My WCF server needs to go up and down on a regular basis, the client sometimes uses the server, but if it is down the client just ignore it.
So each time I need to use the server services I check the connection state and if it's not open I open it.
The problem is that if I attempt to open while the server is down there is a delay which hits performance.
My question is, is there a way to do some kind of myClient.CanOpen()
? so I'd know if there is any point to open the connection to the server.
The WCF TCP transport is optimized for the scenario where both ends of the communication are using WCF. This binding is the fastest WCF binding for scenarios that involve communicating between different machines.
net. tcp is simply the URI scheme used within Windows to identify endpoints that can be accessed using TCP. Similarly, net. msmq and net. pipe , are the URI schemes to address endpoints that utilise the MSMQ protocol and Named Pipes protocol, respectively.
Short answer: Port 808 is used by the Net. TCP Port Sharing service, associated with Internet Information Services through the Windows Communication Foundation.
There is an implementation of WS-Discovery that would allow you to listen for up/down announcements for your service. This is also a very convenient form of service address resolution because it utilizes UDP multicast messages to find the service, rather than configuring one set address on the client. WS-Discovery for WCF
There's also an implementation done by a Microsoft employee: WS-Discovery Sample Implementation
.NET 4.0 will include this natively. You can read about .NET 4.0's implementation on Jesus Rodriguez's blog. It has a great chart that details the ad-hoc communication that goes on in WS-Disco Using WS-Discovery in WCF 4.0
Another thing you might consider, especially if your messages are largely one-way, is a protocol that works natively disconnected, like MSMQ. I don't know what your design for your application looks like, but MSMQ would allow a client to send a message regardless of the state of the service and the service will get it when it comes back up. This way your client doesn't have to block quite so much trying to get confirmation that a service is up before communicating... it'll just fire and forget.
Hope this helps.
If you are doing a synchronous call expecting a server timeout in an application with a user interface, you should be doing it in another thread. I doubt that the performance hit is due to exception overhead. Is your performance penalty in CPU load, gui availability or wall clock time?
You could investigate to see if you can create a custom binding on TCP, but with faster timeout.
I assume you know that "IsOneWay=true" is faster than request->response in your case because you wouldn't be expecting a response anyway, but then you are not getting confirmation or return values. You could also implement a two-way communication that is not request->response.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With