Is WCF self-service more or less downloadable than the IIS hosting option?

Question

Does the hosting parameter determine the number of requests that the WCF service can handle?

Answer 1

It's hard to say - the main reason for self-hosting probably has more control, for example. Being able to configure the system as needed.

IIS hosting is convenient and easy to configure, and it offers on-demand download services, for example. the service host is only loaded if the request really arrives.

This constant loading (and unloading) of the service host may slightly hurt performance - on the other hand, self-servicing the service host will probably use more memory (since ServiceHost is also active in memory at all times).

So again - this is a trade-off between memory and speed - selfhosting uses more RAM, but probably a little faster.

Mark

Answer 2

Once the service is running, I would not expect a significant difference.

But, as with any performance issue, you can get a useful answer by checking your service in both cases with realistic loads and looking at the big picture. For instance. it would be possible to run a few more queries, but at a slightly higher cost of memory.

Of course there will be other differences, for example. It is assumed that hosting IIS with an on-demand request instance will be slightly slower to serve the first request from the standby mode, no matter how important it is, only you can tell.

Answer 3

Once Dublin (the specially crafted WCF host environment) is released, it will naturally use that.

EDIT . Initially, this answer dealt with the potential difference between IIS and self-service due to differences in streaming. However, I am correcting, see Comment below.