We Keep Coding

Multiple Async Calls with Pause Between Calls

I have an IEnumerable<Task>, where each Task will call the same endpoint. However, the endpoint can only handle so many calls per second. How can I put, say, a half second delay between each call?
I have tried adding Task.Delay(), but of course awaiting them simply means that the app waits a half second before sending all the calls at once.
Here is a code snippet:
var resultTasks = orders
.Select(async task =>
{
var result = new VendorTaskResult();
try
{
result.Response = await result.CallVendorAsync();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
result.Exception = ex;
}
return result;
} );
var results = Task.WhenAll(resultTasks);
I feel like I should do something like
Task.WhenAll(resultTasks.EmitOverTime(500));
... but how exactly do I do that?

What you describe in your question is in other words rate limiting. You'd like to apply rate limiting policy to your client, because the API you use enforces such a policy on the server to protect itself from abuse.
While you could implement rate limiting yourself, I'd recommend you to go with some well established solution. Rate Limiter from Davis Desmaisons was the one that I picked at random and I instantly liked it. It had solid documentation, superior coverage and was easy to use. It is also available as NuGet package.
Check out the simple snippet below that demonstrates running semi-overlapping tasks in sequence while defering the task start by half a second after the immediately preceding task started. Each task lasts at least 750 ms.
using ComposableAsync;
using RateLimiter;
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace RateLimiterTest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Log("Starting tasks ...");
var constraint = TimeLimiter.GetFromMaxCountByInterval(1, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(0.5));
var tasks = new[]
{
DoWorkAsync("Task1", constraint),
DoWorkAsync("Task2", constraint),
DoWorkAsync("Task3", constraint),
DoWorkAsync("Task4", constraint)
};
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
Log("All tasks finished.");
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void Log(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToString("HH:mm:ss.fff ") + message);
}
static async Task DoWorkAsync(string name, IDispatcher constraint)
{
await constraint;
Log(name + " started");
await Task.Delay(750);
Log(name + " finished");
}
}
}
Sample output:
10:03:27.121 Starting tasks ...
10:03:27.154 Task1 started
10:03:27.658 Task2 started
10:03:27.911 Task1 finished
10:03:28.160 Task3 started
10:03:28.410 Task2 finished
10:03:28.680 Task4 started
10:03:28.913 Task3 finished
10:03:29.443 Task4 finished
10:03:29.443 All tasks finished.
If you change the constraint to allow maximum two tasks per second (var constraint = TimeLimiter.GetFromMaxCountByInterval(2, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));), which is not the same as one per half a second, then the output could be like:
10:06:03.237 Starting tasks ...
10:06:03.264 Task1 started
10:06:03.268 Task2 started
10:06:04.026 Task2 finished
10:06:04.031 Task1 finished
10:06:04.275 Task3 started
10:06:04.276 Task4 started
10:06:05.032 Task4 finished
10:06:05.032 Task3 finished
10:06:05.033 All tasks finished.
Note that the current version of Rate Limiter targets .NETFramework 4.7.2+ or .NETStandard 2.0+.

This is just a thought, but another approach could be to create a queue and add another thread that runs polling the queue for calls that need to go out to your endpoint.

Have you considered just turning that into a foreach-loop with a Task.Delay call? You seem to want to explicitly call them sequentially, it won't hurt if that is obvious from your code.
var results = new List<YourResultType>;
foreach(var order in orders){
var result = new VendorTaskResult();
try
{
result.Response = await result.CallVendorAsync();
results.Add(result.Response);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
result.Exception = ex;
}
}

Instead of selecting from orders you could loop over them, and inside the loop put the result into a list and then call Task.WhenAll.
Would look something like:
var resultTasks = new List<VendorTaskResult>(orders.Count);
orders.ToList().ForEach( item => {
var result = new VendorTaskResult();
try
{
result.Response = await result.CallVendorAsync();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
result.Exception = ex;
}
resultTasks.Add(result);
Thread.Sleep(x);
});
var results = Task.WhenAll(resultTasks);
If you want to control the number of requests executed simultaneously, you have to use a semaphore.

I have something very similar, and it works fine with me. Please note that I call ToArray() after the Linq query finishes, that triggers the tasks:
using (HttpClient client = new HttpClient()) {
IEnumerable<Task<string>> _downloads = _group
.Select(job => {
await Task.Delay(300);
return client.GetStringAsync(<url with variable job>);
});
Task<string>[] _downloadTasks = _downloads.ToArray();
_pages = await Task.WhenAll(_downloadTasks);
}
Now please note that this will create n nunmber of tasks, all in parallel, and the Task.Delay literally does nothing. If you want to call the pages synchronously (as it sounds by putting a delay between the calls), then this code may be better:
using (HttpClient client = new HttpClient()) {
foreach (string job in _group) {
await Task.Delay(300);
_pages.Add(await client.GetStringAsync(<url with variable job>));
}
}
The download of the pages is still asynchronous (while downloading other tasks are done), but each call to download the page is synchronous, ensuring that you can wait for one to finish in order to call the next one.
The code can be easily changed to call the pages asynchronously in chunks, like every 10 pages, wait 300ms, like in this sample:
IEnumerable<string[]> toParse = myData
.Select((v, i) => new { v.code, group = i / 20 })
.GroupBy(x => x.group)
.Select(g => g.Select(x => x.code).ToArray());
using (HttpClient client = new HttpClient()) {
foreach (string[] _group in toParse) {
string[] _pages = null;
IEnumerable<Task<string>> _downloads = _group
.Select(job => {
return client.GetStringAsync(<url with job>);
});
Task<string>[] _downloadTasks = _downloads.ToArray();
_pages = await Task.WhenAll(_downloadTasks);
await Task.Delay(5000);
}
}
All this does is group your pages in chunks of 20, iterate through the chunks, download all pages of the chunk asynchronously, wait 5 seconds, move on to the next chunk.
I hope that is what you were waiting for :)

The proposed method EmitOverTime is doable, but only by blocking the current thread:
public static IEnumerable<Task<TResult>> EmitOverTime<TResult>(
this IEnumerable<Task<TResult>> tasks, int delay)
{
foreach (var item in tasks)
{
Thread.Sleep(delay); // Delay by blocking
yield return item;
}
}
Usage:
var results = await Task.WhenAll(resultTasks.EmitOverTime(500));
Probably better is to create a variant of Task.WhenAll that accepts a delay argument, and delays asyncronously:
public static async Task<TResult[]> WhenAllWithDelay<TResult>(
IEnumerable<Task<TResult>> tasks, int delay)
{
var tasksList = new List<Task<TResult>>();
foreach (var task in tasks)
{
await Task.Delay(delay).ConfigureAwait(false);
tasksList.Add(task);
}
return await Task.WhenAll(tasksList).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
Usage:
var results = await WhenAllWithDelay(resultTasks, 500);
This design implies that the enumerable of tasks should be enumerated only once. It is easy to forget this during development, and start enumerating it again, spawning a new set of tasks. For this reason I propose to make it an OnlyOnce enumerable, as it is shown in this question.
Update: I should mention why the above methods work, and under what premise. The premise is that the supplied IEnumerable<Task<TResult>> is deferred, in other words non-materialized. At the method's start there are no tasks created yet. The tasks are created one after the other during the enumeration of the enumerable, and the trick is that the enumeration is slow and controlled. The delay inside the loop ensures that the tasks are not created all at once. They are created hot (in other words already started), so at the time the last task has been created some of the first tasks may have already been completed. The materialized list of half-running/half-completed tasks is then passed to Task.WhenAll, that waits for all to complete asynchronously.

