Submit My Question - Recent Questions - Recent Answer
Msdn Tech >> .NET Development >> .NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization

Performance test - Web Services vs. .NET Remoting

Against any sources I have found so far the Web Services with XML and SOAP seems to be a little faster than .NET Remoting with TcpChannel.

Here is what I got:

Iterations WS TcpRemoting

100 00:09:21.6504501 00:10:47.2276639

1000 01:32:33.1492575 01:47:14.6432660

In both cases I send a DataSet through the wire. The data set has all the fields from a SQL table and 5,000 records.
[635 byte] By [DanielP] at [2008-1-29]
«« route and map comparisons
»» search not working properly
# 1
Hi,

You are correct this has been documented elsewhere as well. The WebServices are faster when you go with SOAP Formatter for .NET Remoting. .NET Remoting on TCP-IP with binary formatter should give you a better performance.

Take a look here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/msdn/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=4544

Also:
See last para in the article below: I have pasted below as well.
http://www.thinktecture.com/Resources/Articles/REMOTINGVS.ASP.NETWEBSERV.html

If you are going to go cross-platform or you have the requirment of supporting SOAP via HTTP, you should definitely go for ASP.NET web services as .NET Remoting's SOAP performance isn't quite the best (not shown here, but it is a little slower than ASP.NET).

Regards,
Vikram

Vikram at 2007-9-8 > top of Msdn Tech,.NET Development,.NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization...
# 2
Thanks Vikram but I'm still confused since I used the binary formatter and TcpChannel and it is still slower than WS with SOAP and XML.

Here is the server side code:

static void Main(string[] args)

{

BinaryServerFormatterSinkProvider serverProv = new BinaryServerFormatterSinkProvider();

serverProv.TypeFilterLevel =
System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.TypeFilterLevel.Full;

BinaryClientFormatterSinkProvider clientProv = new BinaryClientFormatterSinkProvider();

IDictionary props = new Hashtable();

props["port"] = 8085;

TcpChannel chan = new TcpChannel( props, clientProv, serverProv );

ChannelServices.RegisterChannel( chan );

RemotingConfiguration.RegisterWellKnownServiceType(
Type.GetType("TcpRemotingServer.TestTcpRemotingObject"),
"GetDataSet", WellKnownObjectMode.SingleCall );

System.Console.WriteLine("Hit <enter> to exit...");

System.Console.ReadLine();

}

DanielP at 2007-9-8 > top of Msdn Tech,.NET Development,.NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization...
# 3
I believe most of the existing benchmarks are based on Remoting hosted in IIS 5/IIS 5.1. Are you using IIS 6.0 ? It maybe so that IIS 6.0 provides a superior performance as compared to the earlier versions.

Also, IIS maybe doing some kind of caching because of which the results maybe getting a bit blurred.

Regards,
Vikram

Vikram at 2007-9-8 > top of Msdn Tech,.NET Development,.NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization...
# 4
Yes, I'm using IIS 6.0 and I do not use any explicit caching unless, as you said, IIS 6 is doing it behind the scene.
DanielP at 2007-9-8 > top of Msdn Tech,.NET Development,.NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization...
# 5
Hmm, thats interesting. If its not an issue, you can share the code with me and I will run the tests on my machine and let you know what I find out

You can send the code to my email id: vikram404(at)gmail.com

Regards,
Vikram

Vikram at 2007-9-8 > top of Msdn Tech,.NET Development,.NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization...
# 6
There are scenarios where the XmlSerializer is just faster than the BinaryFormatter -- this could be one of those cases.
douglasp at 2007-9-8 > top of Msdn Tech,.NET Development,.NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization...
.NET Development
.NET Remoting and Runtime Serialization

.NET Development Hot Topic

.NET Development New Topic

.NET Development

Java / MSDN / Linux Tech / PHP Tech / MSDN DotNet / MSDN TECH / Health Library / Programmers Tech / visual basic Tech / Developer Tech / Ipod faqs / Msdn China Tech

Site Classified