Best Practices

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Mark - 29 Mar 2004 09:40 GMT

Hi,

I'm working onan enterprise application and I wondering what the best way is
to implement remoting hosted by windows services. Should I use 1 service
that hosts all my remote objects or should I divide the remoting of object
over several windows services ? I know that I must keep in mind the aspect
of managebility, scalability and performance. Several services is easier to
manage, but what with the performance and stability ? Are serveral services
more stable than one ? I personal think that using more services results in
a more stable system. Is this correct?
Has anyone got any experience implemeting such scenario?

TIA,
Mark

Reply to this Message

Allen Anderson - 29 Mar 2004 17:56 GMT

Use a single service to host all of your objects. You won't get any
performance benefit from multiple services hosting objects. However,
if several services would be easier to manage (although I can't
imagine why) then you can go in that direction as there is really no
performance problem doing it this way.

Allen Anderson
http://www.glacialcomponents.com
mailto: allen@put my website url here.com

>Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>TIA,
>Mark

Reply to this Message

Mark - 30 Mar 2004 09:06 GMT

Allen, thanks for the reply.
The reason that I want to split up my services is the fact that it seems
that one of my service crashes (stops working) when it reaches +/- 1100
calls/sec (in the performance monitor the graph drops down to 0). When I
have only one service, the whole of my application would stop working.
Maybe you can help me explain why the service stops handling remote calls.
I'm using single call objects, added a lease.
Is it the number of threads from the threadpool, ...?
Any help would be much appreciated.

Mark

> Use a single service to host all of your objects. You won't get any
> performance benefit from multiple services hosting objects. However,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> >TIA,
> >Mark

Reply to this Message

Ice - 31 Mar 2004 14:28 GMT

I disagree with Allen's blanket statement. I think you need to evaluate
your situation. Multiple hosts allow you to more flexible in areas of
deployment and scalability. Fault-tolerance is also something that should
be taken into consideration. If the service goes down, should the entire
system also go down? There is a finite number of threads per process. You
can theoretically exhaust the threads available for your use.

You need to weigh the above with penalty you suffer from out-of-proc calls.
These can get quite expensive.

I am not campaigning for multiple services, but I think you need to decide
how many you need based on certain criteria. Best practices are not an
island, they are dependant on the situation.

ice

> Allen, thanks for the reply.
> The reason that I want to split up my services is the fact that it seems
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> > >TIA,
> > >Mark

Reply to this Message

Allen Anderson - 31 Mar 2004 18:01 GMT

hey Mark, getting up to that number of connections and calls per
second I'm not sure remoting is the best answer. I don't think I've
tested a singlecall server/service where I was dealing with more than
200 or so calls per second. Maybe some other community member might
have used this scenario that could shed some light on this.

If you are really pushing performance and you don't want to start
clustering servers you might want to consider switching to sockets and
overlapped IO.

Allen Anderson
http://www.glacialcomponents.com
mailto: allen@put my website url here.com

>Allen, thanks for the reply.
>The reason that I want to split up my services is the fact that it seems
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>> >TIA,
>> >Mark

Reply to this Message

Best Practices

Free Magazines