Is there a proper pattern for multiple ContinueWith methods

In the docs for TPL I found this line:
Invoke multiple continuations from the same antecedent
But this isn't explained any further. I naively assumed you could chain ContinueWiths in a pattern matching like manner until you hit the right TaskContinuationOptions.
TaskThatReturnsString()
.ContinueWith((s) => Console.Out.WriteLine(s.Result), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion)
.ContinueWith((f) => Console.Out.WriteLine(f.Exception.Message), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted)
.ContinueWith((f) => Console.Out.WriteLine("Cancelled"), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnCanceled)
.Wait();
But this doesn't work like I hoped for at least two reasons.
The continuations are properly chained so the 2nd ContinueWith gets the result form the 1st, that is implemented as new Task, basically the ContinueWith task itself. I realize that the String could be returned onwards, but won't that be a new task with other info lost?
Since the first option is not met, the Task is just cancelled. Meaning that the second set will never be met and the exceptions are lost.
So what do they mean in the docs when they say multiple continuations from the same antecedent?
Is there a proper patter for this or do we just have to wrap the calls in try catch blocks?
EDIT
So I guess this was what I was hoping I could do, note this is a simplified example.
public void ProccessAllTheThings()
{
var theThings = util.GetAllTheThings();
var tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var thing in theThings)
{
var task = util.Process(thing)
.ContinueWith((t) => Console.Out.WriteLine($"Finished processing {thing.ThingId} with result {t.Result}"), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion)
.ContinueWith((t) => Console.Out.WriteLine($"Error on processing {thing.ThingId} with error {t.Exception.Message}"), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
tasks.Add(task);
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
Since this wasn't possible I was thinking I would have to wrap each task call in a try catch inside the loop so I wouldn't stop the process but not wait on it there. I wasn't sure what the correct way.
Sometimes a solution is just staring you in the face, this would work wouldn't it?
public void ProccessAllTheThings()
{
var theThings = util.GetAllTheThings();
var tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var thing in theThings)
{
var task = util.Process(thing)
.ContinueWith((t) =>
{
if (t.Status == TaskStatus.RanToCompletion)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine($"Finished processing {thing.ThingId} with result {t.Result}");
}
else
{
Console.Out.WriteLine($"Error on processing {thing.ThingId} - {t.Exception.Message}");
}
});
tasks.Add(task);
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}

What you did is to create a sequential chain of multiple tasks.
What you need to do is attach all your continuation tasks to the first one:
var firstTask = TaskThatReturnsString();
var t1 = firstTask.ContinueWith (…);
var t2 = firstTask.ContinueWith (…);
var t3 = firstTask.ContinueWith (…);
Then you need to wait for all the continuation tasks:
Task.WaitAll (t1, t2, t3);

How to limit the Maximum number of parallel tasks in c#

I have a collection of 1000 input message to process. I'm looping the input collection and starting the new task for each message to get processed.
//Assume this messages collection contains 1000 items
var messages = new List<string>();
foreach (var msg in messages)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Process(msg);
});
}
Can we guess how many maximum messages simultaneously get processed at the time (assuming normal Quad core processor), or can we limit the maximum number of messages to be processed at the time?
How to ensure this message get processed in the same sequence/order of the Collection?

You could use Parallel.Foreach and rely on MaxDegreeOfParallelism instead.
Parallel.ForEach(messages, new ParallelOptions {MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 10},
msg =>
{
// logic
Process(msg);
});

SemaphoreSlim is a very good solution in this case and I higly recommend OP to try this, but #Manoj's answer has flaw as mentioned in comments.semaphore should be waited before spawning the task like this.
Updated Answer: As #Vasyl pointed out Semaphore may be disposed before completion of tasks and will raise exception when Release() method is called so before exiting the using block must wait for the completion of all created Tasks.
int maxConcurrency=10;
var messages = new List<string>();
using(SemaphoreSlim concurrencySemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(maxConcurrency))
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach(var msg in messages)
{
concurrencySemaphore.Wait();
var t = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
Process(msg);
}
finally
{
concurrencySemaphore.Release();
}
});
tasks.Add(t);
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
Answer to Comments
for those who want to see how semaphore can be disposed without Task.WaitAll
Run below code in console app and this exception will be raised.
System.ObjectDisposedException: 'The semaphore has been disposed.'
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int maxConcurrency = 5;
List<string> messages = Enumerable.Range(1, 15).Select(e => e.ToString()).ToList();
using (SemaphoreSlim concurrencySemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(maxConcurrency))
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var msg in messages)
{
concurrencySemaphore.Wait();
var t = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
Process(msg);
}
finally
{
concurrencySemaphore.Release();
}
});
tasks.Add(t);
}
// Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
Console.WriteLine("Exited using block");
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void Process(string msg)
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
Console.WriteLine(msg);
}

