I have below application:
Its windows console .NET 3.0 application
I'm creating 20 workloads and assigning them to threadpool to process.
Each thread in ThreadPool creates WCF Client and calls service with request created using workload assigned.
Sometimes on production servers[12 core machines], I get following exception:
There was an error reflecting type 'xyz' while invoking operation using WCF client. This starts appearing in all threads. After sometime it suddenly disappears and starts appearing again.
Code:
Pseudo Code:
for(int i=0;i<20;i++)
{
MultiThreadedProcess proc =new MultThreadedProcess(someData[i]);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(proc.CallBack,i);
}
In Class MultiThreadedProcess, I do something like this:
public void Callback(object index)
{
MyServiceClient client = new MyServiceClient();
MyServiceResponse response =client.SomeOperation(new MyServiceRequest(proc.SomeData));
client.close();
//Process Response
}
Can anyone suggest some resolutions for this problem?
If you can turn on diagnostic, appears to me serialization issue, there might be chance that certain data members/values are not able to de-serialized properly for operation call.
Related
I have a weird problem in our current Xamarin project. As the app sends a larger chunk of data to the server, to protect it when app gets backgrounded, we're starting a long-running task (using the UIApplication.SharedApplication.BeginBackgroundTask / UIApplication.SharedApplication.EndBackgroundTask API). What's weird is that this works great when I build and run from my machine but several of my colleagues get a timeout error when running the exact same scenario when the app was build/deployed from their machines.
As far as I understand it running stuff in a long-running task like this should work. I should not have to specify backgrounding capabilities in info.plist. Also, as the HttpClient employ NSUrlSession for sending/receiving it should be protected from interruptions when the app gets backgrounded, right?
I can't figure out why the same code yields different behavior on the same device when built with different Macs. Could there be some setting somewhere in VS that could be local to the machine that would affect this behavior?
I'm out of ideas now so any hints would be greatly appreciated.
This is an example of code that works/fails depending on the Mac that built/deployed it:
public async Task Submit()
{
// ... some irrelevant code
BackgroundTask.Run(async () => await submitAsync()); // Form-level encapsulation of the UIApplication.SharedApplication.BeginBackgroundTask API
// ... more irrelevant code
}
private async Task submitAsync()
{
if (!IsSubmitAllowed)
return;
IsBusy = true;
IsGoBackAllowed = IsGoNextAllowed = false;
var statusIndicator = new StatusIndicator();
await PopupNavigation.Instance.PushAsync(statusIndicator);
try
{
statusIndicator.Status = "Saving TI";
statusIndicator.Progress = 0.1;
var submitted = await _service.SubmitAsync(Model); // ERROR! causes timeout exception for some
var submittedId = submitted.BackendId;
// ... etc.
Both of your assumptions seem to be wrong.
First, beginBackgroundTaskWithExpirationHandler: doesn't grant unlimited background activity. Most notably:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uiapplication/1623031-beginbackgroundtaskwithexpiratio?language=objc
Apps running background tasks have a finite amount of time in which to
run them
Second, NSURLSession isn't enabled by default in the HttpClient, and overal NSURLSession is not something that handles transfers in the background by default, that is just possibility and it would be natural that HttpClient doesn't use this mode. Again check the documentation: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/nsurlsession
Hello currently I am developing an Arquillian extension for Moco framework (https://github.com/dreamhead/moco). Moco is used for testing RESTful services and relies on Netty for dealing with communication. Currently Moco is using Netty 4.0.18.Final.
But I have found a problem when running Moco (and Netty server) inside a container (Arquillian runs tests within the container) and is that it starts correctly but when the application is undeployed and server is shutdown next log error messages are printed:
SEVERE: The web application [/ba32e781-3a18-44b3-9547-7c26787f3fe7] appears to have started a thread named [pool-2-thread-1] but has failed to stop it. This is very likely to create a memory leak.
abr 08, 2014 10:29:06 AM org.apache.catalina.loader.WebappClassLoader checkThreadLocalMapForLeaks
SEVERE: The web application [/ba32e781-3a18-44b3-9547-7c26787f3fe7] created a ThreadLocal with key of type [io.netty.util.internal.ThreadLocalRandom$2] (value [io.netty.util.internal.ThreadLocalRandom$2#77468cae]) and a value of type [io.netty.util.internal.ThreadLocalRandom] (value [io.netty.util.internal.ThreadLocalRandom#6cd3851]) but failed to remove it when the web application was stopped. Threads are going to be renewed over time to try and avoid a probable memory leak.
Basically it seems that there are some threads that are not closed yet when the server tries to shutdown.
From the point of view of Arquillian extension when the application is deployed into the server the start method of Moco is called and before undeploying the application the stop method from Moco is called.
But let me show you the code of Moco:
public int start(final int port, ChannelHandler pipelineFactory) {
ServerBootstrap bootstrap = new ServerBootstrap();
bootstrap.group(bossGroup, workerGroup)
.channel(NioServerSocketChannel.class)
.childHandler(pipelineFactory);
try {
future = bootstrap.bind(port).sync();
SocketAddress socketAddress = future.channel().localAddress();
address = (InetSocketAddress) socketAddress;
return address.getPort();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
and the stop method looks like:
private void doStop() {
if (future != null) {
future.channel().close().syncUninterruptibly();
future = null;
}
So it seems that the close method returns before killing all the threads and for this reason containers warns you about possible memory leaks.
Because I have never used Netty I was wondering if there is a way to ensure that the whole Netty runtime is closed.
Thank you so much for your help.
I am new to Netty as well (and unfamiliar with Arquillian), but based on the Netty Docs examples I believe you might not be shutting down the EventLoopGroups you created (bossGroup, workerGroup). From the Netty 4.0 User Guide:
Shutting down a Netty application is usually as simple as shutting down all EventLoopGroups you created via shutdownGracefully(). It returns a Future that notifies you when the EventLoopGroup has been terminated completely and all Channels that belong to the group have been closed.
So your doStop() method might look like:
private void doStop() {
workerGroup.shutdownGracefully();
bossGroup.shutdownGracefully();
}
An example in the Netty docs: Http Static File Server Example
I have a .NET 4.5 WCF client app that uses the async/await pattern to make volumes of calls. My development machine is dual-proc with 8gb RAM (production will be 5 CPU with 8gb RAM at Amazon AWS) . The remote WCF service called by my code uses out and ref parameters on a web method that I need. My code instances a proxy client each time, writes any results to a public ConcurrentDictionary, and then returns null.
I ran Perfmon, watching the thread count on the system, and it goes between 28-30. It takes hours for my client to complete the volumes of calls that are made. Yes, hours. The remote service is backed by a big company, they have many servers to receive my WCF calls, so the more calls I can throw at them, the better.
I think that things are actually still happening synchronously, even though the method that makes the WCF call is decorated with "async" because the proxy method cannot have "await". Is that true?
My code looks like this:
async private void CallMe()
{
Console.WriteLine( DateTime.Now );
var workTasks = this.AnotherConcurrentDict.Select( oneB => GetData( etcetcetc ).Cast<Task>().ToList();
await Task.WhenAll( workTasks );
}
private async Task<WorkingBits> GetData(etcetcetc)
{
var commClient = new RemoteClient();
var cpResponse = new GetPackage();
var responseInfo = commClient.GetData( name, password , ref (cpResponse.aproperty), filterid , out cpResponse.Identifiers);
foreach (var onething in cpResponse.Identifiers)
{
// add to the ConcurrentDictionary
}
return null; // I already wrote to the ConcurrentDictionary so no need to return anything
responseInfo is not awaitable beacuse the WCF call has ref and out parameters.
I was thinking that way to speed this up is not to put async/await in this method, but instead create a wrapper method where I can make things await/async, but I am not that is the smartest/safest way to work it.
What is a smart way to get more outbound calls to the service (expand IO completion thread pool, trick calls into running in the background so Task.WhenAll can complete quicker)?
Thanks for all ideas/samples/pointers. I am hitting a bottleneck somewhere.
1) Make sure you're really calling it asynchronously, rather than just blocking on the calls. Code samples would help here.
2) You may need to do this:
ServicePointManager.DefaultConnectionLimit = 100;
By default it only allows 2 simultaneous connections to the same server.
3) Make sure you dispose the proxy object after the call is complete so you're not tying up resources.
If you're doing things asynchronously the threadpool size shouldn't be a bottleneck. To get a better idea of what kind of problem you're having, you can use Interlocked.Increment and Interlocked.Decrement to track the number of pending calls and see if it's being limited somewhere.
You could also substitute your real call with a call to a very simple method that you know will not have any bottlenecks, to see if the problem is in the client or server.
I am trying solve this problem. I have WCF service. Client can call web method from this service which only "fire" another method (this method only write data to database) in another thread.
Code is here:
//this method will write data to database
public void WriteToDb()
{
}
//this web method will call only mehod WriteToDb() in another thread
public void SomeWebMethod()
{
new Task(WriteToDb).Start();
}
Problem is that in same time can web method call 5 clients. This cause that method WriteToDb is called 5 times in 5 thread.
