473,695 Members | 2,278 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Web Svc VS remote component hosted in IIS

JJ
A current requirement I am facing is the all business objects be stateless
remote components hosted in IIS. I am partial to web services myself.
However, it is insisted that IIS hosted remoting be used. They insist that
it is much, much faster. I don’t necessarily disagree with that point. But
under the circumstances, a web service that is load balanced (as are the
remote objects), though technically slower, would still have a lot of “head
room”.

With the knowledge that IIS hosted web services have to use an HttpChannel,
and that we're publishing them with a *.soap extension, I thought I would see
if I could pull up a WSDL file by entering
http://[server]/[vdir]/remoteObject.so ap?wsdl...and it worked to my pleasant
surprise!

I then went an extra step and opened VS.NET and tried to create a Web
Reference to the remote object in question. The Web reference Dialog found
the WSDL and as usual listed the available methods. However, I couldn't
actually create the reference in VS.NET. I don't remember exactly but is
seemed like a problem with the xmlns or some type of xml-namespace issue.

With that said, my above "research" seems to indicate to me that under the
hood of .NET, an ASP.NET web service and a remote object hosted in IIS aren't
really all that different. I suspect that the performance between the two
probably isn’t all that dissimilar either.

I am curious if there is a way that a client could successfully create a
"web reference" in VS.NET to an object that is hosted as remote object, not a
web service. It seems that if the namespace issue could be resolved, then
the object could double as a web service and remote object: non-.NET
platforms could invoke the remote object as a web service, and .NET apps
could remote into it...

Which leads me to this question: Is there a noticeable performance
difference between an IIS hosted remote object and a web service? I know
that remote object hosted in an exe or WinSvc using TcpChannels and binary
formatter will be faster than web services. My question is strictly
comparing Web Services to IIS hosted remote objects using Soap formatting.

Thanks in advance!

Nov 16 '05 #1
15 2076
Policies being what they are, it may not help you to know that web services
in an asmx file beat all versions of IIS hosted remoting in most of
Microsoft's performance comparisons. The one area where standard web
services fell short was in handling large return values and in returning
datasets. Using soap extensions in those two cases overcame all of the
performance degredation and put asmx based web services on a par with
TCP/Binary remoting! ASP.Net and the .Net framework are optimised with asmx
based web services in mind.

And if you don't pass datasets over the wire (and no high performance or
otherwise performance bound applicatoin should) then asmx based web services
still out perform any version of IIS based remoting.

Here's the full report:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...tnetarch14.asp

HTH

DalePres
MCAD, MCDBA, MCSE
"JJ" <JJ@discussions .microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7F******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...
A current requirement I am facing is the all business objects be stateless
remote components hosted in IIS. I am partial to web services myself.
However, it is insisted that IIS hosted remoting be used. They insist
that
it is much, much faster. I don't necessarily disagree with that point.
But
under the circumstances, a web service that is load balanced (as are the
remote objects), though technically slower, would still have a lot of
"head
room".

With the knowledge that IIS hosted web services have to use an
HttpChannel,
and that we're publishing them with a *.soap extension, I thought I would
see
if I could pull up a WSDL file by entering
http://[server]/[vdir]/remoteObject.so ap?wsdl...and it worked to my
pleasant
surprise!

I then went an extra step and opened VS.NET and tried to create a Web
Reference to the remote object in question. The Web reference Dialog
found
the WSDL and as usual listed the available methods. However, I couldn't
actually create the reference in VS.NET. I don't remember exactly but is
seemed like a problem with the xmlns or some type of xml-namespace issue.

With that said, my above "research" seems to indicate to me that under the
hood of .NET, an ASP.NET web service and a remote object hosted in IIS
aren't
really all that different. I suspect that the performance between the two
probably isn't all that dissimilar either.

I am curious if there is a way that a client could successfully create a
"web reference" in VS.NET to an object that is hosted as remote object,
not a
web service. It seems that if the namespace issue could be resolved, then
the object could double as a web service and remote object: non-.NET
platforms could invoke the remote object as a web service, and .NET apps
could remote into it...

Which leads me to this question: Is there a noticeable performance
difference between an IIS hosted remote object and a web service? I know
that remote object hosted in an exe or WinSvc using TcpChannels and binary
formatter will be faster than web services. My question is strictly
comparing Web Services to IIS hosted remote objects using Soap formatting.

Thanks in advance!

Nov 16 '05 #2
Why would anyone use SOAP formatter with Remoting? To fool firewall which
block binary traffic on 80? Rare case I think. If you're using Remoting
chances are it's an internal app and you're more or less in control of
firewalls.

What I see on that crappy low-res graphics (and why there're no tables with
numbers?) is:

Fig. 2 graph 1: IIS_HTTP_Binary outperforms ASMX slightly up to 50 users,
then neck-to-neck.
Fig. 2 graph 2: IIS_HTTP_Binary outperforms ASMX very slightly

Fig. 3 graph 1: IIS_HTTP_Binary outperforms ASMX slightly up to 50 users,
then neck-to-neck.
Fig. 3 graph 2: neck-to-neck

Fig. 4: IIS_HTTP_Binary wins clearly in both cases

Fig. 5: IIS_HTTP_Binary wins clearly in both cases

Fig. 6: IIS_HTTP_Binary wins clearly in both cases

Remoting (with binary formatting) hosted in IIS wins! IMO the text
surrounding the graphics is trying to hide it... Windows Service host with
TCP is the clear winner of course, but I wouldn't even consider it because
it's inherently insecure.

Remoting with BinaryFormatter hosted in IIS is the way to go. If you don't
need interoperabilit y with different applications/platforms, that is.

Alexander
"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uS******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
Policies being what they are, it may not help you to know that web
services in an asmx file beat all versions of IIS hosted remoting in most
of Microsoft's performance comparisons. .... http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...tnetarch14.asp

Nov 16 '05 #3
There is nothing that says SOAP is used only over port 80. IIS listens on
port 80 but SOAP can be used on any port, on IIS, on Remoting, or over your
PC's serial port if you wish. You can encode messages with SOAP formatting,
put them on a floppy disk a transport them with SneakerNet if you wish.

DalePres

"Alexander Shirshov" <al*******@omni talented.com> wrote in message
news:u2******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
Why would anyone use SOAP formatter with Remoting? To fool firewall which
block binary traffic on 80? Rare case I think. If you're using Remoting
chances are it's an internal app and you're more or less in control of
firewalls.

What I see on that crappy low-res graphics (and why there're no tables
with numbers?) is:

Fig. 2 graph 1: IIS_HTTP_Binary outperforms ASMX slightly up to 50 users,
then neck-to-neck.
Fig. 2 graph 2: IIS_HTTP_Binary outperforms ASMX very slightly

Fig. 3 graph 1: IIS_HTTP_Binary outperforms ASMX slightly up to 50 users,
then neck-to-neck.
Fig. 3 graph 2: neck-to-neck

Fig. 4: IIS_HTTP_Binary wins clearly in both cases

Fig. 5: IIS_HTTP_Binary wins clearly in both cases

Fig. 6: IIS_HTTP_Binary wins clearly in both cases

Remoting (with binary formatting) hosted in IIS wins! IMO the text
surrounding the graphics is trying to hide it... Windows Service host with
TCP is the clear winner of course, but I wouldn't even consider it because
it's inherently insecure.

Remoting with BinaryFormatter hosted in IIS is the way to go. If you don't
need interoperabilit y with different applications/platforms, that is.

Alexander
"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uS******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
Policies being what they are, it may not help you to know that web
services in an asmx file beat all versions of IIS hosted remoting in most
of Microsoft's performance comparisons.

...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...tnetarch14.asp


Nov 16 '05 #4
Again, why would you use SOAP formatter with Remoting components hosted in
IIS on HTTP channel? Why not BinaryFormatter ?

The article you pointed to demonstrates that Remoting *wins* over ASMX *if*
used with BinaryFormatter . Exactly opposite of your conclusion. I assumed
you compared SOAP-serialized Remoting components? Then the question remains:
why SOAP?

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uc******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
There is nothing that says SOAP is used only over port 80. IIS listens on
port 80 but SOAP can be used on any port, on IIS, on Remoting, or over
your PC's serial port if you wish. You can encode messages with SOAP
formatting, put them on a floppy disk a transport them with SneakerNet if
you wish.

Nov 16 '05 #5
You've taken the topic completely off the topic of the OP's question. I
didn't suggest SOAP over HTTP or IIS. I only showed Microsoft's own report
that web services using asmx is faster than remoting over IIS. I didn't do
the test and can't validate the results.

If you have done your own testing, please feel free to post the test
scenario and results here. I'd love to see your work on the subject.

DalePres

"Alexander Shirshov" <al*******@omni talented.com> wrote in message
news:eb******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P10.phx.gbl...
Again, why would you use SOAP formatter with Remoting components hosted in
IIS on HTTP channel? Why not BinaryFormatter ?

The article you pointed to demonstrates that Remoting *wins* over ASMX
*if* used with BinaryFormatter . Exactly opposite of your conclusion. I
assumed you compared SOAP-serialized Remoting components? Then the
question remains: why SOAP?

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uc******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
There is nothing that says SOAP is used only over port 80. IIS listens
on port 80 but SOAP can be used on any port, on IIS, on Remoting, or over
your PC's serial port if you wish. You can encode messages with SOAP
formatting, put them on a floppy disk a transport them with SneakerNet if
you wish.