I think it would be better to use Parallel LINQ
Parallel.ForEach(messages ,
new ParallelOptions{MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 4},
x => Process(x);
);
where x is the MaxDegreeOfParallelism

With .NET 5.0 and Core 3.0 channels were introduced.
The main benefit of this producer/consumer concurrency pattern is that you can also limit the input data processing to reduce resource impact.
This is especially helpful when processing millions of data records.
Instead of reading the whole dataset at once into memory, you can now consecutively query only chunks of the data and wait for the workers to process it before querying more.
Code sample with a queue capacity of 50 messages and 5 consumer threads:
/// <exception cref="System.AggregateException">Thrown on Consumer Task exceptions.</exception>
public static async Task ProcessMessages(List<string> messages)
{
const int producerCapacity = 10, consumerTaskLimit = 3;
var channel = Channel.CreateBounded<string>(producerCapacity);
_ = Task.Run(async () =>
{
foreach (var msg in messages)
{
await channel.Writer.WriteAsync(msg);
// blocking when channel is full
// waiting for the consumer tasks to pop messages from the queue
}
channel.Writer.Complete();
// signaling the end of queue so that
// WaitToReadAsync will return false to stop the consumer tasks
});
var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = tokenSource.Token;
var consumerTasks = Enumerable
.Range(1, consumerTaskLimit)
.Select(_ => Task.Run(async () =>
{
try
{
while (await channel.Reader.WaitToReadAsync(ct))
{
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
while (channel.Reader.TryRead(out var message))
{
await Task.Delay(500);
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
}
}
catch (OperationCanceledException) { }
catch
{
tokenSource.Cancel();
throw;
}
}))
.ToArray();
Task waitForConsumers = Task.WhenAll(consumerTasks);
try { await waitForConsumers; }
catch
{
foreach (var e in waitForConsumers.Exception.Flatten().InnerExceptions)
Console.WriteLine(e.ToString());
throw waitForConsumers.Exception.Flatten();
}
}
As pointed out by Theodor Zoulias:
On multiple consumer exceptions, the remaining tasks will continue to run and have to take the load of the killed tasks. To avoid this, I implemented a CancellationToken to stop all the remaining tasks and handle the exceptions combined in the AggregateException of waitForConsumers.Exception.
Side note:
The Task Parallel Library (TPL) might be good at automatically limiting the tasks based on your local resources. But when you are processing data remotely via RPC, it's necessary to manually limit your RPC calls to avoid filling the network/processing stack!

If your Process method is async you can't use Task.Factory.StartNew as it doesn't play well with an async delegate. Also there are some other nuances when using it (see this for example).
The proper way to do it in this case is to use Task.Run. Here's #ClearLogic answer modified for an async Process method.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int maxConcurrency = 5;
List<string> messages = Enumerable.Range(1, 15).Select(e => e.ToString()).ToList();
using (SemaphoreSlim concurrencySemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(maxConcurrency))
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var msg in messages)
{
concurrencySemaphore.Wait();
var t = Task.Run(async () =>
{
try
{
await Process(msg);
}
finally
{
concurrencySemaphore.Release();
}
});
tasks.Add(t);
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
Console.WriteLine("Exited using block");
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static async Task Process(string msg)
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine(msg);
}

You can create your own TaskScheduler and override QueueTask there.
protected virtual void QueueTask(Task task)
Then you can do anything you like.
One example here:
Limited concurrency level task scheduler (with task priority) handling wrapped tasks

You can simply set the max concurrency degree like this way:
int maxConcurrency=10;
var messages = new List<1000>();
using(SemaphoreSlim concurrencySemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(maxConcurrency))
{
foreach(var msg in messages)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
concurrencySemaphore.Wait();
try
{
Process(msg);
}
finally
{
concurrencySemaphore.Release();
}
});
}
}

If you need in-order queuing (processing might finish in any order), there is no need for a semaphore. Old fashioned if statements work fine:
const int maxConcurrency = 5;
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var arg in args)
{
var t = Task.Run(() => { Process(arg); } );
tasks.Add(t);
if(tasks.Count >= maxConcurrency)
Task.WaitAny(tasks.ToArray());
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());

