Most people who don't know me personally assume that I value .NET Remoting
above all other means of developing distributed applications.
They might also assume that I'll use Remoting as a catch-all solution to any distributed application.
They are wrong. I'm a true believer of choosing the right tool for the given
task. Next to .NET Remoting, you'll find a number of different technologies for
the development of distributed applications, and each one has its certain use:
Enterprise Services and COM+, direct TCP/IP socket connections, UDP datagrams,
MSMQ messages, Web Services via http, SOAP messages via reliable infrastructure,
SQL XML, and probably some more.
In this article, I will talk about various usage environments for .NET
Remoting, about some features of .NET Remoting which you should avoid if
possible, and also about some application scenarios in which I wouldn't use .NET
Remoting at all. All of this is done with the ultimate goal of a stable,
reliable and scalable distributed application.
But let's first look at the different environments in which .NET Remoting can
Remoting can be used if you want your method calls to...
- ... cross AppDomain boundaries
- ... cross process boundaries on local machine
- ... cross machine boundaries on a LAN
- ... cross machine boundaries on a WAN (still in same environment)
And then, let's look at a number of features of .NET Remoting:
- SingleCall server-activated objects (SingleCall SAOs)
- Singleton server-activated objects (Singleton SAO)
- Client activated objects
- Server side sponsors
- Client side sponsors
- Events & callbacks
- TCP Channel
- HTTP Channel
- Custom host
- IIS as a host
Sounds good? Ok. The reason for this article is that not all features are
equally well suited for all application environments. Before going into the
details for my reasoning, let me show you a matrix of features/scenarios and my
recommendation on whether the use of the combination might be a good idea or not:
X: Perfectly ok
+: Could affect scalability due to the possibility to hold cross-method state.
If designed and developed carefully, no issues should turn up.
*: Negatively affects scalability. Don't use if you want to scale out to
Others/empty: Not recommended.
But hey, nobody should take this matrix without any further explanation,
right? So let me talk a little bit about the different scenarios and about the
foundation upon which I base my recommendations.
Cross AppDomain Remoting
As soon as you create a new application domain in .NET, you are automatically
using Remoting behind the scenes to communicate between the two AppDomains. In
this case, the Remoting framework will setup all channels and sinks for you -
and in fact it will use a highly optimized formatting process and an
This provides for two different implications: a) you can't change formatters
or channel sink chains and b) you don't have to care too much about it. It just
works. You can use all .NET Remoting features without any problems.
In fact, cross-AppDomain calls are one of the primary use cases for .NET
Remoting. They are so well integrated in the framework, that you usually don't
even notice that you are using Remoting.
Cross-process on a single machine
Let's assume you have two Windows Forms applications, running on a single
machine and you want the two applications to be able to communicate with each
other. Or suppose you have a Windows service which should exchange data with
your GUI application. Which protocol can you use? Remoting!
This is one of the cases where the TCPChannel is extremely helpful as it
allows you to specify rejectRemoteRequests="true" upon its construction which
limits all incoming connections to the ones originating from your own machine.
No need to take too many precautions about security in this case. (However: If
you use fixed port numbers for WinForms to WinForms communication, you might
run into troubles when running on Windows Terminal Services with two or more
users trying to use your application at the same time.)
I have good news regarding the features of .NET Remoting - all of them work
as expected on a local machine.
Cross-process on multiple machines in a LAN
Ok, now we start to get real. This is your usual distributed LAN application.
Applications of this kind can be separated into two different additional
- Single-server applications
- Scalable application
Don't use Events or Callbacks
No matter which category your application belongs to, I heavily recommend NOT
to use events, callbacks or client-side sponsors for networked applications.
Yes, it's possible to use them. Yes, they might work after applying one or another
workaround. The real trouble is that they are not exactly stable and don't
really perform that nicely.
The reason for this stability/performance drawback lies in the invocation
model. First, you have to make a decision on whether to invoke events
synchronously or asynchronously from the server's point of view. In the first
case, your server has to wait until all clients acknowledged (and processed) the
callback which increases the request time by a magnitude. If however you decide
to use them asynchronously, you might run into a number of different issues - of
which ThreadPool starvation is only the smallest and lost events is the more
But what if you need notification of clients? In this case, I'd either look
into UDP or message queuing, depending on your needs for reliability. The use of
MSMQ allows your server-side application to send messages to listening clients
without having to wait for acknowledgements of reception (or even wait for
processing at the client). This allows for way better turnaround times for your
How About Client-Activated Objects?
So why did I also include client-activated objects (CAOs) in my list of features
which I don't recommend in this environment? The reason is that CAOs are always
bound to the machine on which they have been created. This means that you can't use
load balancing or failover clustering for these objects. If on the other hand
you'd use SingleCall SAOs, you could use Windows Network Load Balancing (NLB)
quite easily to
randomly dispatch the method invocations to one out of a number of available
If you are running a single-server application, this doesn't matter too
much for you. If however there is the slightest chance that the application has to scale
out to a server-side cluster, than CAOs will definitely limit its scalability.
But you shouldn't just be concerned about scalability: CAOs also affect you
on a single server. When running SingleCall SAOs (and when strictly keeping all
state information in a database) you can shutdown and restart your server on
demand. You could for example upgrade to a newer version or apply some bug fix
without having to tell any user to close and restart your client-side
application. As soon as you use CAOs however, you instantly lose this feature.
If you restart a server in which you host CAOs, the client application will
receive exceptions when calling any methods on these objects. CAOs are not
restored after restarting your server. Don't use them if you care about
restartability or scalability.
What's the best Channel/Formatter?
I recommend the use of the HttpChannel with the binary formatter for any
application which spans multiple hosts. The reason is quite simple: you can
develop and debug your application in a standard Visual Studio .NET project, but
when it comes to deployment, you can easily host your server-side components in IIS
which provides you with a number of advantages: built-in
authentication (HTTP Basic or Windows integrated), built-in encryption (SSL),
and the ability to disable HTTP keepalives which further increases the
scalability of your application as it reduces dependencies on single
- Singlecall SAOs hosted in IIS with HttpChannel and BinaryFormatter.
That's it. If you want to be on the safe side, don't use more than this. Also
please keep in mind that, whenever you return a MarshalByRefObject from a
server-side method, you are actually creating an object which behaves like a CAO
and should therefore be avoided.
Cross Process via WAN/Internet
As soon as your application grows and you leave the boundaries of your local
area network, a number of additional issues have to be taken care of. The
absolute #1 is network latency. You have to take utter care to reduce
the number of cross network calls by using chunky interfaces. In a chunky
interface, you will try to transfer as much data as possible (and necessary) in
a single network round trip. If your client application for example works with
customer objects and addresses, then you should definitely transfer all known
addresses for a given customer whenever the client application requests
information about a
customer. The alternative of having two different methods GetCustomer()
and GetAddresses() will simply double the number of network roundtrips
and will therefore heavily decrease your applications response times.
But keep in mind that you have to strike a balance here. It might not be the
best idea to transfer all of the customer's orders or the complete contact
history at the same time, if you don't need that data in 99% of the cases. It's
really all about balance here.
I guess the most important advice I can give you for applications like this
is to actually develop them with a low-bandwidth, high-latency network. Run your
server and client on different machines not connected by a LAN. Instead connect
the client to the Internet with a plain old modem. This will allow you to see
and experience the performance hot spots during development - nothing is more
embarrassing than having a user call you up and tell you that your application
is way too slow, right?
Regarding the use of Remoting features, I can give you basically the same advice as
for the LAN environment: use Singlecall SAOs hosted in IIS with HttpChannel and
BinaryFormatter. In addition, you have to make absolutely sure that you don't
use events, callbacks or client-side sponsors as these might not work whenever a
firewall, proxy or NAT device is used between the client computer and your
server. Whereas the use of events in a LAN environment might "just" render your
application instable, they will simply prevent it from working in WAN
- Singlecall SAOs hosted in IIS with HttpChannel and BinaryFormatter.
After presenting these four different application scenarios for Remoting, I'd
also like to point out some environments in which I wouldn't use Remoting at
Let's do SOAP
If you plan on using SOAP Web Services to integrate different platforms or
different companies, I really urge you to look into ASMX (ASP.NET) Web Services
instead of Remoting. These web services are built on industry standards and
together with additional frameworks like the Web Services Enhancements (WSE)
will allow you to use the so called GXA specifications (WS-Security, WS-Routing,
WS-Policy, WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation, ...) in a platform independent and
message oriented way.
ASMX web services provide essential features for web services like WSDL-first
development, the use of doc/literal, easier checking of soap headers, and so on.
So let me repeat: If you want SOAP, the use of ASP.NET Web Services together with the WSE is the
only way to go!
Service Oriented Architectures
One of the current industry buzzwords is the "Service Oriented Architecture"
(SOA) which provides platform independent, message oriented, and loosely coupled
services in enterprise environments. You might already guess: Remoting is not
the right choice for these. Think about going ASMX + WSE here as well.
Distributed Transactions, Fine Grained Security Requirements, ...
A completely different no-go scenario for Remoting is the necessity for
distributed transactions, fine grained security requirements, configurable
process-isolation, publish and subscribe events, and so on. Yes, you could in
fact develop your own channel sinks and plug them into the Remoting framework
to enable these features. But why would you want to do so? Why waste your time?
There already is another framework in .NET which includes all these features:
If your application can make use of any of the following services, you should
really think about using Enterprise Services instead of .NET Remoting:
- Highly flexible, configurable means of authentication and authorization
- Role based security with roles independent of Windows user accounts
- Just in time activation of objects
- Object pooling
- Process isolation
- Server-side components as Windows Services
- Automatic queuing of component interactions with MSMQ
In addition, COM+ 1.5, as it is available with Windows Server 2003 provides
the additional benefit of so called Services Without Components
(SWC). This allows you to use most of the services of the Enterprise Services
framework without the necessity to derive your component from System.EnterpriseServices.ServicedComponents and without having to register your
components in the COM+ catalog.
The Nine Rules of Remoting
Remoting provides a number of features whose applicability differs for a
number of usage scenarios. To ensure that your application is reliable, stable,
and scalable, you should follow these nine rules if you are communicating
between different machines:
- Use only server-activated objects configured as SingleCall
- Use the HttpChannel with the BinaryFormatter. Host your components in IIS if you need scalability, authentication and authorization features.
- Use IIS' ability to deactivate HTTP KeepAlives for maximum scalability.
- Use a Network Load Balancing cluster of servers during development if
you want to achieve scalability. Make sure to deactivate any client affinity
and make sure that you deactivate http keepalives during development!
- Do not use client-activated objects and don't pass any MarshalByRefObject
over a remoting boundary. You will easily trap this if you use the .NET
Framework version 1.1 which will throw a SecurityException or a
SerializationException in this case. (Yes, you could change this setting - but
- Do not use events, callbacks and client-side sponsors.
- Do not use static fields to hold state. Instead put ALL state information in your
database. If you keep state in memory, you will run into problems if you try
to scale your application out to a cluster of servers. Cache information only
if it's not going to change (like a list of states or cities) - else you will
run into cache-synchronization nightmares on your cluster.
- Do not use Remoting for anything else apart from .NET to .NET communications.
Use ASP.NET Web Services and the Web Services Enhancements (WSE) for anything
related to SOAP, Service Oriented Architectures and platform independence.
- Do not try to fit distributed transactions, security, and such into custom
channel sinks. Instead, use Enterprise Services if applicable in your
environment. .NET Remoting isn't a middleware, it is just a transport protocol
- if you need services, use a service-oriented framework!