Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I display some of the data i.e. Sum, Average and Total on a page and want to update them after the data changed using SignalR. Most of the examples uses the following approach that broadcast all of the clients after create / update / delete methods (that change data) are executed:
private void BroadcastDataChange(Data data)
{
Clients.All.dataChanged();
}
However, I am wondering if there is a smarter approach that let me update the data i.e. periodically refreshing without broadcast in each of the create-update-delete methods (I do not use SqlDependency, etc, juts using SignalR). On the other hand, I am not sure this kind of approach is contradictory to the SignalR logic. This is the first time I use SİgnalR and I am too confused :( Any help would be appreciated.
You can use polling with SignalR. It's just an inefficient way of doing things though, because: (1) there would be a delay between when changes happen and when they are broadcast to clients. (2) broadcasts would happen even if data didn't change, which is a waste of resources.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a WCF service which essentially just does this:
public SomeClass SomeMethod(){
using(var db = new LinqToSqlContext()){
return db.SomeMethod();
}
}
Client side it has auto generated asynchronous methods but I'm just wondering if there is any benefit to making the service itself use async Tasks? After all the method finishes when it finishes and it could only ever await on a single method.
Short answer: probably not.
async can help a WCF service scale faster and farther, but if your backend is just a single SQL server (as seems likely from your code), then even synchronous code can probably scale further than your SQL server.
Long answer: you won't know for sure until you do it both ways and run performance tests.
If the method can do multiple tasks independently at the same time, then there might be a performance benefit from using Tasks to run them asynchronously.
Otherwise there's no point (and it may even be a negative effect due to overhead of multi-threading).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have an asp.net c# website which members complete a form which is stored in sql server. After 24 hrs, I would like to send a notification to a specific group of users if the form status has NOT changed. Is this achievable from within asp.net?? Any help is appreciated
I have done it several times and there are many ways to do it. One simple way is to check every X minutes if you need to send any notifications. If so, you send them.
For example: every 60 minutes you check if there are any forms that have been on the same status for 24hs. If so, you send a notification.
If you have full control of the server, I would recommend you to create a Windows Service to perform this job. ASP.NET was not built for long running tasks so that's why I'm suggesting to create a Windows Service.
One more thing, create a log table for this task so every time you send a notification, you add a row on that table. That's gonna help you debug any issues you might have. Also, remember to mark the rows where you have already notified the customer to avoid sending a notification twice. I always like to add a double check before sending the notification.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have 5 Group Box in my software I want to run them differently for example I have one group box which takes lot of time around 20-30 minutes till then my software hangs. SO I want to make other functionality working when a particular group box is working any solution for it?
Group boxes don't "work". If they're just some GUI for a resource intensive task, you probably want to run that task asynchronously (or multi-threaded, depending on your requirements) and only use the GUI for settings / updates / whatever. The key is to never do much work on the GUI thread - if a GUI action takes more than say 50-100ms, it should probably be done elsewhere. Note that using await makes this very easy to do properly - if that's not available, a BackgroundWorker is probably the best option. Do note it doesn't shield you from synchronization issues, though!
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a website which have more than 1000 users. I want to update the content of my site in every 10 sec.
Suppose if one user update anything in a table so it will reflect to other logged in user. But remember the user is ideal.
He doesn't press refresh on his browser.
I think of applying auto-refresh in every 10 sec through jquery which call the ajax post and gets back the
updated result. But with my approach if 1000 users are online so my server will be hit by 1000 times. I want some optimized way to do this. Any suggestions
Setup ajax push instead:
have the browser invoke a remote function on load.
Then on the server wait for an event (new information to send out) then return it to the browsers. This may be easiest with node.js.
You will have to handle connections dropping depending on the reliability you want to implement.
Here's a discussion of Ajax push with php:
Ajax push system
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been told to make a process that insert data for clients using multithreading.
Need to update a client database in a short period of time.There is an application that does the job but it's single threaded.Need to make it multithread.
The idea being is to insert data in batches using the existing application
EG
Process 50000 records
assign 5000 record to each thread
The idea is to fire 10-20 threads and even multiple instance of the same application to do the job.
Any ideas,suggestions examples how to approach this.
It's .net 2.0 unfortunately.
Are there any good example how to do it that you have come across,EG ThreadPool etc.
Reading on multithreading in the meantime
I'll bet dollars to donuts the problem is that the existing code just uses an absurdly inefficient algorithm. Making it multi-threaded won't help unless you fix the algorithm too. And if you fix the algorithm, it likely will not need to be multi-threaded. This doesn't sound like the type of problem that typically benefits from multi-threading itself.
The only possible scenario I could see where this matters is if latency to the database is an issue. But if it's on the same LAN or in the same datacenter, that won't be an issue.