User profile for rs

Can someone from RedGate please provide an update on this issue. Simply going silent when there is clearly an issue here is not going to create many happy customers. / comments

Can someone from RedGate please provide an update on this issue. Simply going silent when there is clearly an issue here is not going to create many happy customers.

0 votes

I'm stuck on this too. Is there anyone from red-gate listening that could clue us in on the approach to profiling ASP.NET Core sites. Perhaps the support isn't there just yet in ANTS which wouldn't be ideal, but if you could confirm then at least we would know the score. / comments

I'm stuck on this too. Is there anyone from red-gate listening that could clue us in on the approach to profiling ASP.NET Core sites. Perhaps the support isn't there just yet in ANTS which wouldn't...

0 votes

We are already instrumenting every assembly with SmartAssembly (that was still necessary with the AddAssemblyToExceptionReportsAttribute attribute), so option 2. sounds like the option to explore further. The immediately obvious problem with that (apart from having to fill in all the error handler template information etc.) is that it seems to inflate the size of the obfuscated assemblies substantially, even though it's only the .exe that does the actual error reporting, right? I'm guessing that SmartAssembly is including a copy of the error handler template (forms, classes etc. for the actual reporting) in every assembly we instrument, .exe or otherwise. Seems like what we could really use is a third error reporting option for the non-exe assemblies - "Instrument this assembly, but don't include all the handler baggage as the assembly will be used with an EXE that has the full error handler stuff". With the intention that this will include the necessary instrumentation to give us the cross-assembly stack details. Does that make sense? I'm really, really hoping that there is a solution on the way for this situation (we first flagged it up as an issue a couple of years back) as I don't even want to start looking at alternatives - SmartAssembly has been so invaluable to our support efforts, but when we start compiling on our tfs server for .NET 4.5 we will have run out of time and won't be able to carry on using SmartAssembly v5.5 any longer. / comments

We are already instrumenting every assembly with SmartAssembly (that was still necessary with the AddAssemblyToExceptionReportsAttribute attribute), so option 2. sounds like the option to explore f...

0 votes

We too have hit this problem I think, when we upgraded our build server to use VS 2012 - in our case our obfuscated .exe starting failing to run on machines with .NET 4.0 and not .NET 4.5 installed. The problem that manifests is this one: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1089 ... ssembly-ms .. the unobfuscated assemblies work fine so VS is building assemblies with the correct target framework version. Seems to me likely that SmartAssembly is picking up .NET assemblies from the .NET framework folder (which is .NET 4.5 where some types have been moved around) and not the .NET reference assembly folder when building. Can I tell SmartAssembly that it should always look in the reference assemblies path when building the "SmartAssemblyfied" version of our assemblies? / comments

We too have hit this problem I think, when we upgraded our build server to use VS 2012 - in our case our obfuscated .exe starting failing to run on machines with .NET 4.0 and not .NET 4.5 installed...

0 votes

This problem exists because the SmartAssembly setup does not write the install path to the 64bit portion of the registry - therefore when running under the 64bit msbuild process the smartassembly msbuild task cannot find the location of smartassembly.com. You can fix this particular problem by setting this value manually: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Red Gate\SmartAssembly 6\Path="C:\Program Files\Red Gate\SmartAssembly 6\" / comments

This problem exists because the SmartAssembly setup does not write the install path to the 64bit portion of the registry - therefore when running under the 64bit msbuild process the smartassembly m...

0 votes

We've been getting superb results using the API. We've got a pretty complex modular Wpf application and the profiling we are doing is designed to identify memory leak scenarios. As you may or may not know, there are several nasty Wpf "gotchas" that you start to encounter when you build more complex Wpf applications that don't have a static set of Ui elements. BitmapImageSource objects that aren't frozen, dynamic resource references to other non frozen resources, actions in styles on visuals that are never made visible and some really nasty issues with merged resource dictionaries all keep Wpf objects (and their related viewmodel/model items) alive. Although not necessarily simple to fix, the memory profiler is making these issues easy to identify and importantly is giving us a framework for the future to spot these as part of the normal development process. The process for us to identifying memory leaks is to: a) establish a scenario that should not hold any memory once complete and can be executed multiple times b) execute it once (this ensures that configuration / common model objects that are loaded once don't cloud the results) c) take a base snapshot d) repeat the operation multiple times e) take a final snapshot. When comparing the base snapshot and the final snapshot the leaks tend to stick out like a sore thumb - a shortcut that often works is to look for differential instance counts matching the number of times the process executed and then use the instance graph to figure out what is keeping the object tree alive. For the process above to be automated and therefore work reliably (and, critically, to be repeatable later in the development cycle) the snapshot API was essential. One thing we have found necessary is to run multiple GC.Collect() calls in our code - I suspect that Wpf / our object model requires multiple garbage collection cycles to flush out unused objects from complex trees. Not sure if this is something practical to build in to the memory profiler (the ability to run multiple GC cycles until there is no further movement), but if it was that would be handy and make the snapshots cleaner. Having got this far, the one thing we are now trying to figure out is how to fully automate this testing in a similar way to our TFS test suite. At present the test execution if fully automated (aside from running up the profiler) but we need to manually examine the snapshots once it's complete. I'm assuming this doesn't already existing already, but if there was a way to programmatically examine the instance difference counts (for items with source items only as an option) between 2 snapshots then we would have the potential to roll this process up into a unit / integration test suite that could run every build - now that would be a huge step forward for QA automation and another move towards really reliable continuous integration.[/list] / comments

We've been getting superb results using the API. We've got a pretty complex modular Wpf application and the profiling we are doing is designed to identify memory leak scenarios. As you may or may n...

0 votes

We've been hammering the EAP pretty hard but today it's expired! Please could we get an updated release - we're doing some profiling work that we can only do with the snapshot API. Thanks. / comments

We've been hammering the EAP pretty hard but today it's expired! Please could we get an updated release - we're doing some profiling work that we can only do with the snapshot API. Thanks.

0 votes

Restricting to reports from the assemblies we build certainly makes sense. Only problem is we don't have a serial as yet. Can we have one - pretty please [image] / comments

Restricting to reports from the assemblies we build certainly makes sense. Only problem is we don't have a serial as yet. Can we have one - pretty please

0 votes

Many thanks for posting the web service. I've installed this ok on our web server and configured SmartAssembly to use it. One observation - I needed to add a trailing / character to the web service url in the SmartAssembly client settings to avoid an error when trying to report. I can't seem to download reports from the web service though - I get an error "ERROR: Failed to non-securely login to web service (Bad Login Key)". Is there a way for us to get a license key for the EAP, so we can start ramping up / validating the end to end process in readiness for the release version? / comments

Many thanks for posting the web service. I've installed this ok on our web server and configured SmartAssembly to use it. One observation - I needed to add a trailing / character to the web service...

0 votes

Could I please get a response on this one - we're seeing licensing errors when reporting exceptions to our custom web server with the v5 trial, so I'm pretty sure we need to activate / get a serial somehow. We do have a current SA maintenance plan in place. / comments

Could I please get a response on this one - we're seeing licensing errors when reporting exceptions to our custom web server with the v5 trial, so I'm pretty sure we need to activate / get a serial...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

rs

Comments