SP2010 – The SharePoint Interface

Quick Tips for Managing the SharePoint 2010 Office Web Applications Cache

I presented remotely to the Boston Area SharePoint User Group (BASPUG) tonight (7/13/2016), and I referenced an article that I had written that is no longer available online. This post originally appeared as a “SharePoint Smarts” article from Idera. Idera is out of the SharePoint business nowadays, but the information I shared in that article is still relevant to those who use SharePoint 2010. So if you have a SharePoint 2010 environment and use the Office Web Apps, this post (and more specifically, the scripts contained within) is for you.

One of the hotly anticipated items in SharePoint 2010’s feature set is the introduction of the Microsoft Office Web Applications, or “Office Web Apps” for short. The release of the Office Web Apps opens up new possibilities for those who work with documents and files that are tied to Microsoft Word and other applications in the Microsoft Office Family.

What Are the Office Web Apps?

In prior versions of SharePoint, viewing and editing Office documents that existed in SharePoint document libraries normally required a client computer possessing the Microsoft Office suite of applications. If you wanted to view or edit a Word document that existed in SharePoint, for example, you needed Microsoft Word (or an equivalent application) installed on your computer.

That situation changes with the arrival of the Office Web Apps. When a SharePoint 2010 farm is properly set up and configured with the Office Web Apps, it becomes possible to view and edit several different Office document types directly from within a browser as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Browser-based editing of a Microsoft Word document

The Office Web Apps provide browser-based viewing and editing support for Microsoft Excel, OneNote, PowerPoint, and Word document types, and this support extends to more than just Internet Explorer. Firefox 3.x, Safari 4.x, and Google Chrome browser types are also supported for viewing and editing – making the Office Web Apps an enabler of cross-platform collaboration that centers on Office documents.

A Word about the Plumbing

As you might imagine, browser-based rendering and editing of Office documents involves a number of complex processes that engage a variety of front-end, middle-tier, and back-end components. The front-end and middle-tier tasks that are tied to document viewing and editing are handled primarily by a new set of service applications that appear when the Office Web Apps are installed. These service applications (and their associated pages, handlers, and worker processes) take care of the business of document conversion, load-balancing, and rendering for browser consumption.

Document conversion and rendering typically generate a combination of images, HTML, JavaScript, and XAML (or eXtensible Application Markup Language) that are sent to consuming browsers. The creation of these document resources is an expensive process, both in terms of CPU cycles and storage. To improve performance levels, it makes sense to generate these document resources only as needed and reuse them whenever possible. That’s where the Office Web Apps cache comes in.

The Office Web Apps cache is the back-end store that is responsible for housing images, HTML, JavaScript, and XAML resources once they have been created for a document. Each time a document is converted into a set of these resources, the resources are stored in the Office Web Apps cache. When a request for a document comes into SharePoint, the cache is checked to see if the document had been previously requested and rendered. If it had, and the cached document resources are up-to-date for the document, then the document request is served from the cache instead of engaging the Office Web Apps to convert and re-render it. Serving document resources from the Office Web Apps cache can yield significant performance improvements over scenarios where no cache is employed.

Quick side note before going too far: the Office Web Apps cache is only employed for Word and PowerPoint document types. It is not used for OneNote or Excel documents.

Inside the Office Web Apps Cache

The Office Web Apps cache takes the form of a single site collection for each Web application within a SharePoint farm. When the Office Web Apps are installed and configured in a SharePoint environment, a couple of new timer jobs are installed and run regularly within the farm. One of those timer jobs, the Office Web Apps Cache Creation timer job, ensures that each Web application where the Office Web Apps are running has a site collection like the one shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The Office_Viewing_Service_Cache site collection

The Office_Viewing_Service_Cache site collection is a standard Team Site, and it is the location where resources are stored following the conversion and rendering of either a Word or PowerPoint document by the Office Web Apps.

The Team Site can be accessed just like any other SharePoint Team Site, and a glimpse inside the All Documents library (showing a number of document resources) appears below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: All Documents library in an Office Web Apps cache site collection

Managing the Cache

For such a complex system, the Office Web Apps components do a pretty good job of maintaining themselves without external intervention. This extends to the site collections that are used by Office Web Apps for caching purposes, as well. For example, the Office Web Apps Expiration timer job that is installed with the Office Web Apps removes old document resources from cache site collections once they’ve hit a certain age. The timer job also ensures that each of the site collections responsible for caching has adequate space to serve its purpose.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t opportunities for tuning and maintenance, though. In fact, there are a couple of things that every administrator should do and review when it comes to the Office Web Apps cache.

Tip #1: Relocate the Cache to a New Database

By default, the Office Web Apps Cache Creation timer job creates an Office_Viewing_Service_Cache site collection in a content database that is collocated with one or more of the “real” site collections within each of your content Web applications. Since the cache site collection is allowed to grow to a beefy 100GB by default, it makes sense to relocate the cache site collection to its own (new) content database. By relocating the cache site collection to its own content database, it becomes easy to exclude it from other maintenance such as backups.

Relocating the cache site collection is pretty straightforward, and it can be accomplished pretty easily with following RelocateOwaCache.ps1 PowerShell script. Simply save the script, execute it, and supply the URL of a Web application within your farm where the Office Web Apps are running. The script will take care of creating a new content database within the Web application, and it will then move the Web application’s Office Web Apps cache site collection to the newly created content database.

[code language=”powershell”]
<#
.SYNOPSIS
RelocateOwaCache.ps1
.DESCRIPTION
Relocates the Office Web Apps cache for a specified Web application to a new content database that is created by the script
.NOTES
Author: Sean McDonough
Last Revision: 07-June-2011
.PARAMETER targetUrl
A Web application where Office Web Apps are in use
.EXAMPLE
RelocateOwaCache.ps1 http://www.TargetWebApplication.com
#>
param
(
[string]$targetUrl = "$(Read-Host ‘Target Web application URL [e.g. http://hostname]’)"
)

function RelocateCache($targetUrl)
{
# Ensure that the SharePoint cmdlets are loaded before continuing
$spCmdlets = Get-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell -ErrorAction silentlycontinue
if ($spCmdlets -eq $Null)
{ Add-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell }

# Get the name of the current database where the cache is located; it
# will serve as the basis for a new content database name.
$cacheSite = Get-SPOfficeWebAppsCache -WebApplication $targetUrl -ErrorAction stop
$newDbName = $cacheSite.ContentDatabase.Name + "_OWACache"

# Create a new content database and relocate the cache to it. Make sure the
# user knows what’s happening each step of the way.
Write-Host "- creating a new content database …"
$cacheDb = New-SPContentDatabase -Name $newDbName -WebApplication $targetUrl -ErrorAction stop
Write-Host "- moving the Office Web Apps cache …"
Move-SPSite $cacheSite -DestinationDatabase $cacheDb -Confirm:$false -ErrorAction stop
Write-Host "- performing required IISRESET …"
iisreset | Out-Null

# Let the user know where the cache is now located
Write-Host "Cache successfully relocated to the ‘$newDbName’ database."

# Abort script processing in the event an exception occurs.
trap
{
Write-Warning "`n*** Script execution aborting. See below for problem encountered during execution. ***"
$_.Message
break
}
}

# Launch script
RelocateCache $targetUrl
[/code]

Tip #2: Review Size and Expiration Settings

When an Office_Viewing_Service_Cache site collection is provisioned within a Web application by the Office Web Apps Cache Creation timer job, it is initially configured to hold cached document resources for 30 days. As mentioned in Tip #1, a cache site collection can also grow to a maximum of 100GB by default.

Whether or not these default settings are appropriate for a Web application depends primarily upon the nature of the site collections housed within the Web application. When site collections contain primarily static documents or content that changes infrequently, it makes sense to allow the cache to grow larger and expire content less often than normal. This maximizes the benefit obtained from caching since document content turns over less frequently.

On the other hand, site collections that experience frequent document turnover and heavy collaboration traffic tend to benefit very little from large cache sizes and long expiration periods. In site collections of this nature, cached content tends to become stale quickly. Little benefit is derived from holding onto document resources that may only be good for days or even hours, so maximum cache size is reduced and expiration periods are shortened.

