On Jan 17, 2008 9:38 AM, Kieran Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran, > > You will get a fully parallelized approach using the article, its showing > you basically the easiest way to implement Begin… & End… for an operation. > Delegate Begin/End Invoke queues a job on the current AppDomain's threadpool > in exactly the same manner you seem to be doing – but probably saves you a > lot of extra code. > True, but to actually control how the asynchronous tasks work I *think* I need that extra code, did you get the patch I posted last night ?
> > > Either way you're right, I don't think directly using the same pool as the > one used for http requests is a particularly wonderful idea as we've had > thread starvation issues similar to your experiences with web services in > the past. Maybe queuing internally and dispatching a few sets at a time to > the threadpool or even to a few specialized threads would be a better idea. > I make use of http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/miscutil/CustomThreadPool > in some special circumstances (longer running jobs than a > few seconds). Maybe this could be incorporated? > Thanks, I'll take a look I re-implemented my own for sorting this problem out internally, I'm sure they've done a better job! :) - Ciaran > > > Cheers, > > Kieran > > > > *From:* Ciaran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* 16 January 2008 20:21 > > *To:* Kieran Benton > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Enyim.Memcached and asynchronous sets > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2008 7:29 PM, Kieran Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Take a look at http://aspzone.com/blogs/john/articles/521.aspx. > > > > That seems to be the simplest way to implement just using a delegate and > letting the framework do the heavy lifting J > > Thanks, don't worry I can use the built-in ThreadPool implementation in a > similar fashion, but will gain parallelisation, I don't *think* you get that > with the approach in that particular article, my problem is more trying to > make sense of the 'Begin/End' *convention* in the 'BCL' [new term for me] > > For example, on the 'Socket' class the EndSend method, appears to cancel a > pending async send, but on most other Begin/Send methods (Webservice methods > for example), it seems to provde a 'helper' method to get hold of the async > result, but again it isn't clear to me what the correct approach is in this > case :) (the article appears to suggest the latter)! > - Ciaran > > > > *From:* Ciaran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* 16 January 2008 12:07 > *To:* Kieran Benton > *Cc:* [email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: Enyim.Memcached and asynchronous sets > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2008 11:50 AM, Kieran Benton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi Ciaran, > > I think this is definitely something that would be of benefit, as you're > right, if you've architected your app correctly most SETs can be > asynchronous. I'd argue for a BeginStore / EndStore standard pattern though > like in the rest of the BCL. > > As I understand it, this is simply a naming convention and adding a > parameter that implements IAsyncResult (and then using it correctly? ) Is > this correct ? > - ciaran > > > > Cheers, > > Kieran > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Ciaran > *Sent:* 16 January 2008 11:41 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Enyim.Memcached and asynchronous sets > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2008 9:45 AM, Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > HI, > Am I better modifying the Enyim.Memcached client to support an Async Set > [clearly a workqueue around the normal set command] (and provide you with > another patch), or just wrap the existing client in my own facade to provide > this functionality, i.e. what would 'a' (Enyim) prefer. > > On the off-chance that someone's interested, the following code : > IList<IEndPoint> servers = new List<IEndPoint>(); > servers.Add(new Enyim.Caching.Configuration.Code.EndPoint(" > 127.0.0.1", 11211)); > MemCachedClientConfiguration configuration = new > MemCachedClientConfiguration(servers); > MemcachedClient client = new MemcachedClient(configuration); > DateTime before = DateTime.Now; > for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) > { > Guid guid = Guid.NewGuid(); > client.Store(StoreMode.Set, guid.ToString(), guid); > } > DateTime after= DateTime.Now; > Console.Out.WriteLine(String.Format("Took {0}ms to do 10000 > stores", ((TimeSpan)(after-before)).TotalMilliseconds)); > DateTime beforeAsync = DateTime.Now; > > for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) > { > Guid guid = Guid.NewGuid(); > client.StoreAsync(StoreMode.Set, guid.ToString(), guid); > } > after = DateTime.Now; > Console.Out.WriteLine(String.Format("Took {0}ms to do 10000 > stores", ((TimeSpan)(after - beforeAsync)).TotalMilliseconds)); > > Prints the following timings: > Took 1734.3861ms to do 10000 stores > Took 62.5004ms to do 10000 stores > (Interestingly the *actual* time to do the 10000 stores asynchronously, > came out at about 1200ms, because many stores occurred in parallel fwiw) > > Thanks > - Ciaran > > > -- > - Ciaran > > > > > -- > - Ciaran > > > > > -- > - Ciaran > -- - Ciaran
