Performance Comparison: .NET Remoting vs. ASP.NET Web Services

Introduction

ASP.NET Web services and .NET Remoting provide a full suite of design options for cross-process communication in distributed applications. In general, ASP.NET Web services provide the highest levels of interoperability with full support for WSDL and SOAP over HTTP, while .NET Remoting is designed for common language runtime type-system fidelity and supports additional data format and communication channels. For more information, see ASP.NET Web Services or .NET Remoting: How to Choose.

This article focuses on comparing relative performance of these techniques.

ASP.NET Web Services

ASP.NET provides a Microsoft® IIS-hosted infrastructure that supports industry standards such as SOAP, XML, and WSDL. Although.NET Remoting supports IIS hosting and SOAP over HTTP, ASP.NET is designed to provide the highest level of SOAP interoperability including support for SOAP Section 5 and document/literal.

ASP.NET can leverage the features available with IIS, such as security and logging. IIS hosting is also robust in that it will re-spawn Aspnet_wp.exe if it terminates. Also, ASP.NET Web services are much easier to create and consume than services exposed using .NET Remoting because configuration is simplified both at the server and client.

For more details, see Building XML Web Services Using ASP.NET in the .NET Framework Developer’s Guide.

.NET Remoting

.NET Remoting is more versatile and extensible in terms of enabling communication between objects using different transport protocols and serialization formats. TCP, HTTP, and custom protocols are supported as are Binary, SOAP, and custom formats. Multiple-object creation and lifetime modes are supported including Singleton, SingleCall, and Client-Activated. Remoting requires a host process, which can be IIS, or a Microsoft® Windows service or executable written in .NET.

A .NET Remoting object using the SOAP formatter can be exposed as an XML Web service when hosted in IIS with ASP.NET. Since the payload is encoded in SOAP over HTTP, any client that supports the SOAP Encoding format can access the objects over the Internet. Another advantage of using the HTTP protocol is that it generally passes unobstructed across most firewalls. The TCP channel and the Binary formatter can be employed in an intranet environment where both the server and client are running on the .NET Framework. This approach is optimized for performance since raw sockets are used to transmit data across the network using a custom protocol that is more efficient than HTTP. Though this approach offers excellent performance in a closed environment, it cannot be employed in cross-platform scenarios where the client is not running the .NET Framework.

IIS hosting provides secure communication for wire-level protection using Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), and you can also leverage IIS and ASP.NET authentication and authorization. The TCP channel as well as the HTTP channel with non-IIS hosting do not support secure socket transmission, so data is transmitted in clear text. You are required to implement your own security if you are using the TCP channel or the HTTP channel hosted in processes other than IIS.

For more details, please refer to the .NET Remoting Overview in the .NET Framework Developer’s Guide.

Conclusion

As these tests demonstrate, the various design choices available with ASP.NET Web services and .NET Remoting carry varying amounts of overhead and therefore have vastly different performance characteristics. The size of data being passed is also significant and multiplies the differences between the other design choices. This comparison covers only stateless, synchronous remote procedure calls and does not cover the performance implications of authentication, authorization, and data privacy, which are other significant factors affecting the performance of distributed applications.

Though both the .NET Remoting infrastructure and ASP.NET Web services can implement inter-process communication, each is designed with a particular level of expertise and flexibility in mind to benefit a different target audience. If your application needs interoperability with other platforms or operating systems, you would be better off using ASP.NET Web services, as they are more flexible in that they support SOAP section 5 and Document/Literal. On the other hand, use .NET Remoting when you need the richer object-oriented programming model. See ASP.NET Web Services or .NET Remoting: How to Choose for details. In scenarios where performance is the main requirement with security and process lifecycle management is not a major concern, .NET Remoting TCP/Binary is a viable option; however, keep in mind that you can increase the performance of IIS-hosted implementations by adding a few more machines into the system, which may not be possible when using a .NET Remoting TCP/Binary implementation.

(sursa: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms978411.aspx)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s