I have a number of Windows servers. I want to run one copy of the same Windows Service (written in .NET) on each of the servers such that at any one time only one of them is "active" and all the others are passive. If the active windows service dies then a very short time later one, and only one, of the remaining passive windows services becomes active.
Any ideas of simple ways to achieve this?
Well you need to keep them in sync, the easiest way to go would be to have an entry somewhere in a database that they can all access. Have the active service update a particular row etc. every so many minutes. If an update isn't found within a specific amount of time, the other services can take that as the active one has gone offline. Of course your problem here is that if the database goes off line, then the services will have problems, so that is potentially a single point of failure. You can alleviate this by having the db clustered as well though.
You could have them all communicate with each other like a peer to peer network too, but that will be more work, for essentially the same outcome, although this approach does have it's benefits.
Related
This is more of a programming strategy and direction question, than the actual code itself.
I am programming in C-Sharp.
I have an application that remotely starts processes on many different clients on the network, could be up to 1000 clients in theory.
It then monitors the status of the remote processes by reading a log file on each client.
I currently do this by running one thread that loops through all of the clients in a list, and reading the log file. It works fine for 10 or 20 machines, but 1000 would probably be untenable.
There are several problems with this approach:
First, if the thread doesn’t finish reading all of the client statuses before it’s called again, the client statuses at the end of the list might not be read and updated.
Secondly, if any client in the list goes offline during this period, the updating hangs, until that client is back online again.
So I require a different approach, and have thought up a few possible ways to resolve this.
Spawn a separate thread for each client, to read their log file and update its progress.
a. However, I’m not sure if having 1000 threads running on my machine is something that would be acceptable.
Test the connect for each machine first, before trying to read the file, and if it cannot connect, then just ignore it for that iteration and move on to the next client in the list.
a. This still has the same problem of not getting through the list before the next call, and causes more delay and it tries to test the connection via a port first. With 1000 clients, this would be noticeable.
Have each client send the data to the machine running the application whenever there is an update.
a. This could create a lot of chatter with 1000 machines trying to send data repeatedly.
So I’m trying to figure if there is another more efficient and reliable method, that I haven’t considered, or which one of these would be the best.
Right now I’m leaning towards having the clients send updates to the application, instead of having the application pulling the data.
Looking for thoughts, concerns, ideas and recommendations.
In my opinion, you are doing this (Monitoring) the wrong way. Instead of keeping all logs in a text file, you'd better preserve them in a central data repository that can be of any kind. With respect to the fact that you are monitoring the performance of those system, your design and the mechanism behind it must not impact the performance of the target systems negatively, and with this design the disk and CPU would be involved so much in certain cases that can result in a performance issue itself.
I recommend you to create a log repository server using a fast in-memory database like Redis, and send logged data directly to that server. Keep in mind that this database must be running on a different virtual machine. You can then tune Redis to store received data on physical Disk once a particular number of indexes are reached or a particular interval elapses. The in-memory feature here is advantageous as you may need to query information a lot in a monitoring application like this. On the other hand, the performance of Redis is so high that it efficiently passes processing millions of indexes.
The blueprint for you is that:
1- Centralize all log data in a single repository.
2- Configure clients to send monitored information to the centralized repository.
3- Read the data from the centralized repository by the main server (monitoring system) when required.
I'm not trying to advertise for a particular tool here as I'm only sharing my own experience. There's many more tools that you can use for this purpose such as ElasticSearch.
I have SQL Server database with information for files - I'm talking about custom properties. These are categories and description for each file.
The Windows Forms application is for the user. But I will also make a Windows Service that will track any changes with the files. If a change happens(renamed,moved,deleted) the service has to update that same database accordingly. And I think it should do it right away, without any delay.
Now this is going to be my first time making WS plus the first time I will have to handle concurrency (theoretically I know about threads and so on).
So:
First of all, is it OK if one process is updating a database another process may be using at the same time? Do you need to handle that situation on the first place? (Probably, fx in our daily "user lives" we can't modify a file when it's being used by another process)
Is the idea these two to share one data source good ?
If it is, then how to handle the concurrency ? I can use WCF for the messages between the two, but then does the solution have something to do with WCF ? Because I'm going to use this for the first time as well :D.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance for the time !
Since MS SQL is transactional there will be no big deal. You just have to watch out for data wich might be read and updated by one process - there it can be neccessary to use a Transaction scope (that's a .NET Class ;)).
From the Software architectural Point of view you should conside using a three-tier and not a two-tier application:
Two Tier:
Essentially your System with the persistance-layer (DB) communicating with the Clients directly
Three Tier:
Persistance-Layer <--> Logic-Layer (e.g. a WCF-Service handling the app logic) <--> Clients (Service and Forms - triggering app logic and showing results)
When it comes to concurrency it's going to be really straight forward. The MSSQL database engine handles just about all of it (e.g. locking and sharing). Further, if you leverage the SqlCommandBuilder to build your statements, the statements will automatically use optimistic concurrency.
As for the Windows service and how it gets notified, use a FileSystemWatcher, it going to be more efficient and you won't be published some service port on the local box.
I'd normally give you some good code examples but I'm answering this from my phone.
I have written an application that is used company wide. A lot of users have the tendency to leave the application open 24-7. This application is under development constantly as the Marketing department's needs change. Most changes are minor but often times need to be implemented quickly. Salesmen are often away from their desks or on the phone, so an intercom announcement does not always do the trick. The application is housed on a network file share and shortcutted to.
What I envision is something like a message popping up something like "The program will exit for an update in five minutes, please save your changes now." Is there a way to display this message and kick them from the exe remotely? I thought of maybe just having a database value that it checks periodically to see if an update is pending, but that seems like a cheap hack to me.
Your database check is as good as any other; I personally would recommend polling some service to which it subscribes that would do the same thing. If your app connects directly to the database, however, you're probably better off making the check in the database.
You'd be best off going with a ClickOnce deployment method, however. That would require a major architectural change, but would be best in the long run, IMO.
Pity it's not a web application. Deployment would be a snap!
Anyhow what I'd do is this. Make the application log users out after several minutes of inactivity.
Two approaches to unsaved work. Do nothing and therefore they loose it if unsaved when they are inactive and it logs them out.
As they work, a local journal of changes is kept. When they are logged out due to inactivity, logging back will use the journal to open things back up as they were.
EDIT: To prevent users from using the old version. Write a database field with a version or build number. If running version < version in db field then refuse login, and/or restart program to load new image.
You can set up a central server that the .exe sends requests to to find out when updates are available.
I would recommend that you look into WCF as a framework for your solution; there are many great references for the framework as well as posts on sites like this one. You can probably spin up a separate thread in your application that checks for updates every X minutes.
As for your specific question, "Is there way to display this message and kick them from the exe remotely?", yes it is possible, but it is more feasible to make the program automatically query for the update.
If you want to shut them down for update remotely, then you have to know where they are on the network. If the program periodically contacts a central database, then there is no need for the server to know where the program is on the network, the program can automatically reach out to the server from wherever it is.
You could use a messaging system such as RabbitMQ, or any other one, and have the applications listen to a channel in the system. Then an administrative application could send a message to the user applications forcing them to shut down.
If the changes aren't breaking changes, you might want to look at something like ClickOnce which allows you to publish updates to applications while the users are running them, though users will be running old versions of the application until it restarts.
I didn't get what you got stuck on. Just create a timer, and on user interaction, reset the timer, to e.g. 5 minutes. Then, when the timer fires, show the message box, and create another timer, when that one fires, just kill the current process.
Rather tangential answer but if the issue is people leaving workstations up and logged on then take a look at something like nightwatchman from www.1e.com that powers down the PC after x period of inactivity. Sell it to your company as "doing your bit for the environment" and saving wasted electricity costs.
I have nearly completed a Quartz.NET based Windows Service (using ADO.NET, not RAM jobs). The service copies/moves files to various paths depending upon a schedule. I have some concerns however. It is very important that this service has some sort of detection method/system that will detect when the program has failed for whatever reason - whether it's files failing to be copied, or the whole scheduler crashing . Just wondering what you guys think is the best way to do this? I have a couple of vague ideas but I'm looking to hear some more input.
Here are the methods that we use:
We monitor the windows service itself using the IT monitoring system. We use one of those commercial products that monitors servers, services, databases, etc, but there are open source projects that can do this for you if you don't already have one in place.
We log fatal execeptions to a database table and have a separate service monitoring that table for exceptions.
We also use an ADO.Net store, so we also monitor the Quartz.net tables for things like stuck triggers.
With things like this you can definitely go down the over engineering path. Just keep in mind the cost benefit of adding each of these options and then decide how much work you want to put into monitoring, VS the cost of an outage.
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.