In all 5 cases method WriteToDb will use same data.
My aim is achieve this behavior. 5 clients called web method SomeWebMethod. Method WriteToDb will run in 5 thread.
But I would like execute first thread, then second thread ....etc and on the end 5th thread.
I don’t want run method WriteToDb in same time in 5 thread.
So maybe I can use lock.
{
private object locker = new object();
//this method will write data to database
public void WriteToDb()
{
lock(locker)
{
//write to DB
}
}
I am not sure because .net assembly is host on app domain a app domain is host on win process. I woud like to avoid deadlocks.
What happens if I have a machine with 6 CPU? Use mutex instead lock ?
Thank you for help...
I'm not particulary sure what you are writing to DB, but your question is loosely coupled with WCF to be frank, try to read CLR via C# on multithreading etc.
Also regarding WCF, you can setup how your service object is created upon requests, ie per call, per session or singleton, and for later use specify if it's methods will stuck in queue or will be called on object concurrently.
So depending on choosing architecture you can either relay on WCF ability to host single object which will have logic you described or you can go the way tried.
Links
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163590.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731193.aspx
A lock is fine here, but you should make your locker object static so the same object instance is used in the lock every time.
It does not matter how many cores you have - if you hold the lock on an object then any other threads that attempt to acquire the lock will wait until the lock is released.
A deadlock can only occur if you are acquiring multiple locks in different orders in different threads.
I suggest you read Joe Albahari's excellent free ebook
I have a very long running query that takes too long to keep my client connected. I want to make a call into my DomainService, create a new worker thread, then return from the service so that my client can then begin polling to see if the long running query is complete.
The problem I am running into is that since my calling thread is exiting right away, I am getting exceptions thrown when my worker tries to access any entities since the ObjectContext gets disposed when the original thread ends.
Here is how I create the new context and call from my Silverlight client:
MyDomainContext context = new MyDomainContext();
context.SearchAndStore(_myParm, SearchQuery,
p => {
if (p.HasError) { // Do some work and return to start
} // polling the server for completion...
}, null);
The entry method on the server:
[Invoke]
public int SearchAndStore(object parm)
{
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(SearchThread));
t.Start(parms);
return 0;
// Once this method returns, I get ObjectContext already Disposed Exceptions
}
Here is the WorkerProc method that gets called with the new Thread. As soon as I try to iterate through my query1 object, I get the ObjectContext already Disposed exception.
private void WorkerProc(object o)
{
HashSet<long> excludeList = new HashSet<long>();
var query1 = from doc in this.ObjectContext.Documents
join filters in this.ObjectContext.AppliedGlobalFilters
.Where(f => f.FilterId == 1)
on doc.FileExtension equals filters.FilterValue
select doc.FileId;
foreach (long fileId in query1) // Here occurs the exception because the
{ // Object Context is already disposed of.
excludeList.Add(fileId);
}
}
How can I prevent this from happening? Is there a way to create a new context for the new thread? I'm really stuck on this one.
Thanks.
Since you're using WCF RIA. I have to assume that you're implementing two parts:
A WCF Web Service
A Silverlight client which consumes the WCF Service.
So, this means that you have two applications. The service running on IIS, and the Silverlight running on the web browser. These applications have different life cycles.
The silverlight application starts living when it's loaded in the web page, and it dies when the page is closed (or an exception happens). On the other hand (at server side), the WCF Web Service life is quite sort. You application starts living when the service is requested and it dies once the request has finished.
In your case your the server request finishes when the SearchAndStore method finishes. Thus, when this particular method starts ,you create an Thread which starts running on background (in the server), and your method continues the execution, which is more likely to finishes in a couple of lines.
If I'm right, you don't need to do this. You can call your method without using a thread, in theory it does not matter if it takes awhile to respond. this is because the Silvelight application (on the client) won't be waiting. In Silverlight all the operations are asynchronous (this means that they're running in their own thread). Therefore, when you call the service method from the client, you only have to wait until the callback is invoked.
If it's really taking long time, you are more likely to look for a mechanism to keep the connection between your silverlight client and your web server alive for longer. I think by modifying the service configuration.
Here is a sample of what I'm saying:
https://github.com/hmadrigal/CodeSamples/tree/master/wcfria/SampleWebApplication01
In the sample you can see the different times on client and server side. You click the button and have to wait 30 seconds to receive a response from the server.
I hope this helps,
Best regards,
Herber