I am looking for the most performant way to arrange usage of the datacache and datacache factory for AppFabric caching calls, for between 400 and 700 cache gets per page load (and barely any puts). It seems that using a single static DataCacheFactory (or possibly a couple in a round-robin setup) is the way to go.
Do I call GetCache("cacheName") for every DataCache object request, or do I make one static at the time DataCache factory is initialized and use that for all calls?
Do I have to handle exceptions, check for fail codes and attempt retries?
Do I have to consider contention when more than one thread tries to use the cache store and wants the same item (by key)?
Is there some kind of documentation which properly explores the design and usage of this?
Some information I have gathered so far from the forum:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-AU/velocity/thread/98d4f00d-3a1b-4d7c-88ba-384d3d5da915
"Creating the factory involves connecting to the cluster and can take some time. But once you have the factory object and the cache that you want to work with, you can simply reuse those objects to do puts and gets into the cache, and you should see much faster performance."
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/velocity/thread/0c1d7ce2-4c1b-4c63-b525-5d8f98bb8a49
"Creating single DataCacheFactory (singleton) is more performing than creating multiple DataCacheFactory. you should not create DataCacheFactory for each call, it will have performance hit."
"Please try to encapsulate round-robin algorithm (having 3/4/5 factory instances) in your singleton and compare load-test results."
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/velocity/archive/2009/04/15/pushing-client-performance.aspx
"You can increase the number of clients to increase the cache throughput. But sometimes if you want to have smaller set of clients and increase throughput, a trick is to use multiple DataCacheFactory instances. The DataCacheFactory instance creates a connection to the servers (e..g if there are 3 servers, it will create 3 connections) and multiplexes all requests from the datacaches on to these connections. So if the put/get volume is very high, these TCP connections might be bottlenecked. So one way is to create multiple DataCacheFactory instances and then use the operations on them."
Here what is in use so far... the property is called and if the return value is not null an operation is performed.
private static DataCache Cache
{
get
{
if (_cacheFactory == null)
{
lock (Sync)
{
if (_cacheFactory == null)
{
try
{
_cacheFactory = new DataCacheFactory();
}
catch (DataCacheException ex)
{
if (_logger != null)
{
_logger.LogError(ex.Message, ex);
}
}
}
}
}
DataCache cache = null;
if (_cacheFactory != null)
{
cache = _cacheFactory.GetCache(_cacheName);
}
return cache;
}
}
See this question on Microsoft AppFabric forum: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-AU/velocity/thread/e0a0c6fb-df4e-499f-a023-ba16afb6614f
Here is the answer from the forum post:
I suppose really the answer should be; try it both ways and see if there's a difference, but one static DataCache seems to me to make more sense than a corresponding call to
GetCache
for every call to Get.That 'Pushing Client Performance' article suggests that there's a sweet spot where the number of DataCacheFactory instances gets you maximum performance beyond which the memory overhead starts working against you - it's a shame they didn't give any guidelines (or even a rule of thumb) on where this spot might be.
I haven't come across any documentation on maximising performance - I think AppFabric is still too new for these guidelines to have been shaken out yet. I did have a look in the Contents for the Pro AppFabric book, but it seems much more concerned generally with the workflow (Dublin) side of AppFabric rather than the caching (Velocity) piece.
One thing I would say though: is there any possibility for you to cache 'chunkier' objects so you can make fewer calls to
Get
? Could you cache collections rather than individual objects and then unpack the collections on the client? 700 cache gets per page load seems to me to be a huge number!