Nov 16 '05 #6
You've made the misleading comment that according to Microsoft's benchmarks
ASMX outperforms Remoting+IIS. This is NOT true! Please carefully read the
article you yourself pointed to! Remoting is FASTER.

ASMX outperforms Remoting+IIS with SOAP formatter and falls behind
Remoting+IIS with BinaryFormatter .

Again, I'm not talking about my benchmarks or someone else's. I'm talking
about data presented in the article.

The only reason to use SOAP with Remoting I could think of is to bypass
firewalls which block the binary traffic on 80.

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uY******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
You've taken the topic completely off the topic of the OP's question. I
didn't suggest SOAP over HTTP or IIS. I only showed Microsoft's own
report that web services using asmx is faster than remoting over IIS. I
didn't do the test and can't validate the results.

If you have done your own testing, please feel free to post the test
scenario and results here. I'd love to see your work on the subject.

DalePres

"Alexander Shirshov" <al*******@omni talented.com> wrote in message
news:eb******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P10.phx.gbl...
Again, why would you use SOAP formatter with Remoting components hosted
in IIS on HTTP channel? Why not BinaryFormatter ?

The article you pointed to demonstrates that Remoting *wins* over ASMX
*if* used with BinaryFormatter . Exactly opposite of your conclusion. I
assumed you compared SOAP-serialized Remoting components? Then the
question remains: why SOAP?

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uc******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
There is nothing that says SOAP is used only over port 80. IIS listens
on port 80 but SOAP can be used on any port, on IIS, on Remoting, or
over your PC's serial port if you wish. You can encode messages with
SOAP formatting, put them on a floppy disk a transport them with
SneakerNet if you wish.



Nov 16 '05 #7
Can you provide any documentation to back up your statement that SOAP with
remoting bypasses firewalls or uses port 80? There's no association between
the formatter and the port.

And as far as my interpretation of the article, I posted the link to the
article so the OP, and you if you like, can draw your own conclusions. I'm
glad you have done so. If you want to continue to argue about the matter,
you'll have to find a different telephone pole; this one is done with it.

DalePres
"Alexander Shirshov" <al*******@omni talented.com> wrote in message
news:u5******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
You've made the misleading comment that according to Microsoft's
benchmarks ASMX outperforms Remoting+IIS. This is NOT true! Please
carefully read the article you yourself pointed to! Remoting is FASTER.

ASMX outperforms Remoting+IIS with SOAP formatter and falls behind
Remoting+IIS with BinaryFormatter .

Again, I'm not talking about my benchmarks or someone else's. I'm talking
about data presented in the article.

The only reason to use SOAP with Remoting I could think of is to bypass
firewalls which block the binary traffic on 80.

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uY******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
You've taken the topic completely off the topic of the OP's question. I
didn't suggest SOAP over HTTP or IIS. I only showed Microsoft's own
report that web services using asmx is faster than remoting over IIS. I
didn't do the test and can't validate the results.

If you have done your own testing, please feel free to post the test
scenario and results here. I'd love to see your work on the subject.

DalePres

"Alexander Shirshov" <al*******@omni talented.com> wrote in message
news:eb******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P10.phx.gbl...
Again, why would you use SOAP formatter with Remoting components hosted
in IIS on HTTP channel? Why not BinaryFormatter ?

The article you pointed to demonstrates that Remoting *wins* over ASMX
*if* used with BinaryFormatter . Exactly opposite of your conclusion. I
assumed you compared SOAP-serialized Remoting components? Then the
question remains: why SOAP?

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:uc******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
There is nothing that says SOAP is used only over port 80. IIS listens
on port 80 but SOAP can be used on any port, on IIS, on Remoting, or
over your PC's serial port if you wish. You can encode messages with
SOAP formatting, put them on a floppy disk a transport them with
SneakerNet if you wish.



Nov 16 '05 #8

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:Oa******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
Can you provide any documentation to back up your statement that SOAP with
remoting bypasses firewalls or uses port 80? There's no association
between the formatter and the port.


Remoting components hosted in IIS use HTTP and (most likely but not always)
port 80. BinaryFormatter could be a problem in this configuration because I
heard (but never came across) that some overzealous firewalls block binary
traffic on port 80. In this case SoapFormatter is the only solution.

The article demonstrated that Remoting + IIS + BinaryFormatter *outperforms*
ASMX. Sad you can't see it. Bad you're trying to inflict your
misunderstandin gs on others in such an authoritative voice.
Nov 16 '05 #9
Re-read the entire thread. I have not argued about any point you raised
about the relative performance of the various remoting/web service options
since your original post. I am not sure with whom you think you have been
arguing with but it hasn't been me.

The only point I have persisted with is to question your assertion that
using SOAP inherently implies the use of port 80 and provides a method for
bypassing firewalls - a point that you did not elaborate upon, or respond
to, until finally in your last post.

As far as your statement about "an authoritative voice", I offered the OP an
authoritative response: the link from Microsoft on the subject. I would not
expect him to take my assessment or my opinion over that authoritative
response. You, on the other hand, have been making authoritative statements
about a topic that, in the end, you admit your only knowledge is base upon
"because I heard (but never came across)".

So, to get this all back to how it started; from the OP's original question:

"Is there a noticeable performance difference between an IIS hosted remote
object and a web service? I know that remote object hosted in an exe or
WinSvc using TcpChannels and binary formatter will be faster than web
services. My question is strictly comparing Web Services to IIS hosted
remote objects using Soap formatting."

In particular, take note of the last sentence of the original post.

Do you have something you'd like to say in response to the OP's original
question or do you just want to argue?

DalePres
"Alexander Shirshov" <al*******@omni talented.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..

"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
news:Oa******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
Can you provide any documentation to back up your statement that SOAP
with remoting bypasses firewalls or uses port 80? There's no association
between the formatter and the port.


Remoting components hosted in IIS use HTTP and (most likely but not
always) port 80. BinaryFormatter could be a problem in this configuration
because I heard (but never came across) that some overzealous firewalls
block binary traffic on port 80. In this case SoapFormatter is the only
solution.

The article demonstrated that Remoting + IIS + BinaryFormatter
*outperforms* ASMX. Sad you can't see it. Bad you're trying to inflict
your misunderstandin gs on others in such an authoritative voice.

Nov 16 '05 #10

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

0
932
by: Ari Royce Hidayat | last post by:
I have a .net remoting client hosted in IE (with object tag). This client takes a looong time (2 minutes) when it calls one of the remote function for the first time (I think .net remoting really connects to remote server on the first remote funtion call). This problem doesn't happen if the client is an ordinary application (windows form or console application). Is there someone knows what's the cause and how to fix it?
2
1550
by: steve | last post by:
Pardon me, as I am an Access newbie. How do I admin a hosted Access db? Is there something like Enterprise Manager or phpmyadmin that I can use for this purpose. Thanks in advance. -- http://www.dbForumz.com/ This article was posted by author's request Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
8
2448
by: Julia | last post by:
Hi, My client uses a remote object when I host the remote object inside a windows application all seem to work fine but when I host the same object inside a windows service I get the following error " connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because
9
1620
by: Ollie | last post by:
okay sorry for cross posting but want to see if any one can explain the solution to this problem for me: I have a .Net ASP.Net app written in C# that use COM+ components to do some business processing...... When I have the ASP.Net website and the COM+ components installed on the same machine (i.e everything local) it all works fine, and it can write to the event log....
3
1103
by: hendrik | last post by:
Hi, If I buy a component from 3rd party to be used in ASP.Net based on the Framework 1.1, then when I upgraded my IIS with .Net Framework 2.0, would the component still can be used? The component was compiled using .Net Framework 1.1. All my ASPX pages will be re-compiled using .Net Framework 2.0. Can the component still be usable in the .Net Framework 2.0? What is the condition to run it?
2
2327
by: Julia | last post by:
Hi, Can a Remote object be a WebService as well? i want to able to connect to a remote object either using .NET remoting and HTTP\SOAP so I wonder if I can create a singleton(statefull) object hosted in IIS which can be xml web service ,NET remoted object,singleton and support COM+ transaction management all in the same time
0
1704
by: Michael Hhne | last post by:
Hi, we're developing some web services and use the local development server of Visual Studio 2005 to create, run and debug the project. The web service methods connect to a database hosted on a dedicated server and the Microsoft CRM 3.0 server, also on a separate machine. As the CRM server installation makes changes to the Active Directory, they are located in a separate domain, while the development machines are member of the companies...
7
2588
by: | last post by:
I'm writing an ASP.NET app, using Visual Studio 2003. VS is running locally on my laptop, but the web app is running on a remote server. My laptop is not in the domain. I do have a domain account. I had no issue creating the web app on the remote server after authenticating with the domain account, but I can't debug. It complains that I don't have rights. My domain account is in the administrators group on the remote machine. I also have...
3
9733
by: axelman | last post by:
Hi guys, I'm using Classic ASP, IIS6, IE 7, FF 3 I've developed a vb script to downloand files hosted in my server (zip, doc, pdf, jpg, xls, et. etc.) it's very straight forward and there's a lot of information around the web, however when it comes to dowload files from a remote server (NOT hosted in my server) there is no information :-(, the idea is to have an Access DB that stores the full url...
0
8649
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, well explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Routers main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Lets take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
8586
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
9137
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
9004
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
7683
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development projectplanning, coding, testing, and deploymentwithout human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
6506
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupr who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
4592
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
2
2289
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
1986
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.