Middle tier for ASP.NET / Load balance

[SevDer]

Hello All,

For my ASP.NET application, I am trying to have my middle tier (currently
logical layer) dll's to be loaded dynamically.
The aim is not to kill the sessions when I need to update those DLLs. (I
know that, I can stop app recycle when bin, web.config or folder changes)

Ideally, I would like load balance my middle tier dll's from a load balanced
machines.
Now, I am trying to findout which way is the best way to go.

I've heard/tried several things
1. People say to use web services (but it is a bit late for me because of
the current architecture)
2. I tried remoting in the past but did not succeed that much, always high
cost, high maintenance, doesn't work all the time
3. I heard that WCF can do some help to me.

And I have a hardware load balancer which can help in load balancing.

Now, can someone tell me the ultimate way to go in enterprise level? I need
a world class solution but not sure which one to research for and not enough
time.

Thanks in advance.

--

SevDer

http://www.sevder.com

A New Source For .NET Developers

[sloan]

Re: Middle tier for ASP.NET / Load balance

Have your asp.net application "talk to" WCF services, instead of directly to
the BAL.

I would look at Greg Leake's "stocktrade r" application if you want easier
deployment of N number of WCF machines.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/bb499684.aspx

It is NOT a trivial learning curve, but the benefits are really good.


Here is a starter article:
http://sholliday.space s.live.com/Blog/cns!A68482B9628 A842A!158.entry
If you're only going to have asp.net as a "wcf client", then I would stick
to the "DotNet to DotNet" implementation, as that blog entry discusses.


The code is download-able, and within 5 minutes you can have
TestWCF1.aspx
calling a WCF service.


Caching is trickier on the MiddleTier side. You can (of course) cache on
the WebServer side of things.







"SevDer" <sevder@newsgro up.nospamwrote in message
news:OTERixePJH A.764@TK2MSFTNG P05.phx.gbl...

Hello All,
>
For my ASP.NET application, I am trying to have my middle tier (currently
logical layer) dll's to be loaded dynamically.
The aim is not to kill the sessions when I need to update those DLLs. (I
know that, I can stop app recycle when bin, web.config or folder changes)
>
Ideally, I would like load balance my middle tier dll's from a load
balanced machines.
Now, I am trying to findout which way is the best way to go.
>
I've heard/tried several things
1. People say to use web services (but it is a bit late for me because of
the current architecture)
2. I tried remoting in the past but did not succeed that much, always high
cost, high maintenance, doesn't work all the time
3. I heard that WCF can do some help to me.
>
And I have a hardware load balancer which can help in load balancing.
>
Now, can someone tell me the ultimate way to go in enterprise level? I
need a world class solution but not sure which one to research for and not
enough time.
>
Thanks in advance.
>
--
>
SevDer

http://www.sevder.com

A New Source For .NET Developers
>

[SevDer]

Re: Middle tier for ASP.NET / Load balance

Thanks a lot.
I will review and let you know if I have problems.
Also is this the best approach or there are alternatives?

Thanks again.

"sloan" <sloan@ipass.ne twrote in message
news:%23ILn%234 ePJHA.5080@TK2M SFTNGP03.phx.gb l...

Have your asp.net application "talk to" WCF services, instead of directly
to the BAL.
>
I would look at Greg Leake's "stocktrade r" application if you want easier
deployment of N number of WCF machines.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/bb499684.aspx

It is NOT a trivial learning curve, but the benefits are really good.
>
>
Here is a starter article:
http://sholliday.space s.live.com/Blog/cns!A68482B9628 A842A!158.entry
If you're only going to have asp.net as a "wcf client", then I would stick
to the "DotNet to DotNet" implementation, as that blog entry discusses.
>
>
The code is download-able, and within 5 minutes you can have
TestWCF1.aspx
calling a WCF service.
>
>
Caching is trickier on the MiddleTier side. You can (of course) cache on
the WebServer side of things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"SevDer" <sevder@newsgro up.nospamwrote in message
news:OTERixePJH A.764@TK2MSFTNG P05.phx.gbl...

