I have an ASP.NET 3.5 server application written in C#. It makes outbound requests to a REST API using HttpWebRequest and HttpWebResponse.
I have setup a test application to send these requests on separate threads (to vaguely mimic concurrency against the server).
Please note this is more of a Mono/Environment question than a code question; so please keep in mind that the code below is not verbatim; just a cut/paste of the functional bits.
Here is some pseudo-code:
// threaded client piece
int numThreads = 1;
ManualResetEvent doneEvent;
using (doneEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false))
{
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; i++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(Test), random_url_to_same_host);
}
doneEvent.WaitOne();
}
void Test(object some_url)
{
// setup service point here just to show what config settings Im using
ServicePoint lgsp = ServicePointManager.FindServicePoint(new Uri(some_url.ToString()));
// set these to optimal for MONO and .NET
lgsp.Expect100Continue = false;
lgsp.ConnectionLimit = 100;
lgsp.UseNagleAlgorithm = true;
lgsp.MaxIdleTime = 100000;
_request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(some_url);
using (HttpWebResponse _response = (HttpWebResponse)_request.GetResponse())
{
// do stuff
} // releases the response object
// close out threading stuff
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref numThreads) == 0)
{
doneEvent.Set();
}
}
If I run the application on my local development machine (Windows 7) in the Visual Studio web server, I can up the numThreads and receive the same avg response time with minimal variation whether it's 1 "user" or 100.
Publishing and deploying the application to Apache2 on a Mono 2.10.2 environment, the response times scale almost linearly. (i.e, 1 thread = 300ms, 5 thread = 1500ms, 10 threads = 3000ms). This happens regardless of server endpoint (different hostname, different network, etc).
Using IPTRAF (and other network tools), it appears as though the application only opens 1 or 2 ports to route all connections through and the remaining responses have to wait.
We have built a similar PHP application and deployed in Mono with the same requests and the responses scale appropriately.
I have run through every single configuration setting I can think of for Mono and Apache and the ONLY setting that is different between the two environments (at least in code) is that sometimes the ServicePoint SupportsPipelining=false in Mono, while it is true from my machine.
It seems as though the ConnectionLimit (default of 2) is not being changed in Mono for some reason but I am setting it to a higher value both in code and the web.config for the specified host(s).
Either me and my team are overlooking something significant or this is some sort of bug in Mono.
I believe that you're hitting a bottleneck in the
HttpWebRequest
. The web requests each use a common service point infrastructure within the .NET framework. This appears to be intended to allow requests to the same host to be reused, but in my experience results in two bottlenecks.First, the service points allow only two concurrent connections to a given host by default in order to be compliant to the HTTP specification. This can be overridden by setting the static property
ServicePointManager.DefaultConnectionLimit
to a higher value. See this MSDN page for more details. It looks as if you're already addressing this for the individual service point itself, but due to the concurrency locking scheme at the service point level, doing so may be contributing to the bottleneck.Second, there appears to be an issue with lock granularity in the
ServicePoint
class itself. If you decompile and look at the source for thelock
keyword, you'll find that it uses the instance itself to synchronize and does so in many places. With the service point instance being shared among web requests for a given host, in my experience this tends to bottleneck as moreHttpWebRequests
are opened and causes it to scale poorly. This second point is mostly personal observation and poking around the source, so take it with a grain of salt; I wouldn't consider it an authoritative source.Unfortunately, I did not find a reasonable substitute at the time that I was working with it. Now that the ASP.NET Web API has been released, you may wish to give the HttpClient a look. Hope that helps.