I ran into a similar problem where I wanted to produce 5000 results while calling apis, etc. So, I ran some speed tests.
Parallel.ForEach(products.Select(x => x.KeyValue).Distinct().Take(100), id =>
{
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 100 };
GetProductMetaData(productsMetaData, client, id).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
});
produced 100 results in 30 seconds.
Parallel.ForEach(products.Select(x => x.KeyValue).Distinct().Take(100), id =>
{
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 100 };
GetProductMetaData(productsMetaData, client, id);
});
Moving the GetAwaiter().GetResult() to the individual async api calls inside GetProductMetaData resulted in 14.09 seconds to produce 100 results.
foreach (var id in ids.Take(100))
{
GetProductMetaData(productsMetaData, client, id);
}
Complete non-async programming with the GetAwaiter().GetResult() in api calls resulted in 13.417 seconds.
var tasks = new List<Task>();
while (y < ids.Count())
{
foreach (var id in ids.Skip(y).Take(100))
{
tasks.Add(GetProductMetaData(productsMetaData, client, id));
}
y += 100;
Task.WhenAll(tasks).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
Console.WriteLine($"Finished {y}, {sw.Elapsed}");
}
Forming a task list and working through 100 at a time resulted in a speed of 7.36 seconds.
using (SemaphoreSlim cons = new SemaphoreSlim(10))
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var id in ids.Take(100))
{
cons.Wait();
var t = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
GetProductMetaData(productsMetaData, client, id);
}
finally
{
cons.Release();
}
});
tasks.Add(t);
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
Using SemaphoreSlim resulted in 13.369 seconds, but also took a moment to boot to start using it.
var throttler = new SemaphoreSlim(initialCount: take);
foreach (var id in ids)
{
throttler.WaitAsync().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
tasks.Add(Task.Run(async () =>
{
try
{
skip += 1;
await GetProductMetaData(productsMetaData, client, id);
if (skip % 100 == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine($"started {skip}/{count}, {sw.Elapsed}");
}
}
finally
{
throttler.Release();
}
}));
}
Using Semaphore Slim with a throttler for my async task took 6.12 seconds.
The answer for me in this specific project was use a throttler with Semaphore Slim. Although the while foreach tasklist did sometimes beat the throttler, 4/6 times the throttler won for 1000 records.
I realize I'm not using the OPs code, but I think this is important and adds to this discussion because how is sometimes not the only question that should be asked, and the answer is sometimes "It depends on what you are trying to do."
Now to answer the specific questions:
How to limit the maximum number of parallel tasks in c#: I showed how to limit the number of tasks that are completed at a time.
Can we guess how many maximum messages simultaneously get processed at the time (assuming normal Quad core processor), or can we limit the maximum number of messages to be processed at the time? I cannot guess how many will be processed at a time unless I set an upper limit but I can set an upper limit. Obviously different computers function at different speeds due to CPU, RAM etc. and how many threads and cores the program itself has access to as well as other programs running in tandem on the same computer.
How to ensure this message get processed in the same sequence/order of the Collection? If you want to process everything in a specific order, it is synchronous programming. The point of being able to run things asynchronously is ensuring that they can do everything without an order. As you can see from my code, the time difference is minimal in 100 records unless you use async code. In the event that you need an order to what you are doing, use asynchronous programming up until that point, then await and do things synchronously from there. For example, task1a.start, task2a.start, then later task1a.await, task2a.await... then later task1b.start task1b.await and task2b.start task 2b.await.

public static void RunTasks(List<NamedTask> importTaskList)
{
List<NamedTask> runningTasks = new List<NamedTask>();
try
{
foreach (NamedTask currentTask in importTaskList)
{
currentTask.Start();
runningTasks.Add(currentTask);
if (runningTasks.Where(x => x.Status == TaskStatus.Running).Count() >= MaxCountImportThread)
{
Task.WaitAny(runningTasks.ToArray());
}
}
Task.WaitAll(runningTasks.ToArray());
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Log.Fatal("ERROR!", ex);
}
}

you can use the BlockingCollection, If the consume collection limit has reached, the produce will stop producing until a consume process will finish. I find this pattern more easy to understand and implement than the SemaphoreSlim.
int TasksLimit = 10;
BlockingCollection<Task> tasks = new BlockingCollection<Task>(new ConcurrentBag<Task>(), TasksLimit);
void ProduceAndConsume()
{
var producer = Task.Factory.StartNew(RunProducer);
var consumer = Task.Factory.StartNew(RunConsumer);
try
{
Task.WaitAll(new[] { producer, consumer });
}
catch (AggregateException ae) { }
}
void RunConsumer()
{
foreach (var task in tasks.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
task.Start();
}
}
void RunProducer()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
tasks.Add(new Task(() => Thread.Sleep(1000), TaskCreationOptions.AttachedToParent));
}
}
Note that the RunProducer and RunConsumer has spawn two independent tasks.

How to determine whether Task.Run is completed within a loop

This may be an odd question and it is really for my educational purpose so I can apply it in future scenarios that may come up.
I am using C#.
I am stress testing so this is not quite production code.
I upload data to my server via a web service.
I start the service off using a Task.Run.
I check to see if the Task is completed before allowing the next Run.Task to begin.
This is done within a loop.
However, because I am using a modular declared Task will not the result be affected?
I could declare a local Task.Run variable but I want to see how far I can get with this question 1st.
If the Task.Run can raise an event to say it is completed then this may not be an issue?
This is my code:
//module declaration:
private static Task webTask = Task.Run(() => { System.Windows.Forms.Application.DoEvents(); });
//in a function called via a timer
if (webTask.IsCompleted)
{
//keep count of completed tasks
}
webTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
wcf.UploadMotionDynamicRaw(bytes); //my web service
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//deal with error
}
);

IMO you do not need the timer. Using Task Continuation you subscribe to the done event:
System.Threading.Tasks.Task
.Run(() =>
{
// simulate processing
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("do something {0}", i + 1);
}
})
.ContinueWith(t => Console.WriteLine("done."));
The output is:
do something 1
do something 2
.
.
do something 9
do something 10
done
Your code could look like this:
var webTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
wcf.UploadMotionDynamicRaw(bytes); //my web service
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//deal with error
}
}).ContinueWith(t => taskCounter++);
With task continuation you could even differentiate between failed and success process result, if you want to count only successfull tasks - using the TaskContinuationOptrions.

You can wait for your task to complete by awaiting your task like this
await webTask;
that will asynchronously wait for 'webTask' to complete. Instead of the timer you can use await Task.Delay which will asynchronously wait for the delay to expire. I would also consider making the wcf call asynchronous so you don't have to call inside Task.Run. See this question for some tips.
I'd rewrite the code as follows:
public async Task UploadAsync()
{
while(true)
{
await Task.Delay(1000); // this is essentially your timer
// wait for the webTask to complete asynchrnously
await webTask;
//keep count of competed tasks
webTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
// consider generating an asynchronous method for this if possible.
wcf.UploadMotionDynamicRaw(bytes); //my web service
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//deal with error
}
});
}
}

Task.WaitAll and cancelled tasks

I have two ContinueWith for a task. The first one handles the case when the task is finished successfully and the second one for the case when it fails.
Then I wait till one of them is finished.
The sample code is below:
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { Console.WriteLine("Task is finished"); });
var success = task.ContinueWith(
t => Console.WriteLine("Success")
, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion
);
var failed = task.ContinueWith(
t => Console.WriteLine("Failed")
, TaskContinuationOptions.NotOnRanToCompletion
);
try
{
Task.WaitAll(success, failed);
}
catch (AggregateException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.InnerException.Message);
}
My question is, is it possible to rewrite it to avoid TaskCanceledException raising?

When you want to have handlers for both success and failure, I don't see much reason to have them in separate ContinueWith() calls. One call, that will happen always should be enough:
var continuation = task.ContinueWith(
t =>
{
if (t.IsFaulted)
Console.WriteLine("Failed");
else
Console.WriteLine("Success");
});
continuation.Wait();
Assuming task will never be canceled, this will behave pretty much the same as your original code.