Question

I’m working on a ASP.NET website that on some requests will run a very lengthy caching process. I’m wondering what happens exactly if the execution timeout is reached while it is still running in terms of how the code handles it.

Particularly I am wondering about things like if the code is in the try of a try/finally block will the finally still be run?

Also given I am not sure I want the caching to terminate even if it goes on that long is there a way with spawning new threads, etc. that I can circumvent this execution timeout? I am thinking it would be much nicer to return to the user immediately and say “a cache build is happening” rather than just letting them time out. I have recently started playing with some locking code to make sure only one cache build happens at a time but am thinking about extending this to make it run out of sync.

I’ve not really played with creating threads and such like myself so am not sure exactly how they work, particularly in terms of interacting with ASP.NET. eg if the parent thread that launched it is terminated will that have any effect on the spawned thread?

I know there is kind of a lot of different questions in here and I can split them if that is deemed best but they all seem to go together… I’ll try to summarise the questions though:

1. Will a finally block still be executed if a thread is terminated by ASP.NET while in the try block
2. Would newly created threads be subject to the same timeouts as the original thread?
3. Would newly created threads die at the same time as the parent thread that created them?
4. And the general one of what is the best way to do long running background processes on an ASP.NET site?

Sorry for some noobish questions, I’ve never really played with threads and they still intimidate me a bit (my brain says they are hard). I could probably test the answer to a lot of tehse questions but I wouldn’t be confident enough of my tests. 🙂

Edit to add:

In response to Capital G:

The problem I have is that the ASp.NET execution timeout is currently set to one hour which is not always long enough for some of these processes I reckon. I’ve put some stuff in with locks to prevent more than one person setting off these long processes and I was worried the locks might not be released (which if finally blocks aren’t always run might happen I guess).

Your comments on not running long processes in ASP.NET is why I was thinking of moving them to other threads rather than blocking the request thread but I don’t know if that still counts as running within the ASP.NET architecture that you said was bad.

The code is not actually mine so I’m not allowed (and not sure I 100% understand it enough) to rework it into a service though that is certainly where it would best live.

Would using a BackgroundWorker process for something that could take an hour be feasible in this situation (with respect to comments on long running processes in ASP.NET). I would then make request return a “Cache is building” page until its finished and then go back to serving normally… Its all a bit of a nightmare but its my job so I’ve got to find a way to improve it. 🙂

Answer 1

1. Interesting question, just tested and no it’s not guaranteed to execute the code in the finally block, if a thread is aborted it could stop at any point in the processing. You can design some sanity checking and other mechanisms to handle special cleanup routines and such but it has a lot to do with your thread handling as well.

2. Not necessarily, it depends on how your implementing your threads. If you are working with threads yourself, then you can easily get into situations where the parent thread is killed while it’s child threads are still out there processing, you generally want to do some cleanup in the parent thread that ends the child threads as well. Some objects might do a lot of this for you as well, so it’s a tough call to say one way or the other. Never assume this at the very least.

3. No, not necessarily, don’t assume this at least, again has to do with your design and whether your doing threading yourself or using some higher level threading object/pattern. I would never assume this regardless.

4. I don’t recommend long running processes within the ASP.NET architecture, unless its within the typical timeout, if it’s 10-20s okay but if it’s minutes, no, the reason is resource usage within ASP.NET and it’s awfully bad on a user. That being said you could perform asynchronous operations where you hand off the work to the server, then you return back to the user when the processing is finished, (this is great for those 10-20s+ processes), the user can be given a little animation or otherwise not have their browser all stuck for that long waiting for whatever is happening on the server to happen.

If it is a long running process, things that take greater than 30-60s+, unless it absolutely has to be done in ASP.NET due to the nature of the process, I suggest moving it to a windows service and schedule it in some way to occur when required.

Note: Threading CAN be complicated, it’s not that it’s hard so much as that you have to be very aware of what your doing, which requires a firm understanding of what threads are and how they work, I’m no expert, but I’m also not completely new and I’ll tell you that in most situations you don’t need to get into the realm of threading, even when it seems like you do, if you must however, I would suggest looking into the BackgroundWorker object as they are simplified for the purposes of doing batched processing etc. (honestly for many situations that DO need threads, this is usually a very simple solution).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx