Appropriate solution for long running computations in Azure App Service and .NET Core 3.1?
Asked Answered
S

5

17

What is an appropriate solution for long running computations in Azure App Service and .NET Core 3.1 in an application that has no need for a database and no IO to anything outside of this application ? It is a computation task.

Specifically, the following is unreliable and needs a solution.

[Route("service")]
[HttpPost]
public Outbound Post(Inbound inbound)
{
    Debug.Assert(inbound.Message.Equals("Hello server."));
    Outbound outbound = new Outbound();
    long Billion = 1000000000;
    for (long i = 0; i < 33 * Billion; i++) // 230 seconds
        ;
    outbound.Message = String.Format("The server processed inbound object.");
    return outbound;
}

This sometimes returns a null object to the HttpClient (not shown). A smaller workload will always succeed. For example 3 billion iterations always succeeds. A bigger number would be nice specifically 240 billion is a requirement.

I think in the year 2020 a reasonable goal in Azure App Service with .NET Core might be to have a parent thread count to 240 billion with the help of 8 child threads so each child counts to 30 billion and the parent divides an 8 M byte inbound object into smaller objects inbound to each child. Each child receives a 1 M byte inbound and returns to the parent a 1 M byte outbound. The parent re-assembles the result into a 8 M byte outbound.

Obviously the elapsed time will be 12.5%, or 1/8, or one-eighth, of the time a single thread implementation would need. The time to cut-up and re-assemble objects is small compared to the computation time. I am assuming the time to transmit the objects is very small compared to the computation time so the 12.5% expectation is roughly accurate.

If I can get 4 or 8 cores that would be good. If I can get threads that give me say 50% of the cycles of a core, then I would need may be 8 or 16 threads. If each thread gives me 33% of the cycles of a core then I would need 12 or 24 threads.

I am considering the BackgroundService class but I am looking for confirmation that this is the correct approach. Microsoft says...

BackgroundService is a base class for implementing a long running IHostedService.

Obviously if something is long running it would be better to make it finish sooner by using multiple cores via System.Threading but this documentation seems to mention System.Threading only in the context of starting tasks via System.Threading.Timer. My example code shows there is no timer needed in my application. An HTTP POST will serve as the occasion to do work. Typically I would use System.Threading.Thread to instantiate multiple objects to use multiple cores. I find the absence of any mention of multiple cores to be a glaring omission in the context of a solution for work that takes a long time but may be there is some reason Azure App Service doesn't deal with this matter. Perhaps I am just not able to find it in tutorials and documentation.

The initiation of the task is the illustrated HTTP POST controller. Suppose the longest job takes 10 minutes. The HTTP client (not shown) sets the timeout limit to 1000 seconds which is much more than 10 minutes (600 seconds) in order for there to be a margin of safety. HttpClient.Timeout is the relevant property. For the moment I am presuming the HTTP timeout is a real limit; rather than some sort of non-binding (fake limit) such that some other constraint results in the user waiting 9 minutes and receiving an error message. A real binding limit is a limit for which I can say "but for this timeout it would have succeeded". If the HTTP timeout is not the real binding limit and there is something else constraining the system, I can adjust my HTTP controller to instead have three (3) POST methods. Thus POST1 would mean start a task with the inbound object. POST2 means tell me if it is finished. POST3 means give me the outbound object.

What is an appropriate solution for long running computations in Azure App Service and .NET Core 3.1 in an application that has no need for a database and no IO to anything outside of this application ? It is a computation task.

Smoky answered 12/8, 2020 at 3:58 Comment(2)
No I/O, just data streaming in and out, high scalability required... smells like databricks streamingLubeck
Can you have more than one "job" running? That's coming in on an endpoint, meaning that something could hit it, then while it's running, something else could hit it. Would you want to send back a "busy" message? or would you accept it? Also, are you considering horizontally scaling your app? If you use BackgroundService, then if your app scales to 2 instances, you'd have 2 services running simultaniously.Naraka
N
36

Prologue

A few years ago a ran in to a pretty similar problem. We needed a service that could process large amounts of data. Sometimes the processing would take 10 seconds, other times it could take an hour.

At first we did it how your question illustrates: Send a request to the service, the service processes the data from the request and returns the response when finished.

Issues At Hand

This was fine when the job only took around a minute or less, but anything above this, the server would shut down the session and the caller would report an error.

Servers have a default of around 2 minutes to produce a response before it gives up on the request. It doesn't quit the processing of the request... but it does quit the HTTP session. It doesn't matter what parameters you set on your HttpClient, the server is the one that delegates how long is too long.

Reasons For Issues

All this is for good reasons. Server sockets are extremely expensive. You have a finite amount to go around. The server is trying to protect your service by severing requests that are taking longer than a specified time in order to avoid socket starvation issues.

Typically you want your HTTP requests to take only a few milliseconds. If they are taking longer than this, you will eventually run in to socket issues if your service has to fulfil other requests at a high rate.

Solution

We decided to go the route of IHostedService, specifically the BackgroundService. We use this service in conjunction with a Queue. This way you can set up a queue of jobs and the BackgroundService will process them one at a time (in some instances we have service processing multiple queue items at once, in others we scaled horizontally producing two or more queues).

Why an ASP.NET Core service running a BackgroundService? I wanted to handle this without tightly-coupling to any Azure-specific constructs in case we needed to move out of Azure to some other cloud service (back in the day we were contemplating this for other reasons we had at the time.)

This has worked out quite well for us and we haven't seen any issues since.

The work flow goes like this:

  1. Caller sends a request to the service with some parameters
  2. Service generates a "job" object and returns an ID immediately via 202 (accepted) response
  3. Service places this job in to a queue that is being maintained by a BackgroundService
  4. Caller can query the job status and get information about how much has been done and how much is left to go using this job ID
  5. Service finishes the job, puts the job in to a "completed" state and goes back to waiting on the queue to produce more jobs

Keep in mind your service has the capability to scale horizontally where there would be more than one instance running. In this case I am using Redis Cache to store the state of the jobs so that all instances share the same state.

I also added in a "Memory Cache" option to test things locally if you don't have a Redis Cache available. You could run the "Memory Cache" service on a server, just know that if it scales then your data will be inconsistent.

Example

Since I'm married with kids, I really don't do much on Friday nights after everyone goes to bed, so I spent some time putting together an example that you can try out. The full solution is also available for you to try out.

QueuedBackgroundService.cs

This class implementation serves two specific purposes: One is to read from the queue (the BackgroundService implementation), the other is to write to the queue (the IQueuedBackgroundService implementation).

    public interface IQueuedBackgroundService
    {
        Task<JobCreatedModel> PostWorkItemAsync(JobParametersModel jobParameters);
    }

    public sealed class QueuedBackgroundService : BackgroundService, IQueuedBackgroundService
    {
        private sealed class JobQueueItem
        {
            public string JobId { get; set; }
            public JobParametersModel JobParameters { get; set; }
        }

        private readonly IComputationWorkService _workService;
        private readonly IComputationJobStatusService _jobStatusService;

        // Shared between BackgroundService and IQueuedBackgroundService.
        // The queueing mechanism could be moved out to a singleton service. I am doing
        // it this way for simplicity's sake.
        private static readonly ConcurrentQueue<JobQueueItem> _queue =
            new ConcurrentQueue<JobQueueItem>();
        private static readonly SemaphoreSlim _signal = new SemaphoreSlim(0);

        public QueuedBackgroundService(IComputationWorkService workService,
            IComputationJobStatusService jobStatusService)
        {
            _workService = workService;
            _jobStatusService = jobStatusService;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Transient method via IQueuedBackgroundService
        /// </summary>
        public async Task<JobCreatedModel> PostWorkItemAsync(JobParametersModel jobParameters)
        {
            var jobId = await _jobStatusService.CreateJobAsync(jobParameters).ConfigureAwait(false);
            _queue.Enqueue(new JobQueueItem { JobId = jobId, JobParameters = jobParameters });
            _signal.Release(); // signal for background service to start working on the job
            return new JobCreatedModel { JobId = jobId, QueuePosition = _queue.Count };
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Long running task via BackgroundService
        /// </summary>
        protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
        {
            while(!stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested)
            {
                JobQueueItem jobQueueItem = null;
                try
                {
                    // wait for the queue to signal there is something that needs to be done
                    await _signal.WaitAsync(stoppingToken).ConfigureAwait(false);

                    // dequeue the item
                    jobQueueItem = _queue.TryDequeue(out var workItem) ? workItem : null;

                    if(jobQueueItem != null)
                    {
                        // put the job in to a "processing" state
                        await _jobStatusService.UpdateJobStatusAsync(
                            jobQueueItem.JobId, JobStatus.Processing).ConfigureAwait(false);

                        // the heavy lifting is done here...
                        var result = await _workService.DoWorkAsync(
                            jobQueueItem.JobId, jobQueueItem.JobParameters,
                            stoppingToken).ConfigureAwait(false);

                        // store the result of the work and set the status to "finished"
                        await _jobStatusService.StoreJobResultAsync(
                            jobQueueItem.JobId, result, JobStatus.Success).ConfigureAwait(false);
                    }
                }
                catch(TaskCanceledException)
                {
                    break;
                }
                catch(Exception ex)
                {
                    try
                    {
                        // something went wrong. Put the job in to an errored state and continue on
                        await _jobStatusService.StoreJobResultAsync(jobQueueItem.JobId, new JobResultModel
                        {
                            Exception = new JobExceptionModel(ex)
                        }, JobStatus.Errored).ConfigureAwait(false);
                    }
                    catch(Exception)
                    {
                        // TODO: log this
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }

It is injected as so:

    services.AddHostedService<QueuedBackgroundService>();
    services.AddTransient<IQueuedBackgroundService, QueuedBackgroundService>();

ComputationController.cs

The controller used to read/write jobs looks like this:

    [ApiController, Route("api/[controller]")]
    public class ComputationController : ControllerBase
    {
        private readonly IQueuedBackgroundService _queuedBackgroundService;
        private readonly IComputationJobStatusService _computationJobStatusService;

        public ComputationController(
            IQueuedBackgroundService queuedBackgroundService,
            IComputationJobStatusService computationJobStatusService)
        {
            _queuedBackgroundService = queuedBackgroundService;
            _computationJobStatusService = computationJobStatusService;
        }

        [HttpPost, Route("beginComputation")]
        [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status202Accepted, Type = typeof(JobCreatedModel))]
        public async Task<IActionResult> BeginComputation([FromBody] JobParametersModel obj)
        {
            return Accepted(
                await _queuedBackgroundService.PostWorkItemAsync(obj).ConfigureAwait(false));
        }

        [HttpGet, Route("computationStatus/{jobId}")]
        [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status200OK, Type = typeof(JobModel))]
        [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status404NotFound, Type = typeof(string))]
        public async Task<IActionResult> GetComputationResultAsync(string jobId)
        {
            var job = await _computationJobStatusService.GetJobAsync(jobId).ConfigureAwait(false);
            if(job != null)
            {
                return Ok(job);
            }
            return NotFound($"Job with ID `{jobId}` not found");
        }

        [HttpGet, Route("getAllJobs")]
        [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status200OK,
            Type = typeof(IReadOnlyDictionary<string, JobModel>))]
        public async Task<IActionResult> GetAllJobsAsync()
        {
            return Ok(await _computationJobStatusService.GetAllJobsAsync().ConfigureAwait(false));
        }

        [HttpDelete, Route("clearAllJobs")]
        [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status200OK)]
        [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status401Unauthorized)]
        public async Task<IActionResult> ClearAllJobsAsync([FromQuery] string permission)
        {
            if(permission == "this is flakey security so this can be run as a public demo")
            {
                await _computationJobStatusService.ClearAllJobsAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
                return Ok();
            }
            return Unauthorized();
        }
    }

Working Example

For as long as this question is active, I will maintain a working example you can try out. For this specific example, you can specify how many iterations you would like to run. To simulate long-running work, each iteration is 1 second. So, if you set the iteration value to 60, it will run that job for 60 seconds.

While it's running, run the computationStatus/{jobId} or getAllJobs endpoint. You can watch all the jobs update in real time.

This example is far from a fully-functioning-covering-all-edge-cases-full-blown-ready-for-production example, but it's a good start.

Conclusion

After a few years of working in the back-end, I have seen a lot of issues arise by not knowing all the "rules" of the back-end. Hopefully this answer will shed some light on issues I had in the past and hopefully this saves you from having to deal with said problems.

Naraka answered 15/8, 2020 at 18:0 Comment(11)
Thank you. This is generous to say the least. I will digest this. My expertise at the moment means that I will digest this slower than you might expect.Smoky
To answer the question in your comment... There will be multiple simultaneous users (humans). Each user's task is independent of the others. I trust that if Azure can handle 1 user it can handle many. I acknowledge you are saying your design handles simultaneous users with Redis Cache but not with Memory Cache.Smoky
@Smoky -- well, it handles multiple users with a single instance of the app. It can handle multiple users just fine. If your app scales to where there are 2 applications running, then you'd want to use something like Redis so the data is stored in a central place. If you use the Memory method, you can have 1000 users... just leave it as 1 instance.Naraka
In my POST1, POST2, POST3 example, if POST2 polls for status frequently, it will promptly discover the task is finished so may be I can avoid using Redis Cache or avoid any state information at all.Smoky
Perhaps I'm confused. I will have to investigate this Redis/Memory thing.Smoky
Try out the example... It's got a swagger page that you can play with. What I am trying to avoid is making an HTTP request that takes more than a few milliseconds to execute because of all the issues that arise from doing something like that.Naraka
How would you process multiple queued jobs let's say 5 at the same time maximum? I tried to adjust SemaphoreSlim but it still executes 1 per 1.Vinous
@SimonBrami -- take a look at ActionBlock, you can set a maximum for parallel processing on the block. So, in the code where it says // the heavy lifting is done here..., post the work to an action block and do the processing in the actual block.Naraka
@Naraka Ok I assume the ActionBlock should be in a Singleton? Many thanks for your help..Vinous
How is processing prioritized for background tasks? Consider the following: 00:00 - User sends HTTP request to start CPU-intensive background task, that will take 1 min to process 00:05 - User wants to see status, so sends another HTTP request to check the status. The CPU-intensive task is running - will this request take a long time due to another one taking up all the CPU time? Will it process at all or be blocked by the CPU-intensive task? I assume all this depends on the machine, but would love to hear how it works!Parnassian
@Naraka excellent example! But it doesn't seem to do parallel processing. I tried your sample by putting 100, 90, 80 iterations and then queried the job id for all 3 and only 1 would say "Processing" while the other 2 were "Pending". Is that intended or is there a way to make it process in parallel at all?Warrick
G
2

One option could be to try out Azure Durable Functions, which are more oriented to long-running jobs that warrant checkpoints and state as against attempting to finish within the context of the triggering request. It also has the concept of fan-out/fan-in, in case what you're describing could be divided into smaller jobs with an aggregated result.

If just raw compute is the goal, Azure Batch might be a better option since it facilitates that scaling.

Gentes answered 12/8, 2020 at 4:19 Comment(0)
K
0

I assume the actual work that needs be done is something other than iterating over a loop doing nothing, so in terms of possible parallelization I can't offer much help right now. Is the work CPU intensive or IO related?

When it comes to long running work in an Azure App Service, one of the option is to use a Web Job. A possible solution would be to post the request for computation to a queue (Storage Queue or Azure Message Bus Queues). The webjob then processes those messages and possibly puts a new message on another queue that the requester can use to handle the results.

If the time needed for processing is guaranteed to be less than 10 minutes you could replace the Web Job with an Queue Triggered Azure Function. It is a serverless offering on Azure with great scaling possibilities.

