime, which feels a bit "hacky", but is probably quite powerful too (but may look too complicated).

Won't the parallel programming options in .Net 4 be an "easy" way to use threads? I'm not sure what I'd suggest for .Net 3.5 and earlier...
This MSDN link to the Parallel Computing Developer Center has links to lots of info on Parellel Programming including links to videos, etc.

I can recommend this project. Smart Thread Pool
Project Description
Smart Thread Pool is a thread pool written in C#. It is far more advanced than the .NET built-in thread pool.
Here is a list of the thread pool features:
The number of threads dynamically changes according to the workload on the threads in the pool.
Work items can return a value.
A work item can be cancelled.
The caller thread's context is used when the work item is executed (limited).
Usage of minimum number of Win32 event handles, so the handle count of the application won't explode.
The caller can wait for multiple or all the work items to complete.
Work item can have a PostExecute callback, which is called as soon the work item is completed.
The state object, that accompanies the work item, can be disposed automatically.
Work item exceptions are sent back to the caller.
Work items have priority.
Work items group.
The caller can suspend the start of a thread pool and work items group.
Threads have priority.
Can run COM objects that have single threaded apartment.
Support Action and Func delegates.
Support for WindowsCE (limited)
The MaxThreads and MinThreads can be changed at run time.
Cancel behavior is imporved.

"Problematic" is not the word I would use to describe working with threads. "Tedious" is a more appropriate description.
If you are new to threaded programming, I would suggest reading this thread as a starting point. It is by no means exhaustive but has some good introductory information. From there, I would continue to scour this website and other programming sites for information related to specific threading questions you may have.
As for specific threading options in C#, here's some suggestions on when to use each one.
Use BackgroundWorker if you have a single task that runs in the background and needs to interact with the UI. The task of marshalling data and method calls to the UI thread are handled automatically through its event-based model. Avoid BackgroundWorker if (1) your assembly does not already reference the System.Windows.Form assembly, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, or (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority.
Use a ThreadPool thread when efficiency is desired. The ThreadPool helps avoid the overhead associated with creating, starting, and stopping threads. Avoid using the ThreadPool if (1) the task runs for the lifetime of your application, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority, or (4) you need the thread to have a fixed identity (aborting, suspending, discovering).
Use the Thread class for long-running tasks and when you require features offered by a formal threading model, e.g., choosing between foreground and background threads, tweaking the thread priority, fine-grained control over thread execution, etc.

Any time you introduce multiple threads, each running at once, you open up the potential for race conditions. To avoid these, you tend to need to add synchronization, which adds complexity, as well as the potential for deadlocks.
Many tools make this easier. .NET has quite a few classes specifically meant to ease the pain of dealing with multiple threads, including the BackgroundWorker class, which makes running background work and interacting with a user interface much simpler.
.NET 4 is going to do a lot to ease this even more. The Task Parallel Library and PLINQ dramatically ease working with multiple threads.
As for your last comment:
The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Most of the routines in .NET are built upon the ThreadPool. In .NET 4, when using the TPL, the work load will actually scale at runtime, for you, eliminating the burden of having to specify the number of threads to use. However, there are ways to do this now.
Currently, you can use ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads to help limit the number of threads generated. In TPL, you can specify ParallelOptions.MaxDegreesOfParallelism, and pass an instance of the ParallelOptions into your routine to control this. The default behavior scales up with more threads as you add more processing cores, which is usually the best behavior in any case.

Threads are not problematic if you understand what causes problems with them.
For ex. if you avoid statics, you know which API's to use (e.g. use synchronized streams), you will avoid many of the issues that come up for their bad utilization.

If threading is a problem (this can happen if you have unsafe/unmanaged 3rd party dll's that cannot support multithreading. In this can an option is to create a meachism to queue the operations. ie store the parameters of the action to a database and just run through them one at a time. This can be done in a windows service. Obviously this will take longer but in some cases is the only option.

Threads are indispensable tools for solving many problems, and it behooves the maturing developer to know how to effectively use them. But like many tools, they can cause some very difficult-to-find bugs.
Don't shy away from some so useful just because it can cause problems, instead study and practice until you become the go-to guy for multi-threaded apps.
A great place to start is Joe Albahari's article: http://www.albahari.com/threading/.