Tip #3: Give Yourself Some Warning

Since each Office Web App cache is a Team Site and like any other site collection, you can leverage standard SharePoint site collection features and capabilities to help you out. One such mechanism that can be of assistance is the ability to have an e-mail warning sent to site collection owners once a site collection’s size hits a predefined threshold. In the case of the Office Web Apps cache, such a warning could be a cue to increase the maximum size of the cache site collection or perhaps lower the expiration period for document resources housed within the site collection.

Like the maximum cache size setting described in Tip #2, the ability to send e-mail warnings once the cache reaches a threshold is actually tied to SharePoint’s site collection quota capabilities. The maximum size of the cache site collection is handled as a storage quota, and the warning threshold maps directly to the quota’s warning threshold as shown below in Figure 4. In the case of Figure 4, a maximum cache size of 50GB is in effect for the cache site collection, and the e-mail warning threshold is set for 25GB.

Figure 4: Quota settings for an Office Web Apps cache site collection

Knobs and Dials

Tips #2 and #3 discussed some of the more straightforward Office Web Apps cache settings that are available to you, but you might be wondering how you actually go about changing them.

The AdjustOwaCache.ps1 PowerShell script that appears below provides you with an easy way to review and change the settings discussed. Simply save the script, execute it, and supply the URL of the Web application containing the Office Web Apps cache you’d like to adjust. The script will show you the cache’s current settings and give you the opportunity to modify them.

[code language=”powershell”]
<#
.SYNOPSIS
AdjustOwaCache.ps1
.DESCRIPTION
Dumps several common OWA cache settings to the console for a selected Web application and provides a mechanism for altering the those values
.NOTES
Author: Sean McDonough
Last Revision: 08-June-2011
.PARAMETER targetUrl
A Web application where Office Web Apps are in use
.EXAMPLE
AdjustOwaCache.ps1 http://www.TargetWebApplication.com
#>
param
(
[string]$targetUrl = "$(Read-Host ‘Target Web application URL [e.g. http://hostname]’)"
)

function AdjustCache($targetUrl)
{
# Ensure that the SharePoint cmdlets are loaded before continuing
$spCmdlets = Get-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell -ErrorAction silentlycontinue
if ($spCmdlets -eq $Null)
{ Add-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell }

# Create an easy converter for GB to bytes
$GBtoBytes = 1024 * 1024 * 1024

# Get a reference to the cache site collection and extract the values we’ll be
# working with and (potentially) altering.
$cacheSite = Get-SPOfficeWebAppsCache -WebApplication $targetUrl -ErrorAction stop
$wacSize = $cacheSite.Quota.StorageMaximumLevel / $GBtoBytes
$wacWarn = $cacheSite.Quota.StorageWarningLevel / $GBtoBytes
$wacExpire = 30
if ($cacheSite.RootWeb.Properties.ContainsKey("waccacheexpirationperiod"))
{ $wacExpire = $cacheSite.RootWeb.Properties["waccacheexpirationperiod"] }
Write-Host "Current OWA cache values for ‘$targetUrl’"
Write-Host "- Maximum Cache Size (GB): $wacSize"
Write-Host "- Warning Threshold (GB): $wacWarn"
Write-Host "- Expiration Period (Days): $wacExpire"

# Give the user the option to make changes.
$yesOrNo = Read-Host "Would you like to change one or more values? [y/n]"
if ($yesOrNo -eq "y")
{
[Int64]$newWacSize = Read-Host "- Maximum Cache Size (GB)"
Write-Host "- Warning Threshold (GB)"
[Int64]$newWacWarn = Read-Host " (supply 0 for no warning)"
[int]$newWacExpire = Read-Host "- Expiration Period (Days)"

# Convert GB values to bytes and set the cache
$newWacSize = ($newWacSize * $GBtoBytes)
$newWacWarn = ($newWacWarn * $GBtoBytes)
Set-SPOfficeWebAppsCache -WebApplication $targetUrl -ExpirationPeriodInDays $newWacExpire -MaxSizeInBytes $newWacSize -WarningSizeInBytes $newWacWarn -ErrorAction stop
}

# Abort script processing in the event an exception occurs.
trap
{
Write-Warning "`n*** Script execution aborting. See below for problem encountered during execution. ***"
$_.Message
break
}
}

# Launch script
AdjustCache $targetUrl
[/code]

Conclusion

The Office Web Apps are a powerful addition to SharePoint 2010 and pave the way for greater collaboration on Office documents without the need for the Microsoft Office suite of client applications. The Office Web Apps cache is an important part of the larger Office Web Apps equation, and the cache is generally pretty good about taking care of itself. As shown in this article, though, it is still a good idea to relocate the cache from its default location. At the same time, a little bit of tuning and e-mail alerting can go a long way towards ensuring that the cache operates optimally for you in your environment.

Is a Higher SharePoint Backup Thread Count Better?

Many administrators have noted that SharePoint 2010 allows them to tune the number of threads that can be used for farm backup and restore operations, but very few have played with the settings. In this post, I share some results I compiled while testing the settings in my own environments. I also share the PowerShell script I assembled for my testing so you can tune the backup and restore thread settings in your own SharePoint farm.

Scalability in the hardware and software space is all about parallel computing nowadays. Consider our modern hardware: it used to be that all we really cared about was how fast our CPU could run (“how many GHz?”) Now, we care more about how many cores our CPU has, whether or not those cores support Hyper-threading, how many memory channels our CPU has available to it, etc. Scale-out beats scale-up.

The same is largely true in the software space. Most IT folks learned some time ago that “multithreading” and “higher performance” tended to go hand-in-hand or were at least associated in some way. Multiple threads of execution meant better scheduling of limited processor resources and fewer chances that one long-running operation would bottleneck an entire application.

Configuring SharePoint 2010 Farm Backup and Restore

When I first saw the following section in the “Configure Backup Settings” section of SharePoint 2010’s Central Administration site, it brought a big grin to my face:

In SharePoint 2007 and earlier, administrators had no real levers to pull to try and tune the performance of farm backup and restore operations. This obviously changed with SharePoint 2010. We were basically being handed a way to adjust those processes as we saw fit – for better or worse.

Strangely enough, though, I never really took the time to explore the impact of those settings in my SharePoint environments. I always left the number of assigned threads for backup and restore operations at three. I would have liked to mess around with the values, but something else was always more important in the grand scheme of things.

Why Now?

I’ve been working on a new “backup tips and tricks” whitepaper, and I found myself looking for backup and restore concerns within the SharePoint platform that I may not have given much attention to in the past. It didn’t take much wading through Central Administration before I once again found myself looking at thread counts for backup and restore operations.

Doing a little bit of Internet (background) research confirmed what I had suspected: no one else had really spent any time on the topic either. In fact, the only “fresh” and non-copyright-infringing material I found came from a Microsoft TechNet post titled Backup and recovery best practices (SharePoint Server 2010) … and to tell you the truth, the following paragraph from the section titled “Configure SharePoint settings for better backup or restore performance” really bugged me:

If you are using the Backup-SPFarm cmdlet, you can use the BackupThreads parameter to specify how many threads SharePoint Server 2010 will use during the backup process. The more threads you specify, the more resources that backup operation will take, but the faster that it will finish, if sufficient resources are available. However, each thread is reported individually in the log files, so using fewer threads makes interpreting the log files easier. By default, three threads are used. The maximum number of threads available is 10.

Without an understanding of how multithreading (in general) and SharePoint backup (specifically) work, this could easily be interpreted as follows:

The greater the number of threads you assign, the faster your backups will complete.

I realize that my summary is an oversimplification, but I believe that many administrators see the TechNet paragraph as I summarized it. And that concerns me.

I’ve always told people that increasing the backup thread count could yield better performance, but any adjustments would need to be tested in the target farm where they are to be implemented. Realistically speaking, there are several participants and a lot of moving parts in any SharePoint farm backup. Besides the SharePoint server where the backup operation is being coordinated, there is the performance of one or more SQL Servers to consider. The capabilities and restrictions of the backup destination location (typically a UNC file share) also need to be factored-in since that destination is being written to by both the SharePoint Server and one or more SQL Servers.

Setting the number of backup threads to 10 on a SharePoint Server of infinite capability and resources doesn’t guarantee a fast backup, because the farm might have a slow SQL Server, a less-capable backup destination location, a slow or congested network, or a host of other complicating factors.