Another option is indeed using a Service Worker or an instance of an IHostingService and do some queue processing there.

Kier answered 12/8, 2020 at 11:10 Comment(5)
The inbound object has a list that needs to be processed. If the list has 10,000 elements it would be quicker to send 1,000 elements to a core, thus the elapsed time is reduced to 10% of the original elapsed time. After the 10 cores (threads) are finished the results are combined by the original spawning thread.Smoky
There's no IO in the sense of database access or internet calls. The only IO is the inbound object and the outbound object as illustrated. The parent thread would deal with the complete inbound and complete outbound object. Child threads would receive and respond with somewhat smaller objects. (Like in the example where the list has 10,000 elements and each thread can receive 1,000 elements.)Smoky
10 minutes is acceptable if I can get 4 cores or more. If I cannot get cores but only a thread that gives 50% of the cycles of a core, then that would imply 10 minutes is acceptable if I have 8 threads. I think you can see the pattern I am implying.Smoky
10 minutes is acceptable if it is a real limit. That is, it would be terrible if it were randomly 9 minutes for unexplained reasons of variance in Azure. In other words, the user waited 9 minutes and receives a "error, try again, it might work". That would not be good.Smoky
@Smoky using the azure function consumption plan you do not know how many cores you get. using an azure web job, a service worker or an instance of an IHostingService you get the cores that are available to the hosting plan.Kier
I
0

Since you're saying that your computation succeeds at fewer iterations, a simple solution is to simply save your results periodically and resume the computation.

For example, say you need to perform 240 Billion iterations, and you know that the highest number of iterations to perform reliably is 3 Billion iterations, I would set up the following:

  1. A slave, that actually performs the task (240Billion iterations)
  2. A master that periodically received input from the slave about progress.

The slave can periodically send a message to the master (say once every 2billion iterations ?). This message could contain whatever is relevant to resume the computation should the computation be interrupted.

  1. The master should keep track of the slave. If the master determines that the slave has died / crashed / whatever, the master should simply create a new slave which should resume computation from the last reported position.

How exactly you implement the master and slave is a matter of your personal preference.

Rather than have a single loop perform 240 billion iterations, if you can split your computation across nodes, I would try to simultaneously compute the solution in parallel across as many nodes as possible.

I personally use node.js for multicore projects. Although you are using asp.net, I include this example of node.js to illustrate the architecture that works for me.

Node.js on multi-core machines

https://dzone.com/articles/multicore-programming-in-nodejs

As Noah Stahl has mentioned in his answer, Azure Durable Functions and Azure Batch seem like options to help you achieve your goal on your platform. Please see his answer for more details.

Intrude answered 15/8, 2020 at 2:49 Comment(0)
F
0

The standard answer is to use asynchronous messaging. I have a blog series on the topic. This is particularly the case since you're already in Azure.

You already have an Azure web app service, but now you want to run code outside of a request - "request-extrinsic code". The proper way to run that code is in a separate process - Azure Functions or Azure WebJobs are a good match for Azure webapps.

First, you want a durable queue. Azure Storage Queues are a good fit since you're in Azure anyway. Then your webapi can just write a message into the queue and return. The important part here is that this is a durable queue, not an in-memory queue.

Meanwhile, the Azure Function / WebJob is processing that queue. It will pick up the work from the queue and execute it.

The final piece of the puzzle is the completion notification. This is a pretty common approach:

I can adjust my HTTP controller to instead have three (3) POST methods. Thus POST1 would mean start a task with the inbound object. POST2 means tell me if it is finished. POST3 means give me the outbound object.

To do this, your background processor should save the "in-progress" / "complete/result" state somewhere where the webapi process can access it. If you already have a shared database (and it makes sense to keep results), then this may be the easiest choice. I would also consider using Azure Cosmos DB, which has a nice time-to-live setting so the background service can inject the results that are "good for 24 hours" or whatever, after which they're automatically cleaned up.

Freedom answered 6/4, 2021 at 12:54 Comment(0)

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.