>Hello All,
>>
>For my ASP.NET application, I am trying to have my middle tier (currently
>logical layer) dll's to be loaded dynamically.
>The aim is not to kill the sessions when I need to update those DLLs. (I
>know that, I can stop app recycle when bin, web.config or folder changes)
>>
>Ideally, I would like load balance my middle tier dll's from a load
>balanced machines.
>Now, I am trying to findout which way is the best way to go.
>>
>I've heard/tried several things
>1. People say to use web services (but it is a bit late for me because of
>the current architecture)
>2. I tried remoting in the past but did not succeed that much, always
>high cost, high maintenance, doesn't work all the time
>3. I heard that WCF can do some help to me.
>>
>And I have a hardware load balancer which can help in load balancing.
>>
>Now, can someone tell me the ultimate way to go in enterprise level? I
>need a world class solution but not sure which one to research for and
>not enough time.
>>
>Thanks in advance.
>>
>--
>>
>SevDer
>http://www.sevder.com
>A New Source For .NET Developers
>>

>
>

[sloan]

Re: Middle tier for ASP.NET / Load balance

My personal opinion is that you can scale the middle tier, and get by with
alot less webservers.


2 WebServers
6 MiddleTier Machines
1 DB Server

Something like that.

.......

Currrently, I use WCF with named pipes..thus my "WCF Service" actually runs
on the same machine. But I have the logical boundary, and thus I can go to
a physical boundary at any time with some config file changes.

.........

WCF is more abstract than remoting, and has more features and less
headaches.
WCF can expose a WebService endpoint when needed, but you should expose
other end points when you're doing DotNet to DotNet, because there are
better ~performing~~ endpoints than a WebService.
WebService is good for when you need DotNet, Asp, Java, to work with your
app.


But my opinion is that this is a good way to scale.



"SevDer" <sevder@newsgro up.nospamwrote in message
news:uwCfvwsPJH A.3876@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

Thanks a lot.
I will review and let you know if I have problems.
Also is this the best approach or there are alternatives?
>
Thanks again.
>
"sloan" <sloan@ipass.ne twrote in message
news:%23ILn%234 ePJHA.5080@TK2M SFTNGP03.phx.gb l...

>Have your asp.net application "talk to" WCF services, instead of directly
>to the BAL.
>>
>I would look at Greg Leake's "stocktrade r" application if you want easier
>deployment of N number of WCF machines.
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netf.../bb499684.aspx
>It is NOT a trivial learning curve, but the benefits are really good.
>>
>>
>Here is a starter article:
>http://sholliday.space s.live.com/Blog/cns!A68482B9628 A842A!158.entry
>If you're only going to have asp.net as a "wcf client", then I would
>stick to the "DotNet to DotNet" implementation, as that blog entry
>discusses.
>>
>>
>The code is download-able, and within 5 minutes you can have
>TestWCF1.asp x
>calling a WCF service.
>>
>>
>Caching is trickier on the MiddleTier side. You can (of course) cache on
>the WebServer side of things.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>"SevDer" <sevder@newsgro up.nospamwrote in message
>news:OTERixePJ HA.764@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

>>Hello All,
>>>
>>For my ASP.NET application, I am trying to have my middle tier
>>(currently logical layer) dll's to be loaded dynamically.
>>The aim is not to kill the sessions when I need to update those DLLs. (I
>>know that, I can stop app recycle when bin, web.config or folder
>>changes)
>>>
>>Ideally, I would like load balance my middle tier dll's from a load
>>balanced machines.
>>Now, I am trying to findout which way is the best way to go.
>>>
>>I've heard/tried several things
>>1. People say to use web services (but it is a bit late for me because
>>of the current architecture)
>>2. I tried remoting in the past but did not succeed that much, always
>>high cost, high maintenance, doesn't work all the time
>>3. I heard that WCF can do some help to me.
>>>
>>And I have a hardware load balancer which can help in load balancing.
>>>
>>Now, can someone tell me the ultimate way to go in enterprise level? I
>>need a world class solution but not sure which one to research for and
>>not enough time.
>>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>--
>>>
>>SevDer
>>http://www.sevder.com
>>A New Source For .NET Developers
>>>

>>
>>

>
>