CODEWITHSUNDEEP
asp.net.netasynchronous
ingredient_15939
ingredient_15939

Reputation: 3134

Is there any reason *not* to implement asynchronous ASP.NET web pages in every application?

With regards to asynchronous ASP.NET web pages article on MSDN.

The advantages are obvious with long-running pages or high server load. So, given projects where you think demand may be high somewhere down the track, when usage grows, is there any reason NOT to implement async ASP.NET in every web application as a standard? Are there any disadvantages to the approach?

Secondary question: are there any real-world studies/examples of where the advantages start to appear, in different web app situations? Or is it just a matter of suck it and see?

Upvotes: 2

Views: 285

Answers (1)

Jim D'Angelo
Jim D'Angelo

Reputation: 3952

From your own link:

Only I/O-bound operations are good candidates for becoming async action methods on an asynchronous controller class. An I/O-bound operation is an operation that doesn’t depend on the local CPU for completion. When an I/O-bound operation is active, the CPU just waits for data to be processed (that is, downloaded) from external storage (a database or a remote service). I/O-bound operations are in contrast to CPU-bound operations, where the completion of a task depends on the activity of the CPU.

Async pages are not free, they do come at a price. They are generally good when your page is making an external call to a service or performing some long-running, non-CPU bound, operation. Otherwise, you are likely to thrash the CPU, leaving you with a worse situation that you had before going async.

The idea is to use async when you would be eating up a thread from your application's thread pool doing non-CPU intensive work (waiting for a response from a long-running service). That way, your application can continue processing requests and doesn't start queuing new ones, slowly draining the responsiveness from your app.

Here is another link with information when/when not to use async pages.

Edit

As for what is considered "long running," you're faced with the crummy answer of "It depends." To figure this out, you would need to profile your application, see how many of your "long running" requests cause subsequent requests to be queued, instead of processed, by IIS. The decision comes down to being in a situation in which paying the costly toll of context switching is less than the return you're going to get for doing so. If your bottleneck is a certain page or service that causes incoming requests to be held off, it is probably a good idea to start thinking about async work. But, you might also be doing too much work in the request and it could be a "code smell" that you need to refactor your code.

In the end, It depends.

Here is an exerpt from MSDN.

In general, use asynchronous pipelines when the following conditions are true:

  • The operations are network-bound or I/O-bound instead of CPU-bound.

  • Testing shows that the blocking operations are a bottleneck in site performance and that IIS can service more requests by using asynchronous action methods for these blocking calls.

  • Parallelism is more important than simplicity of code.

  • You want to provide a mechanism that lets users cancel a long-running request.

While the link is about MVC, the idea holds true for other flavors of ASP.NET, too.

Upvotes: 7

Related Questions