Oh Yeah? Prove It.

Of course, all of this is just a bunch of hand-waving without proof. So, the scientist in me (yeah, I actually used to be a chemist) decided to take over and devise a series of simple tests to see if there is any real weight to the arguments I’ve been making.

I began with the hypothesis that the easiest and most visible way to gauge the performance of a farm backup operation is to measure how long a backup takes to run; e.g., a farm backup that takes 10 minutes to run is faster than a backup that takes 20 minutes to run if farm content, hardware, configuration, and other factors remain constant. Since SharePoint 2010 provides the ability to specify anywhere from one to 10 backup threads, running a series of backups where the only variable is backup thread count should determine if greater or fewer backup threads yield better performance.

You might recall that I also mentioned that farm topology is a factor in the overall backup equation. As part of my experiment, I decided to run the tests on two different farms I have available to me. General descriptions for each farm:

Single-Server Farm: my single server farm environment is a VM running on my laptop. The VM houses SharePoint, SQL Server, and the backup location being targeted. The laptop hardware is a Core-i7 quad-core processor, and the underlying storage for the VM is a solid-state drive (SSD). Hardware bottlenecks should be minimized, and network latency isn’t a factor since backup operations are conducted against a local drive within the VM.
Multi-Server Farm: my multi-server environment is the “production” environment on my home network. It consists of a SharePoint Server VM running on a Hyper-V host that also hosts other VMs. The SQL Server instance backing the farm is a non-virtualized SQL Server housing all of the SharePoint databases as well as a few databases for other applications. The backup destination location is a virtualized file server with a pass-through drive array (eSATA with RAID-5). Overall hardware, in this case, is “okay” but obviously not dedicated purely to SharePoint. In addition, network latency and bandwidth (GbE) are also in-play as potential sources of impact.

These two environments have pretty different overall topologies, and it was my hope that I’d see some effect on the performance numbers as a result.

The Script

To run the tests reproducibly, I needed a PowerShell script. So, I put the following script together while I had a bit of free time one night. Feel free to pluck this out to use for testing in your SharePoint environment, as well.

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]
<#
.SYNOPSIS
TestBackupThreads.ps1
.DESCRIPTION
This script is used to conduct and time a series of backups using different thread counts.
The output can then be used to make an educated decision on the number of backup threads to
assign for use in farm-level backups.
.NOTES
Author: Sean McDonough
Last Revision: 25-July-2012
.PARAMETER TestLocation
A UNC path to a location that can be used to create test backup sets
.EXAMPLE
TestBackupThreads \\FileShare\TestLocation
#>
param
(
[string]$TestLocation = "$(Read-Host ‘UNC path to test backup location [e.g. \\FileShare\TestLocation]’)"
)

function TestThreads($backupLocation)
{
# Ensure that the SharePoint cmdlets are loaded before continuing
$spCmdlets = Get-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell -ErrorAction silentlycontinue
if ($spCmdlets -eq $Null)
{ Add-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell }

# Setup some variables we’ll need for execution.
$threadTimes = @{} # Hash table to hold timing results
$backupItems = Join-Path $backupLocation "spbr*" # Used to delete temp backup files

# We need to execute a full farm backup for each thread count 1 through 10
Clear-Host
Write-Host "`nBackup thread count testing process beginning."
for ($threads = 1; $threads -lt 11; $threads++)
{
# Clean out any backup contents from the test location
Remove-Item $backupItems -recurse

# Grab the starting date/time (for later comparison), kick-off a farm backup, and then
# grab the stop date/time.
Write-Host "`nInitiating a backup with $threads thread(s) …"
$startPoint = Get-Date
Backup-SPFarm -BackupMethod Full -Directory $backupLocation -BackupThreads $threads
$stopPoint = Get-Date

# Store and report results
$keyName = "Backup with {0} thread(s)" -f $threads
$elapsedSeconds = "{0:N0}" -f ($stopPoint – $startPoint).TotalSeconds
$threadTimes[$keyName] = $elapsedSeconds
Write-Host "Backup with $threads thread(s) complete"
Write-Host ("- time to complete (in seconds): {0}" -f $elapsedSeconds)
}

