Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Performance decrease (10 second delay) in database migration 8.0.0 vs 8.0.3 #33399

Open
EvgenyMuryshkin opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 22 comments

Comments

@EvgenyMuryshkin
Copy link

EvgenyMuryshkin commented Mar 25, 2024

Hi,

After upgrading from 8.0.0 to 8.0.3, get a large performance decrease during database creation.

https://github.com/EvgenyMuryshkin/EF8PPerf

image

EF 9 also has the same issue

image

Include provider and version information

.NET 8/.NET 9
EF 8.0.0 => 8.0.3, 9.0.0-preview.2.24128.4
Windows 11 Pro
VS 2022 17.9.4/17.10.0 Preview 2.0

Thank you

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Mar 26, 2024

@EvgenyMuryshkin looks like a duplicate of #33176, which has already been fixed for 8.0.4. Can you please try the workaround in this comment and confirm?

@EvgenyMuryshkin
Copy link
Author

EvgenyMuryshkin commented Mar 26, 2024

@roji nope, did not work.
I think my issue is not model creation, but database creation.
Model is already created

image

image

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Mar 26, 2024

This doesn't repro for me (MacOS Sonoma):

image

I'm noticing that EF upgraded patch versions of SqlClient between 8.0.0 (SqlClient 5.1.1) and 8.0.3 (SqlClient 5.1.5). Can you try to take a dependency on SqlClient 5.1.1 when using EF Core 8.0.0 to see if the problem comes form there? I'm thinking possibly of #7283 or similar.

@EvgenyMuryshkin
Copy link
Author

EvgenyMuryshkin commented Mar 26, 2024

@roji EF 8.0.1 fast, 8.0.2 slow.

with 8.0.0
5.1.1 - fast
5.1.2 - slow

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Mar 26, 2024

Thanks for confirming!

The 5.1.2 release notes are here, the culprit may be dotnet/SqlClient#1983. This may very well be a dup of #7283.

/cc @David-Engel @cheenamalhotra

@cheenamalhotra
Copy link
Member

Have you tried setting ConnectRetryCount=0 on the connection string to disable transient fault handling?

@ajcvickers
Copy link
Member

@cheenamalhotra This should not be needed. Issue #7283 goes into this in detail.

@ajcvickers
Copy link
Member

/cc @SamMonoRT

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Mar 27, 2024

@cheenamalhotra in addition to #7283, see dotnet/SqlClient#29 and dotnet/SqlClient#463 on the SqlClient side where this was discussed at length (especially why the connection string-based approach is insufficient here).

@EvgenyMuryshkin
Copy link
Author

EvgenyMuryshkin commented Mar 27, 2024

Have you tried setting ConnectRetryCount=0 on the connection string to disable transient fault handling?

it actually worked, thanks :)
for 8.0.3 and 9.0.0 as well

image

@ErikEJ
Copy link
Contributor

ErikEJ commented Mar 27, 2024

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Mar 27, 2024

it actually worked, thanks :)

The problem with setting ConnectRetryCount=0 in your actual connection string is that is disables connection retrying everywhere, not just in the database existence check.

@cheenamalhotra
Copy link
Member

cheenamalhotra commented Mar 27, 2024

@cheenamalhotra in addition to #7283, see dotnet/SqlClient#29 and dotnet/SqlClient#463 on the SqlClient side where this was discussed at length (especially why the connection string-based approach is insufficient here).

Thanks for the context, I think we should also make sure FailFast is supported for OpenAsync() as well, now that Transient fault handling is enabled.. This probably skipped our minds and we didn't realize before.

The problem with setting ConnectRetryCount=0 in your actual connection string is that is disables connection retrying everywhere, not just in the database existence check.

Yes, that is true.


For @roji and @ajcvickers
Can you confirm the reason why dotnet/SqlClient#29 regressed was due to the change we made on OpenAsync() API to enable Transient Fault Handling? And that Open() API works as expected with Fail fast option defined?

@cheenamalhotra
Copy link
Member

Interestingly, this test is not failing: https://github.com/dotnet/SqlClient/blob/main/src/Microsoft.Data.SqlClient/tests/ManualTests/SQL/ConnectivityTests/ConnectivityTest.cs#L364

Note that it's only testing Open() and not OpenAsync()..

@ErikEJ
Copy link
Contributor

ErikEJ commented Mar 27, 2024

But does OpenAsync support the new overload?

@ErikEJ
Copy link
Contributor

ErikEJ commented Mar 27, 2024

Ah, I found: dotnet/SqlClient#615

@ajcvickers
Copy link
Member

Confirmed the regression is for async only.

@EvgenyMuryshkin
Copy link
Author

Hi all,

8.0.4 looks good, will run our full test suite to confirm shortly.

image

Thanks,

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Apr 12, 2024

@EvgenyMuryshkin I don't think we've done anything on the EF side (unless I've missed something) - we're still waiting for support to be added to SqlClient to programmatically opt-out of the retrying behavior (that's dotnet/SqlClient#2433).

@EvgenyMuryshkin
Copy link
Author

@roji this is weird. I restarted visual studio and now it is back to 10 second delay... false alarm, sorry about.

@ajcvickers ajcvickers changed the title Performance decrease (10x?) in database migration 8.0.0 vs 8.0.3 Performance decrease (10 second delay) in database migration 8.0.0 vs 8.0.3 Apr 12, 2024
@roji roji added the blocked label May 3, 2024
@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented May 17, 2024

Note: the plan on the SqlClient side is to revert the retrying behavior for OpenAsync for 5.0 (comment), and re-introduce it in SqlClient 6.0.

Opened #33741 to track eventually using the opt-out when we switch to SqlClient 6.0. We can keep this issue open just to track SqlClient's reverting of the async retry logic in 5, so that people can find it.

@ErikEJ
Copy link
Contributor

ErikEJ commented May 17, 2024

In other words, this will be fixed in 5.2.1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants