Sunday, July 26, 2009

Wenlong Dong has just posted about changes to the WCF thottling defaults in WCF  4.0. The new throttle defaults are going to be based on the number of processors/cores in the machine – this means the more powerful the machine the higher the throttle will be  - which is a good thing. The throttle that always hit people first were either session, if they had a session as a result of contract/binding settings or, no session, concurrent calls. Now the changes (100 * processor count for session and 16 * processor count for calls) will mean that either one would bite first.

As Wenlong says, the original values were always too low for enterprise applications. What they did do, however, is force people to address throttling if they were writing enterprise apps. And Wenlong is right that that sometimes meant people putting the throttles up to int.MaxValue which is really the same as no throttle at all. But although, in general, I think the change is the right move (it mostly works out of the box), it will lead to people facing performance problems with absolutely no idea why they might be taking place.

What I mean by this is problems caused by the current throttles are really easy to spot “as soon as I put more than 10 calls though it breaks”. You can google that and find the problem and the solution. The new values make it hugely non-obvious why an application suddenly has problems with more than 400 clients (NetTcpBinding on machine with 4 cores for example). Good time to be a consultant in the UK and Europe I guess ;-)

 | 
Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:24:17 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [5]Trackback
Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:15:27 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Good to see real expertise on display. Your cotnirbution is most welcome.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:27:02 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
6BnqdL <a href="http://ywfhaibfjnvl.com/">ywfhaibfjnvl</a>
Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:54:17 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
jtQuts , [url=http://jgsrqbmhupit.com/]jgsrqbmhupit[/url], [link=http://idaexjxwhbwc.com/]idaexjxwhbwc[/link], http://exeeqyalqnsc.com/
Saturday, February 04, 2012 7:54:51 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
hYNH4L <a href="http://enfhwnjjofux.com/">enfhwnjjofux</a>
Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:09:52 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
efvdcm , [url=http://mwaveklreepm.com/]mwaveklreepm[/url], [link=http://cwzplqfhhkkd.com/]cwzplqfhhkkd[/link], http://zzwrjjeapllc.com/
Name
E-mail
Home page

Comment (HTML not allowed)  

Enter the code shown (prevents robots):