blocks|key|3249332|text|区别只在于所使用的模式。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3249333|事实中的SendAsync使用Event-Based+Pattern。BeginSend和EndSend使用IAsyncResult+pattern。|offset|length|style|CODE|3249334|编辑：我不知道IAsyncResult接口是如何在Socket类中实现的，但这里有一个来自MSDN的document，它解释了何时实现一种或另一种模式。|BOLD|3249335|摘自上一部分：|3249336|3249337|虽然基于事件的异步模式在前面提到的场景中有很多优点，但它也有一些缺点，如果性能是您最重要的需求，您应该意识到这一点。|blockquote|3249338|3249339|与IAsyncResult模式一样，基于事件的模式也无法解决以下三种情况：|3249340|3249341|在一个IAsyncResult|3249342|Blocking上等待多个IAsyncResult|unordered-list-item|3249343|
上的|3249344|阻塞等待IAsyncResult|ordered-list-item|3249345|上的完成|3249346|您可以通过使用基于事件的模式来处理这些场景，但是这样做比使用IAsyncResult模式更麻烦。|3249347|开发人员通常将IAsyncResult模式用于通常具有非常高性能要求的服务。例如，轮询完成场景是一种高性能的服务器技术。|3249348|此外，基于事件的模式比IAsyncResult模式效率低，因为它创建了更多的对象，尤其是EventArgs，而且它跨线程同步。|3249349|以下列表显示了在决定使用IAsyncResult模式时应遵循的一些建议：|3249350|仅当您特别需要支持WaitHandle或IAsyncResult时，release.|3249351|Only+|3249352|
|3249353|才公开IAsyncResult模式。|3249354|3249355|如果您有一个基于IAsyncResult模式的现有应用编程接口，请考虑在您的下一个API公开IAsyncResult模式中公开基于事件的模式。|3249356|3249357|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wewwczdw%2528v=VS.100%2529.aspx|1|http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.iasyncresult.aspx|2|http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228966.aspx^0|0|4|9|Z|9|19|7|F|J|0|1I|K|1|0|0|3|7|C|P|6|1E|8|2|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|22|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|23|8|@$D|24|E|25|F|G]|$D|26|E|27|F|G]|$D|28|E|29|F|G]]|9|@$D|2A|E|2B|1|2C]|$D|2D|E|2E|1|2F]]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|2G|8|@$D|2H|E|2I|F|J]|$D|2J|E|2K|F|G]|$D|2L|E|2M|F|G]]|9|@$D|2N|E|2O|1|2P]]|A|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|2Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|M|3|-4|5|6|7|2R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|N|3|O|5|P|7|2S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|Q|3|-4|5|6|7|2T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|R|3|S|5|6|7|2U|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|T|3|-4|5|6|7|2V|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|U|3|V|5|6|7|2W|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|W|3|X|5|Y|7|2X|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|Z|3|10|5|6|7|2Y|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|11|3|12|5|13|7|2Z|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|14|3|15|5|6|7|30|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|16|3|17|5|6|7|31|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|18|3|19|5|6|7|32|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1A|3|1B|5|6|7|33|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1C|3|1D|5|6|7|34|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1E|3|1F|5|6|7|35|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1G|3|1H|5|Y|7|36|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1I|3|1J|5|6|7|37|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1K|3|1L|5|Y|7|38|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1M|3|1J|5|6|7|39|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1N|3|1O|5|Y|7|3A|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1P|3|-4|5|6|7|3B|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|1Q|3|-4|5|6|7|3C|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|1R|$1S|$5|1T|1U|1V|A|$1W|1X]]|1Y|$5|1T|1U|1V|A|$1W|1Z]]|20|$5|1T|1U|1V|A|$1W|21]]]]

The difference is only in the pattern used.

<code>SendAsync</code> in facts use an <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wewwczdw%28v=VS.100%29.aspx" rel="noreferrer">Event-Based Pattern</a>. <code>BeginSend</code> and <code>EndSend</code> use the <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.iasyncresult.aspx" rel="noreferrer">IAsyncResult pattern</a>.

EDIT: I don't know how the <code>IAsyncResult</code> interface is implemented in <code>Socket</code> class but here is a <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228966.aspx" rel="noreferrer">document</a> from MSDN that explains when to implement one pattern or the other one.

Excerpt from the last part:

<blockquote>
 While the Event-based Asynchronous Pattern has many benefits under the
 previously mentioned scenarios, it
 does have some drawbacks, which you
 should be aware of if performance is
 your most important requirement.
 
 There are three scenarios that the
 event-based pattern does not address
 as well as the IAsyncResult pattern:
 
 <ol>
 <li>Blocking wait on one IAsyncResult</li>
 <li>Blocking wait on many IAsyncResult objects</li>
 <li>Polling for completion on the IAsyncResult</li>
 </ol>
 
 You can address these scenarios by
 using the event-based pattern, but
 doing so is more cumbersome than using
 the IAsyncResult pattern.
 
 Developers often use the IAsyncResult
 pattern for services that typically
 have very high performance
 requirements. For example, the polling
 for completion scenario is a
 high-performance server technique.
 
 Additionally, the event-based pattern
 is less efficient than the
 IAsyncResult pattern because it
 creates more objects, especially
 EventArgs, and because it synchronizes
 across threads.
 
 The following list shows some
 recommendations to follow if you
 decide to use the IAsyncResult
 pattern:
 
 <ul>
 <li>Only expose the IAsyncResult pattern when you specifically require
 support for WaitHandle or IAsyncResult
 objects.</li>
 <li>Only expose the IAsyncResult pattern when you have an existing API
 that uses the IAsyncResult pattern.</li>
 <li>If you have an existing API based on the IAsyncResult pattern, consider
 also exposing the event-based pattern
 in your next release.</li>
 <li>Only expose IAsyncResult pattern if you have high performance
 requirements which you have verified
 cannot be met by the event-based
 pattern but can be met by the
 IAsyncResult pattern.</li>
 </ul>
</blockquote>

My application needs to rapidly broadcast a message to a large number of clients (1000-s) and collect results.

I'm thinking whether to use the BeginSend/EndSend etc. families of functions, or to use the SendAsync family - is there any performance difference? What is their difference at all, except for the *Async family not requiring allocation of an IAsyncResult?

If I'm understanding correctly, they both use IO completion ports and the standard .net thread pool... So what's the difference?

Is there any performance difference between Begin* and *Async for sockets in .NET?

服务器

我的应用程序需要将一条消息快速广播到大量客户端(1000秒)并收集结果。我在考虑是使用BeginSend/EndSend等系列函数，还是使用SendAsync系列-性能有什么不同吗？除了*Async系列不需要分配IAsyncResult之外，它们到底有什么区别？如果我理解正确的话，它们都使用IO完成端口和标准的.net...

问在.NET中，Begin和Async的套接字有什么性能差异吗？
EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问在.NET中，Begin*和*Async的套接字有什么性能差异吗？EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问在.NET中，Begin和Async的套接字有什么性能差异吗？
EN