I am attempting to connect my application to multiple IRC channels to read incoming chat messages and send them to my users. New channels may be added or existing channels may be removed at any time during the day and the application must pick up on this in near real-time. I am currently using Microsoft Azure for my infrastructure and am using App Services for client-facing compute and Azure Functions on the App Service plan for background tasks (Not the consumption billing model).
My current implementation is in C#/.NET Core 3.1 and uses a TcpClient over an SslStream to watch each channel. I then use a StreamReader and await reader.ReadLineAsync() to watch for new messages. The problem I am running into is that neither App Services or Azure Functions seems to be an appropriate place to host a watcher like this.
At first, I tried hosting it in the Azure Function app as this clearly seems like a task for a background worker, however Azure Functions inherently want to be triggered by a specific event, run some code, and then end. In my implementation, the call to await reader.ReadLineAsync() halts processing until a message is received. In other words, the call running the watcher needs to run in perpetuity, which seems to go against the grain of an Azure Function. In my attempt, the Azure Function service eventually crashes, the host unloads, all functions on the service cease and then restart a few minutes later when the host reloads. I am unable to find any way to tell what is causing the crash. This is clearly not the solution I want. If I could find an IrcMessageTrigger Azure Function trigger, this would probably be the best option.
Theoretically, I could host the watcher in my App Service, however when I scale out I would run into a problem due to having multiple servers connecting to each channel at once. New messages would be sent to each server and my users would receive duplicates. I could probably deal with this, but the solution would probably be hacky and I feel like the real solution would be to architect it better in the first place.
Anyone have an idea? I am open to changing the code or using a different Azure service (assuming it isn't too expensive) but I will be sticking with C# and .NET Core on Azure infrastructure for this project.
Below is a part of my watcher code to provide some context.
while (client.Connected)
{
//This line will halt execution until a message is received
var data = await reader.ReadLineAsync();
if (data == null)
{
continue;
}
var dataArray = data.Split(' ');
if (dataArray[0] == "PING")
{
await writer.WriteLineAsync("PONG");
await writer.FlushAsync();
continue;
}
if (dataArray.Length > 1)
{
switch (dataArray[1])
{
case "PRIVMSG":
HandlePrivateMessage(data, dataArray);
break;
}
}
}
Thanks in advance!
Results are preliminary, but it appears that the correct approach is to use Azure WebJobs running continuously to accomplish what I am trying to achieve. I did not consider WebJobs initially because they are older technology than Azure Functions and essentially do the same work at a lower level of abstraction. In this case, however, WebJobs appear to handle a use case that Functions are not intended to support.
To learn more about WebJobs (including continuous WebJobs) and what they are capable of, see the Microsoft documentation
Related
Context
In an ASP.NET Core application I would like to execute an operation which takes say 5 seconds (like sending email). I do know async/await and its purpose in ASP.NET Core, however I do not want to wait the end of the operation, instead I would like to return back to the to the client immediately.
Issue
So it is kinda Fire and Forget either homebrew, either Hangfire's BackgroundJob.Enqueue<IEmailSender>(x => x.Send("hangfire#example.com"));
Suppose I have some more complex method with injected ILogger and other stuff and I would like to Fire and Forget that method. In the method there are error handling and logging.(note: not necessary with Hangfire, the issue is agnostic to how the background worker is implemented). My problem is that method will run completely out of context, probably nothing will work inside, no HttpContext (I mean HttpContextAccessor will give null etc) so no User, no Session etc.
Question
How to correctly solve say this particular email sending problem? No one wants wait with the response 5 seconds, and the same time no one wants to throw and email, and not even logging if the send operation returned with error...
How to correctly solve say this particular email sending problem?
This is a specific instance of the "run a background job from my web app" problem.
there is no universal solution
There is - or at least, a universal pattern; it's just that many developers try to avoid it because it's not easy.
I describe it pretty fully in my blog post series on the basic distributed architecture. I think one important thing to acknowledge is that since your background work (sending an email) is done outside of an HTTP request, it really should be done outside of your web app process. Once you accept that, the rest of the solution falls into place:
You need a durable storage queue for the work. Hangfire uses your database; I tend to prefer cloud queues like Azure Storage Queues.
This means you'll need to copy all the data over that you will need, since it needs to be serialized into that queue. The same restriction applies to Hangfire, it's just not obvious because Hangfire runs in the same web application process.
You need a background process to execute your work queue. I tend to prefer Azure Functions, but another common approach is to run an ASP.NET Core Worker Service as a Win32 service or Linux daemon. Hangfire has its own ad-hoc in-process thread. Running an ASP.NET Core hosted service in-process would also work, though that has some of the same drawbacks as Hangfire since it also runs in the web application process.
Finally, your work queue processor application has its own service injection, and you can code it to create a dependency scope per work queue item if desired.
IMO, this is a normal threshold that's reached as your web application "grows up". It's more complex than a simple web app: now you have a web app, a durable queue, and a background processor. So your deployment becomes more complex, you need to think about things like versioning your worker queue schema so you can upgrade without downtime (something Hangfire can't handle well), etc. And some devs really balk at this because it's more complex when "all" they want to do is send an email without waiting for it, but the fact is that this is the necessary step upwards when a baby web app becomes distributed.
Our existing system uses App Services with API controllers.
This is not a good setup because our scaling support is poor, its basically all or nothing
I am looking at changing over to use Azure Functions
So effectively each method in a controller would become a new function
Lets say that we have a taxi booking system
So we have the following
Taxis
GetTaxis
GetTaxiDrivers
Drivers
GetDrivers
GetDriversAvailableNow
In the app service approach we would simply have a TaxiController and DriverController with the the methods as routes
How can I achieve the same thing with Azure Functions?
Ideally, I would have 2 function apps - Taxis and Drivers with functions inside for each
The problem with that approach is that 2 function apps means 2 config settings, and if that is expanded throughout the system its far too big a change to make right now
Some of our routes are already quite long so I cant really add the "controller" name to my function name because I will exceed the 32 character limit
Has anyone had similar issues migrating from App Services to Azure Functions>
Paul
The problem with that approach is that 2 function apps means 2 config
settings, and if that is expanded throughout the system its far too
big a change to make right now
This is why application setting is part of the release process. You should compile once, deploy as many times you want and to different environments using the same binaries from the compiling process. If you're not there yet, I strongly recommend you start by automating the CI/CD pipeline.
Now answering your question, the proper way (IMHO) is to decouple taxis and drivers. When requested a taxi, your controller should add a message to a Queue, which will have an Azure Function listening to it, and it get triggered automatically to dequeue / process what needs to be processed.
Advantages:
Your controller response time will get faster as it will pass the processing to another process
The more messages in the queue / more instances of the function to consume, so it will scale only when needed.
Http Requests (from one controller to another) is not reliable (unless you implement properly a circuit breaker and a retry policy. With the proposed architecture, if something goes wrong, the message will remain in the queue or it won't get completed by the Azure function and will return to the queue.
I have an Azure function app triggered by an HttpRequest. The function app reads the request, tosses one copy of it into a storage table for safekeeping and sends another copy to a queue for further processing by another element of the system. I have a client running an ApacheBench test that reports approximately 148 requests per second processed. That rate of processing will not be enough for our expected load.
My understanding of function apps is that it should spawn as many instances as is needed to handle the load sent to it. But this function app might not be scaling out quickly enough as it’s only handling that 148 requests per second. I need it to handle at least 200 requests per second.
I’m not 100% sure the problem is on my end, though. In analyzing the performance of my function app I found a LOT of 429 errors. What I found online, particularly https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/resource-manager-request-limits, suggests that these errors could be due to too many requests being sent from a single IP. Would several ApacheBench 10K and 20K request load tests within a given day cause the 429 error?
However, if that’s not it, if the problem is with my function app, how can I force my function app to spawn more instances more quickly? I assume this is the way to get more throughput per second. But I’m still very new at working with function apps so if there is a different way, I would more than welcome your input.
Maybe the Premium app service plan that’s in public preview would handle more throughput? I’ve thought about switching over to that and running a quick test but am unsure if I’d be able to switch back?
Maybe EventHub is something I need to investigate? Is that something that might increase my apparent throughput by catching more requests and holding on to them until the function app could accept and process them?
Thanks in advance for any assistance you can give.
You dont provide much context of you app but this is few steps how you can improve
If you want more control you need to use App Service plan with always on to avoid cold start, also you will need to configure auto scaling since you are responsible in this plan and auto scale is not enabled by default in app service plan.
Your azure function must be fully async as you have external dependencies so you dont want to block thread while you are calling them.
Look on the limits. Using host.json you can tweek it.
429 error means that function is busy to process your request, so probably when you writing to table you are not using async and blocking thread
Function apps work very well and scale as it says. It could be because request coming from Single IP and Azure could be considering it DDOS. You can do the following
AzureDevOps Load Test
You can load test using one of the azure service . I am very sure they have better criteria of handling IPs. Azure DeveOps Load Test
Provision VM in Azure
The way i normally do is provision the VM (windows 10 pro) in azure and use JMeter to Load test. I have use this method to test and it works fine. You can provision couple of them and subdivide the load.
Use professional Load testing services
If possible you may use services like Loader.io . They use sophisticated algos to run the load test and provision bunch of VMs to run the same test.
Use Application Insights
If not already you must be using application insights to have a better look from server perspective. Go to live stream and see how many instance it would provision to handle the load test . You can easily look into events and error logs that may be arising and investigate. You can deep dive into each associated dependency and investigate the problem.
Microsoft.Azure.Devices.ServiceClient and Microsoft.Azure.Devices.RegistryManager both have ConnectFromConnectionString and CloseAsync methods.
Should we use them like we use other .NET connection-close patterns, such as ADO.NET connections, Redis connections, Sockets' etc.? When I use objects like those I try to Close or Disposable.Dispose() of them as soon as possible.
What's the upside and downside to doing the same with the Microsoft.Azure.Devices objects when accessing the same IOT Hub? I have running code that treats the individual RegistryManager and ServiceClient instances as singletons, which are used throughout an application's lifetime -- which may be weeks or months. Are we short circuiting ourselves by keeping these objects "open" for this duration?
As pointed by #David R. Williamson, and this discussion on GitHub, it is generally recommended to register RegistryManager and ServiceClient as singletons.
For ASP NET Core or Azure Functions, it can be done as follows at startup:
ConfigureServices(services)
{
services.AddSingleton<RegistryManager>(RegistryManager.CreateFromConnectionString("connectionstring"));
}
I'm on the Azure IoT SDK team. We recommend keeping the service client instances around, depending on your usage pattern.
While it is generally fine to init/close/dispose the Azure IoT service clients, you can run into the HttpClient socket exhaustion problem. We've done work to prevent it from happening if you keep a singleton of the client around, but when the client is disposed 2 HttpClient instances are also disposed.
There's little harm in keeping them around and will save your program execution time in init/dispose.
We're working on a v2 where we'll allow the user to pass in their own copy of HttpClient, so you could keep that around and shut down our client more frequently.
At the risk of asking a stupid simple question:
I have a console application that uses servicestack framework to listen to a redis queue. Eventually I want to publish it up as a continuous azure web job.
I've seen examples that use:
host.RunAndBlock();
However I have no absolutely zero need to use the azure webjobs SDK and so just wondering is there anything 'wrong' with just using:
Console.ReadKey();
To keep the console program running.
I assume you're talking about a continuous WebJob.
I don't think Console.ReadKey() will work. The call is likely to just blow up in the sandbox that WebJobs run in.
If you are able to do the redis queue listening on the main thread, that would be simplest.
If now, just use an infinite sleep loop in your main. e.g.
for (;;)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
}