Will one ASP .Net worker process use more than one CPU?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBCYWlsZXk=?=, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. I am currently evaluating a CMS product. I like the product so far, but one
    of the restrictions on the product is that it requires that the Windows 2003
    application pool be restricted to one worker process. They say this is being
    done to improve caching. (???)

    My understanding that the way ASP .Net scales is to create one worker
    process per CPU. If the number of worker processes is restricted to one,
    doesn't that mean that I am not taking advantage of the other cpus on the box?

    The only reason I'm familiar with to limit the number of worker processes is
    to allow inproc session state. I'm not sure what benefits caching could get
    from this. Any ideas on this so I might better understand what is going on
    would be appreciated.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBCYWlsZXk=?=, Sep 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBCYWlsZXk=?=

    bruce barker Guest

    an worker process uses threads, and these threads will run on more than
    1 proc. your cms product must use an in-memory cache, that restricts it
    to one worker process. it must be unmanaged memory, or it would
    restricted to one app domain (one web site).


    -- bruce (sqlwork.com)





    John Bailey wrote:
    > I am currently evaluating a CMS product. I like the product so far, but one
    > of the restrictions on the product is that it requires that the Windows 2003
    > application pool be restricted to one worker process. They say this is being
    > done to improve caching. (???)
    >
    > My understanding that the way ASP .Net scales is to create one worker
    > process per CPU. If the number of worker processes is restricted to one,
    > doesn't that mean that I am not taking advantage of the other cpus on the box?
    >
    > The only reason I'm familiar with to limit the number of worker processes is
    > to allow inproc session state. I'm not sure what benefits caching could get
    > from this. Any ideas on this so I might better understand what is going on
    > would be appreciated.
     
    bruce barker, Sep 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. How do you figure this restriction will hurt it scaling wise. I would assume
    that the default in creating one worker process per cpu has some advantages,
    so I am just wondering what I am losing.

    "bruce barker" wrote:

    > an worker process uses threads, and these threads will run on more than
    > 1 proc. your cms product must use an in-memory cache, that restricts it
    > to one worker process. it must be unmanaged memory, or it would
    > restricted to one app domain (one web site).
    >
    >
    > -- bruce (sqlwork.com)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > John Bailey wrote:
    > > I am currently evaluating a CMS product. I like the product so far, but one
    > > of the restrictions on the product is that it requires that the Windows 2003
    > > application pool be restricted to one worker process. They say this is being
    > > done to improve caching. (???)
    > >
    > > My understanding that the way ASP .Net scales is to create one worker
    > > process per CPU. If the number of worker processes is restricted to one,
    > > doesn't that mean that I am not taking advantage of the other cpus on the box?
    > >
    > > The only reason I'm familiar with to limit the number of worker processes is
    > > to allow inproc session state. I'm not sure what benefits caching could get
    > > from this. Any ideas on this so I might better understand what is going on
    > > would be appreciated.

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBCYWlsZXk=?=, Sep 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Isn't restricting it to one worker process the same as turning web garden
    support off?

    "bruce barker" wrote:

    > an worker process uses threads, and these threads will run on more than
    > 1 proc. your cms product must use an in-memory cache, that restricts it
    > to one worker process. it must be unmanaged memory, or it would
    > restricted to one app domain (one web site).
    >
    >
    > -- bruce (sqlwork.com)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > John Bailey wrote:
    > > I am currently evaluating a CMS product. I like the product so far, but one
    > > of the restrictions on the product is that it requires that the Windows 2003
    > > application pool be restricted to one worker process. They say this is being
    > > done to improve caching. (???)
    > >
    > > My understanding that the way ASP .Net scales is to create one worker
    > > process per CPU. If the number of worker processes is restricted to one,
    > > doesn't that mean that I am not taking advantage of the other cpus on the box?
    > >
    > > The only reason I'm familiar with to limit the number of worker processes is
    > > to allow inproc session state. I'm not sure what benefits caching could get
    > > from this. Any ideas on this so I might better understand what is going on
    > > would be appreciated.

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBCYWlsZXk=?=, Sep 14, 2007
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. alex
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    693
    Lau Lei Cheong
    Feb 4, 2005
  2. Navin Mishra

    How to get process id of hosting ASP.NET worker process ?

    Navin Mishra, Feb 7, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Web Services
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    Navin Mishra
    Feb 7, 2006
  3. Gary

    ASP_NET worker process @ 80% CPU

    Gary, Jun 25, 2004, in forum: ASP General
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    100
    Aaron [SQL Server MVP]
    Jun 25, 2004
  4. Steven D'Aprano
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    146
    Steven D'Aprano
    Dec 23, 2013
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    120
    Gary Herron
    Dec 23, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page