Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

ANCM in-process #265

Closed
glennc opened this issue Dec 1, 2017 · 17 comments
Closed

ANCM in-process #265

glennc opened this issue Dec 1, 2017 · 17 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@glennc
Copy link
Member

@glennc glennc commented Dec 1, 2017

Uber issue for supporting in-process hosting in ANCM.

Initial testing has shown that an in-process hosting option in ANCM will provide significant performance and diagnostic gains when running with IIS.

In-process will not be the default hosting model for some time.

@glennc glennc added the enhancement label Dec 1, 2017
@glennc glennc added this to the 2.1.0 milestone Dec 1, 2017
@glennc
Copy link
Member Author

@glennc glennc commented Dec 1, 2017

@jkotalik outside of not being able to have multiple apps in a single app pool I am not clear what all the downsides to in-proc are. Are there other limitations?

@DamianEdwards
Copy link
Member

@DamianEdwards DamianEdwards commented Dec 1, 2017

Clarification regarding "default": it is intended that in-process would become the default for new ASP.NET Core projects targeting 2.1 or higher.

@jkotalik
Copy link
Member

@jkotalik jkotalik commented Dec 1, 2017

@glennc I don't think there are other main downsides from a customer standpoint, besides being windows specific.
@DamianEdwards are we still under the assumption that in-proc will be the default, but opt-in for 2.1?

@DamianEdwards
Copy link
Member

@DamianEdwards DamianEdwards commented Dec 2, 2017

The assumption is that new 2.1 projects use in-proc, existing apps or projects updated to 2.1 would not. We need to design how to make that happen.

@Tratcher
Copy link
Member

@Tratcher Tratcher commented Dec 2, 2017

It's a new project setting you would add to the template (launch settings?). New projects would get it but upgraded ones wouldn't have it.

On a different note, making this the default for 2.1 is aggressive from a quality perspective. The last schedule I saw did not include any public previews with a working tooling experience so we'll get minimal feedback before 2.1 releases.

The other new restriction is that the bitness of your app (and installed runtime) will now have to match the bitness of your app pool.

@John0King
Copy link

@John0King John0King commented Dec 15, 2017

Does this allow us to direct copy/replace files without stop application pool first ?

@jkotalik
Copy link
Member

@jkotalik jkotalik commented Jan 20, 2018

@John0King Today you can drop an app_offline.htm in the application directory to stop your application. I'm assuming you are referring to shadow copying, which is not a change that will be done through this feature.

@shirhatti
Copy link
Member

@shirhatti shirhatti commented Feb 13, 2018

Closing this uber issue since this work is being tracked at https://github.com/aspnet/IISIntegration/projects/1

@shirhatti shirhatti closed this Feb 13, 2018
@muratg muratg reopened this Mar 6, 2018
@muratg
Copy link
Contributor

@muratg muratg commented Mar 6, 2018

This is not finished. Keeping this open for this board's sake.

@tibitoth
Copy link

@tibitoth tibitoth commented Mar 13, 2018

Will in-process hosting be available for Full CLR + ASP.NET Core applications too?

@jkotalik
Copy link
Member

@jkotalik jkotalik commented Mar 13, 2018

AspNetCore applications compiled to the Full CLR are not supported. We didn't have time to land that feature for 2.1. We will consider it for future releases.

@tibitoth
Copy link

@tibitoth tibitoth commented Mar 14, 2018

I'm sad to hear that. Enterprise environments really need this feature with Full CLR support. Without this we can't migrate to ASP.NET Core because of the performance impact of out-proc IIS described in this blog post: https://odetocode.com/blogs/scott/archive/2016/10/25/asp-net-core-and-the-enterprise-part-2-hosting.aspx

@jkotalik
Copy link
Member

@jkotalik jkotalik commented Mar 14, 2018

With ANCM in-process, one of the main goals is to significantly improve the performance for AspNetCore applications behind IIS. Our preliminary performance results are showing around 4.4x better improvement for applications in IIS. What are the main blockers for switching from the core clr to the full clr?

@muratg
Copy link
Contributor

@muratg muratg commented Mar 28, 2018

@shirhatti Should we move this to RC1 to track the remaining work, or close this and file another one to track that?

@muratg muratg modified the milestones: 2.1.0-preview2, 2.1.0-rc1 Mar 28, 2018
@muratg
Copy link
Contributor

@muratg muratg commented Mar 28, 2018

Actually closing this bug. Tracking bugs are elsewhere.

@felipepessoto
Copy link

@felipepessoto felipepessoto commented May 25, 2018

It does will be the default for 2.1?

@Tratcher
Copy link
Member

@Tratcher Tratcher commented May 25, 2018

No, this feature won't be available in 2.1.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
9 participants