We have an internal app(Thick Client) that relies on our central SQL server. The app is a Desktop app that allows the users to work in "Offline" mode (e.g. Outlook). What I need to accomplish is a way to accurately tell if SQL is available or not.
What I have so far:
I currently use the following method -->
internal static void CheckSQLAvailability()
{
using (TcpClient tcpc = new TcpClient())
{
try
{
tcpc.Connect(Settings.Default.LiveSQLServer, Settings.Default.LiveSQLServerPort);
IsSQLAvailable = true;
}
catch
{
IsSQLAvailable = false;
}
}
}
I am not crazy about this approach for the following reasons.
Prone to false Negatives
Needs to be "manually" called
Seems "smelly" (the try/catch)
I had thought to use a timer and just call this every X(3??) minutes and also, if a negative result, try a second time to reduce the false negatives.
There is a similar question here -->Detecting if SQL server is running
but it differs from mine in these ways:
I am only checking 1 server
I am looking for a reactive way versus proactive
So in the end, is there a more elegant way to do this? It would all be "in-network" detection.
P.S. To offer some background as requested in an answer below: My app is a Basic CRUD app that can connect to our Central SQL Server or a local SQLExpress Server. I have a Merge Replication Module that keeps them in Sync and the DAL is bound to a User.Setting value. I can, already, manually flip them from Central to Local and back. I just want to implement a way to have it automatically do this. I have a NetworkChangeDetection class that works quite well but, obviously, does not detect the Remote SQL's.
Consider what the Windows Cluster monitor does for a SQL Server Cluster resource: it actually connects and runs a dummy query (SELECT ##version). This indicates that the SQL is running, is actively listening for requests, and is able to run a request and return a result. For the clustering monitor the response to this query is the 'heartbeat' of the server and if it fails to get a response, for whatever reason, it may initiate a cluster failover.
Only connecting to TCP has several drawbaks in my opinion:
it omits non-TCP protocols like local shared memory (LPC) or remote net pipes (SMB)
it requires hard codded TCP port number as opposed to let the instance port listening auto-discovery do its work (SQL Browser and friends)
it only establishes that the OS level socket can be established, it does not validate that the SQL Server itself is in a runnable state (non-yielding scheduler might block network IO requests acceptance, scheduler overload and worker starvation may do the same, memory resource exhaustion etc etc).
Unfortunately there is no way to get a notification from SQL Server itself of saying 'hey, I'm active, won't you send some requests?'. I don't know all the details of your fat client ('thick app'), but perhaps you should investigate a different metaphor: clients do all work locally, on SQL Express instances, and these instances synchronize the data when the server is available. Service Broker was designed specifically with this connection retry mode and it would hide the server availability due to its asynchronous loosely coupled programming API.
Related
I'm having difficulty finding help resources on this. I know how to use the TCPClient class to create a connection between one IP/Port/machine and another.
My doubt is how does that work when one machine wants to initiate a TCP connection to another machine where the destination machine is inside a different network. So the destination network may have hundreds of computers each with its own private ip and the network would have one public IP address. This would be using the TCPClient class or any other that is more appropriate.
I know we could use ports and then inside the network the port could be forwarded to the correct machine but I was looking for a solution like the one services like LogMeIn use. Basically I wanted to use port 80 always and then initiate the connection from the server to that particular machine or others on the same network when I needed.
I suppose, theoretically, I could create the connection first from inside that network, then on the server, save the details and close the connection and then in the near future, when I needed, I would re-open the connection.
So in my scenario, I would have many clients across multiple networks, each network might have multiple internal machines with a client installed. Then on the server I would initiate connection to these machines when needed. Within each network I would want to use port 80 for obvious reasons. The reason I want to initiate the connection from the server and not the client machines is simply to save resources, I couldn't cope with having opened connections until eventually I might need to communicate wit them.
Also, I have no control on the client networks besides them having my client installed.
Ideally, I wish to have c# info, possibly code and not network configuration.
I had this requirement at a previous company. We installed our client/server software (C# based) on numerous different networks with a mix of public/private IPs. I found two relatively simple ways to solve it. First, I want to say that without a public IP, its impossible to connect reliably (in my experience).
When I proposed the solution, I explained the problem to other developers/managers this way.
Your server, the machine with the public IP address [public to clients, but may still be an "internal address"], is like a house without any long distance calling. It can receive calls, but it can't make any calls. The clients are like houses with long distance service. Clients must call the server, because they have long distance. Once connected, any party can talk on the line.
From here you have two choices.
Client connects and never disconnects (this is what I implemented). On the server, I had an object that mapped the client object to the client connection so I could communicate any time with a client that was connected.
Server holds a queue of messages for the client. The client automatically connects on a fixed interval to see if there are any messages (maybe 5 minutes). There would be an option from the server to stay connected for a specific interval. Another vendor called this "fast talk".
There's a couple of approaches.
You could setup NAT - probably no good for your scenario.
You could make an outbound connection from your client.
You could "combine the above" by using STUN (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN) this is quite popular in VOIP for peer to peer scenarios.
The Windows Azure servicebus may have a solution for your problem; NetTcpRelayBinding in hybrid mode allows two comuters behind NAT to create a direct connection with each other. This might not solve your problem if you are money constrained as each connection has an associated cost.The simplest solution is probably to have the clients polling your server.
You may use SignalR, which has been developed for this kind of scenarios.
You must have a third party, though (a server which broadcasts messages from sender to other peers).
But the beauty of this technology is that it chooses the most appropriate way to push data to clients: Polling, long connections, sockets... etc.
This provides an abstraction layer which is quite comfortable.
It has been designed to interact with javascript clients, but may be used in full-C# clients as well.
You need a third server that acts as proxy between your machine and target machine that is behind a firewall.
That is how applications like LogMeIn work.
You can do this using SSH tunnels.
Please check https://serverfault.com/questions/285616/how-to-allow-remote-connections-from-non-localhost-clients-with-ssh-remote-port
The topic is about NAT traversal.
STUN is good choice to try to communicate with client behind NAT.
But if STUN don't work,you can use RELAY service to help to pass the message between your server and remote client.RELAY service is a public service that everyone can reach it.
We have a number of different old school client-server C# WinForm client-side apps that are essentially front-ends for the database. Then there is a C# server-side windows service that waits on the client apps to submit orders and then it processes them.
The way the server-side service finds out whether there is work to do is that it polls the database. Over the years the logic of polling for waiting orders has gotten a lot more complicated due to the myriad of business rules. So because of this, the polling stored proc itself uses quite a bit of SQL Server resources even if there is nothing to do. Add to this the requirement that the orders be processed the moment they are submitted and you got yourself a performance problem, as the database is being polled constantly.
The setup actually works fine right now, but the load is about to go through the roof and, it is obvious, that it won't hold up.
What are some effective ways to communicate between a bunch of different client-side apps and a server-side windows service, that will be more future-proof than the current method?
The database server is SQL Server 2005. I can probably get the powers that be to pony up for latest SQL Server if it really comes to that, but I'd rather not fight that battle.
There are numerous options ways you can notify the clients.
You can use a ready-made solution like NServiceBus, to publish information from the server to the clients or other servers. NServiceBus uses MSMQ to publish one message to multiple subscribers in a very easy and durable way.
You can use MSMQ or another queuing product to publish messages from the server that will be delivered to the clients.
You can host a WCF service on the Windows service and connect to it from each client using a Duplex channel. Each time there is a change the service will notify the appropriate clients or even all of them. This is more complex to code but also much more flexible. You could probably send enough information back to the clients that they wouldn't need to poll the database at all.
You can have the service broadcast a UDP packet to all clients to notify them there are changes they need to pull. You can probably add enough information in the packet to allow the clients to decide whether they need to pull data from the server or not. This is a very lightweight for the server and the network, but it assumes that all clients are in the same LAN.
Perhaps you can leverage SqlDependency to receive notifications only when the data actually changes.
You can use any messaging middleware like MSMQ, JMS or TIBCO to communicate between your client and the service.
By far the easiest, and most likely the cheapest, answer is to simply buy a bigger server.
Barring that, you are in for a development effort that has a high probability of early failure. By failure I don't mean that you end up scraping whatever it is you end up building. Rather, I mean you launch the changes and orders will be screwed up while you are debugging your myriad of business rules.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't consider approaching a communications change under pressure; presuming your statement about load going "through the roof" in the near term.
If your risk exposure is such that it has to be 100% functional day one (which is normal when you are expecting a large increase in orders), with no hiccups then just upsize the DB server. Heck, I wouldn't even install the latest sql server on it. Instead, just buy a larger machine, install the exact same OS and DB server (and patch levels) and move your database.
Then look at your architecture to determine what needs to go away and what can be salvaged.
If everybody connects to SQL Server then there is also the option of Service Broker. Unlike other messaging/queueing solution recommended so far it is entirely contained in your database (no separate product to deploy, administer and configure), it offers a single story vis-a-vis your backup/recovery and high availability needs ( no separate backup for message store, no separate DR/HA, whatever is your DB solution is also your messaging solution) and overs a uniform programming API (SQL).
Even when everything is within one single SQL Server instance (ie. there is no need to communicate over network between multiple SQL Service instances) Service Broker still has an ace that no one can match: activation. With activation you eliminate completely the need to poll because the system itself will launch your processing code (will 'activate') when there are events to process. The processing code can be internal (T-SQL procedure or SQLCLR .Net procedure) or external (see external activator).
I want to create an application in C# with client and server sides. It will work over local network. Client sides must check for updates on a remote SQL Server. Lets say we've set update time interval to 2 seconds. If i have 20 client side applications, then they'll send query to the remote SQL Server every 2 sec and it will load server quite a lot. Now I want to know is there any way to reduce server load or it's only way to check for updates?
From my point of view, there is no need to allow clients to connect the DB serer directly. There should be one more tier here which will only connect to the server and cache information about the updates. Your clients should connect to this additional information and work with the cached info.
UPDATE
As far as I understand, the problem appears because all your clients ping your DB server every two seconds. The solution to this problem is to create a special module which will only have access to the DB server and asks it for the update. For example, every two seconds. If the update is ready, it should be able to fetch it from the DB and store. This is what I meant under the additional tier.
Now, let's return to your clients. They should be able to communicate with this module and get information from it about a ready update (this information is cached and thus it is really fast to obtain it. Also you needn't ping the server at every client request). If update is ready, fetch it to the client side and work on client side.
As for the communication between this additional tier and clients. Since you are working with .NET, I would suggest that you take a look at the WCF which, from my point of view, becomes a standard approach of implementing the between-process communication in .NET. There are a lot of information in the network about it, I will post the links shortly.
Here is my favorite WCF book:
Programming WCF Services
MSDN entry:
Windows Communication Foundation
I need to create a system comprising of 2 components:
A single server that process and stores data. It also periodically sends out updates to the agents
Multiple agents that are installed at remote endpoints. These collect data in (often, but not always) long-running operations, and this data needs to get to the server
I'm using C# .NET, and ideally I want to use a standards compliant communications method (i.e. one that could theoritically work with Java too, as we may well also use Java agents in the future). Are there any alternatives to web services? What are my options?
The way I see it I have 3 options using web services, and have made the following observations:
Client pull
No open port required at the agent, as it acts like a client
Would need to poll the server for updates
Server push
Open port at the agent, as it acts like a server
Server must poll agents for results
Hybrid
Open port at the agent, as it acts like both a client and a server
No polling; server pushes out updates when required, client sends results when they are available
The 'hybrid' (where agents are both client and server seems the obvious choice - but this application will typically be installed in enterprise and government environments, and I'm concerned they may have an issue with opening a port at the agent. Am I dwelling too much on this?
Are there any other pros and cons I've missed out?
Our friends at http://www.infrastructures.org swear by pull-based mechanisms: http://www.infrastructures.org/papers/bootstrap/bootstrap.html
A major reason why they prefer client-pull over server-push is that clients may be down, and clients must (in general) apply all the operations pushed by servers. If this criteria isn't important in your case, perhaps their conclusion won't be your conclusion, but I do think it is worth reading the "Push vs Pull" section of their paper to determine for yourself.
I would say that in this day and age you can seriously consider only pull technologies. The problem with push is that clients often are hidden behind Network Address Traversal devices (NAT) like wireless routers, broadband modems or company firewalls and they are, more often than not, unreachable from the server.
Making outbound connections ('phone-home'), specially on well known ports like HTTP/HTTPS can basically be assumed as 'possible' even under most constricted networks.
If you use some kind of messaging server (JMS for Java, not sure for C#) then your messaging server is the only server that needs to open a port and you can have two way communication from your agent to the messaging server and from the server to the messaging server. This would allow you to accomplish the hybrid model without needing to open a port on the agent server.
IMHO, I find your best option is the pull option.. that can satisfy your main system requirements as follow:
The first part: Data needs to get to the server, that's obviously can be done through invoking a web method that send that data as a parameter
2nd part:(Server periodically sends out updates to the agents): You can still do that that thru client (regular) pulls by some sort of a web service method that "asks" for the updates since its last pull (some sort of s time stamp to get the updates it missed)
The hybrid method seems a bit weird to me given that I think of an agent as a part of the system that probably might go "offline" quite often, what will the server then do if that failed? it's usually a tough question/decision, specially if you're not sure if this an intended "going offline" or a system/network failure.. etc
The TIBCO EMS .NET reference guide says (pg 134)
To enable reconnection behavior and fault tolerance, the serverURL parameter must be a comma-separated list of two or more URLs. In a situation with only one server, you may supply two copies of that server’s URL to enable client reconnection (for example, tcp://localhost:7222,tcp://localhost:7222).
The TIBCO EMS user's guide (pg 292) talks about failover scenarios, client notification, and automatic transfer of clients to the backup server, but nothing specifically "reconnect" related.
In a "reconnect" scenario, does the server handle everything? or does the client have to do something with it's TIBCO.EMS.Connection instances?
Looks like from our testing that the there are settings on both the server and the client that enable this feature. On the client side, the SetReconnAttemptCount, Delay, Timeout govern the attempts the client tries to reconnect once its aware of a server failover / connection failover.
In our testing, we used a single server environment, listed the server twice in the connection string (using the trick you outlined above) and when that server was taken offline, we received a client notification of the failover process taking affect (we enabled Tibems.SetExceptionOnFTSwitch(true)) and when the server was brought back online, our client seemlessly reconnected without missing a beat. We didn't need to code anything, the internal reconnect logic worked its magic.
On the server side, fault tolerance needs to be enabled and I believe server-client and client-server heartbeats need to be enabled (though this has not yet been verified).
Hope this helps.