Skip to main content

Bugs that cover each other

By
This week I had the opportunity to work on a PoC that was pretty challenging. In a very short period of time we had to test our ideas and come with some results. When you need to do something like this, you have to:

  • Design
  • Implement
  • Test
  • Measure (Performance Test)

First two steps were pretty straight, we didn’t had any kind of problems. The testing of the current solution was pretty good, we find some small issues – small problems that were resolved easily.
We started the performance test, when we here hit by a strange behaviors. The database server had 3-4 minutes with a 100% load, after this period the load would go down to 0% for 5-6 minutes. This was like a cycle that used to repeat to infinity.
The load of the database should be 100% all the time… We looked over the backend server, everything looked okay. They were received requests from client bots and processed. Based on the load of the backend everything should be fine.
Next step was to look over the client bots machines. Based on the tracking information everything should be fine… But still we had a strange behaviors in the database, something was not right.
We started to take each part of the solution and debug it. We started with …SQL store procedures …backend and …client bots. When we looked over client bots we observed that we have a strange behaviors there. For each request we received at least to different responses.
After 1 hours of debugging we found out that we had 2 different bugs. The interesting part of this was that one of the bugs created a behaviors that masked the other bug. Because of this on the backend we had the impression that we have the expected behavior and the clients’ works well.
The second bug that was masked by the first one has big and pretty ugly.
In conclusion I would say that when even when you write a PoC and you don’t have enough time, try to test with one, two and 3 clients in parallel. We tested with one, 10 and 100 clients. Because of the logs flow for 10 and 100 clients we were not able to observe the strange behaviors before starting the performance testing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Docker Containers can make WIN32 API calls, use COM and ASP.NET WebForms

By
After the last post , I received two interesting questions related to Docker and Windows. People were interested if we do Win32 API calls from a Docker container and if there is support for COM. WIN32 Support To test calls to WIN32 API, let’s try to populate SYSTEM_INFO class. [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct SYSTEM_INFO { public uint dwOemId; public uint dwPageSize; public uint lpMinimumApplicationAddress; public uint lpMaximumApplicationAddress; public uint dwActiveProcessorMask; public uint dwNumberOfProcessors; public uint dwProcessorType; public uint dwAllocationGranularity; public uint dwProcessorLevel; public uint dwProcessorRevision; } ... [DllImport("kernel32")] static extern void GetSystemInfo(ref SYSTEM_INFO pSI); ... SYSTEM_INFO pSI = new SYSTEM_INFO(
Post a Comment
Read more

Azure AD and AWS Cognito side-by-side

By
In the last few weeks, I was involved in multiple opportunities on Microsoft Azure and Amazon, where we had to analyse AWS Cognito, Azure AD and other solutions that are available on the market. I decided to consolidate in one post all features and differences that I identified for both of them that we should need to take into account. Take into account that Azure AD is an identity and access management services well integrated with Microsoft stack. In comparison, AWS Cognito is just a user sign-up, sign-in and access control and nothing more. The focus is not on the main features, is more on small things that can make a difference when you want to decide where we want to store and manage our users.  This information might be useful in the future when we need to decide where we want to keep and manage our users.  Feature Azure AD (B2C, B2C) AWS Cognito Access token lifetime Default 1h – the value is configurable 1h – cannot be modified
Post a Comment
Read more

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

By
Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see
8 comments
Read more