# Do a final sweep of the test backup location to clean out backup items
Remove-Item $backupItems -recurse

# Dump the results sorted in order of quickest to longest
Write-Host "`nBackup thread count testing process complete."
$threadTimes.GetEnumerator() | Sort-Object Value

# Abort script processing in the event an exception occurs.
trap
{
Write-Warning "`n*** Script execution aborting. See below for problem encountered during execution. ***"
$_.Message
break
}
}

# Launch script
TestThreads $TestLocation
[/sourcecode]

The script is fairly straightforward in what it does. You supply a TestLocation parameter to specify where farm backup test data should be written to, and the script will run a series of full farm backups using the supplied location as the backup destination. The script starts with a full backup using one backup thread; at the end of each full farm backup, the script notes how long the backup took (in seconds) and cleans-up the contents of the TestLocation folder. The number of backup threads is then incremented, and the next test is run. When the script has completed running all backup tests, it sorts the results from “quickest backup” (i.e., the backup thread count requiring the least amount of time) to the slowest backup.

Test Results

I ran a series of three tests for each of the aforementioned environments for a total of six total test runs. Although there’s still quite a bit of variability between individual results within a backup thread series, some trends did appear to emerge.

Single-Server Farm

With the single-server environment, increasing the number of backup threads did appear to have a directional impact on performance. A single backup thread proved to be the slowest option for the farm backup, and “greater than one” thread resulted in better performance.

If you look at the average values, though, there wasn’t a tremendous difference between the slowest thread count (410 seconds for one thread) and the fastest (388 seconds for 10 threads). We’re only talking about a 5% to 6% difference overall. To truly find the optimum number of backup threads in an environment like this would require more than three test runs to account for standard deviation and establish significance.

Oh, and for those that might be wondering: I’m sure I introduced some of my own variability into the results. Although I didn’t do anything processor or disk intensive during the test runs, I didn’t go out of my way to minimize the impact of services, background operations, etc. To repeat: more testing (with better controls) would be needed for truly conclusive results. The only thing I started to show with this particular set of tests is that multithreading seemed to improve backup performance.

Multi-Server Farm

Things got quite a bit more interesting (to me) when I switched over to multi-server farm testing.

In the multi-server environment, the average for using just one backup thread (1413 seconds) appeared to be significantly faster than the next best option (1747 seconds for seven backup threads) – in the neighborhood of 20% or so faster. Just like the single-server results, additional trials would be needed to completely validate the observations, but the results are less ambiguous (given the relatively greater precision of the samples) than with the single-server runs.

Do you find this surprising? Given my multi-server environment and what I know about it, I can’t really say that I was caught flat-footed by the results. Going into the tests, my hypothesis was that my backup destination location would likely be the “weak link” in my overall farm and backup topology. The SharePoint Server was doing well, the SQL Server was relatively robust … but all of that backup activity was hard on my (virtualized) file server. Multiple servers trying to write to the backup location were swamping it and the network, and adding additional backup threads to the mix didn’t end up helping or improving the overall backup process.

The Take-Away

At the end of the day, I recognize that these tests of mine didn’t prove anything conclusively. Frankly, conclusive proof wasn’t my goal. The intent of these experiments wasn’t to say “more threads are better” or “more threads are worse.”

The only point I’m making (I hope) by sharing these results is this: until you run some real tests of your own in your SharePoint environment, you really don’t know where your backup thread sweet spot is. You can try to guess it, but it’s just a guess. And guessing is really no better than simply leaving the backup thread count set to its default value of three.

References and Resources

Wikipedia: Parallel Computing
Wikipedia: Hyper-threading
Wikipedia: Thread (computing) and Multithreading
TechNet: Backup and recovery best practices (SharePoint Server 2010)

Finding a GUID in a SharePoint Haystack

In this post, I share a PowerShell script that I recently wrote to help out a friend. The script allows you to search and identify content items in SharePoint site collections by object ID (GUID). The script isn’t something you’d probably use every day, but it might be handy to keep in the script library “just in case.”

Here’s another blog post to file in the “I’ll probably never need it, but you never know” bucket of things you’ve seen from me.

Admittedly, I don’t get to spend as much time as I’d like playing with PowerShell and assembling scripts. So when the opportunity to whip-up a “quick hit” script comes along, I usually jump at it.

The Situation

I feel very fortunate to have made so many friends in the SharePoint community over the last several years. One friend who has been with me since the beginning (i.e., since my first presentation at the original SharePoint Saturday Ozarks) is Kirk Talbot. Kirk has become something of a “regular” on the SharePoint Saturday circuit, and many of you may have seen him at a SharePoint Saturday event someplace in the continental United States. To tell you the truth, I’ve seen Kirk as far north as Michigan and as far south as New Orleans. Yes, he really gets around.

Kirk and I keep up fairly regular correspondence, and he recently found himself in a situation where he needed to determine which objects (in a SharePoint site collection) were associated with a handful of GUIDs. Put a different way: Kirk had a GUID (for example, 89b66b71-afc8-463f-b5ed-9770168996a6) and wanted to know – was it a web? A list? A list item? And what was the identity of the item?

PowerShell to the Rescue

I pointed Kirk to a script I had previously written (in my Finding Duplicate GUIDs in Your SharePoint Site Collection post) and indicated that it could probably be adapted for his purpose. Kirk was up to the challenge, but like so many other SharePoint administrators was short on time.

I happened to find myself with a bit of free time in the last week and was due to run into Kirk at SharePoint Saturday Louisville last weekend, so I figured “what the heck?” I took a crack at modifying the script I had written earlier so that it might address Kirk’s need. By the time I was done, I had basically thrown out my original script and started over. So much for following my own advice.

The Script

The PowerShell script that follows is relatively straightforward in its operation. You supply it with a site collection URL and a target object GUID. The script then searches through the webs, lists/libraries, and list items of the site collection for an object with an ID that matches the GUID specified. If it finds a match, it reports some information about the matching object.

A sample run of the script appears below. In the case of this example, a list item match was found in the target site collection for the supplied GUID.

This script leverages the SharePoint object model directly, so it can be used with either SharePoint 2007 or SharePoint 2010. Its search algorithm is relatively efficient, as well, so match results should be obtained in seconds to maybe minutes – not hours.

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]
<#
.SYNOPSIS
FindObjectByGuid.ps1
.DESCRIPTION
This script attempts to locate a SharePoint object by its unique ID (GUID) within
a site collection. The script first attempts to locate a match by examining webs;
following webs, lists/libraries are examined. Finally, individual items within
lists and libraries are examined. If an object with the ID is found, information
about the object is reported back.
.NOTES
Author: Sean McDonough
Last Revision: 27-July-2012
.PARAMETER SiteUrl
The URL of the site collection that will be searched
.PARAMETER ObjectGuid
The GUID that identifies the object to be located
.EXAMPLE
FindObjectByGuid -SiteUrl http://mysitecollection.com -ObjectGuid 91ce5bbf-eebb-4988-9964-79905576969c
#>
param
(
[string]$SiteUrl = "$(Read-Host ‘The URL of the site collection to search [e.g. http://mysitecollection.com]’)",
[Guid]$ObjectGuid = "$(Read-Host ‘The GUID of the object you are trying to find [e.g. 91ce5bbf-eebb-4988-9964-79905576969c]’)"
)

function FindObject($startingUrl, $targetGuid)
{
# To work with SP2007, we need to go directly against the object model
Add-Type -AssemblyName "Microsoft.SharePoint, Version=12.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=71e9bce111e9429c"

# Grab the site collection and all webs associated with it to start
$targetSite = New-Object Microsoft.SharePoint.SPSite($startingUrl)
$matchObject = $false
$itemsTotal = 0
$listsTotal = 0
$searchStart = Get-Date

Clear-Host
Write-Host ("INITIATING SEARCH FOR GUID: {0}" -f $targetGuid)

# Step 1: see if we can find a matching web.
$allWebs = $targetSite.AllWebs
Write-Host ("`nPhase 1: Examining all webs ({0} total)" -f $allWebs.Count)
foreach ($spWeb in $allWebs)
{
$listsTotal += $spWeb.Lists.Count
if ($spWeb.ID -eq $targetGuid)
{
Write-Host "`nMATCH FOUND: Web"
Write-Host ("- Web Title: {0}" -f $spWeb.Title)
Write-Host ("- Web URL: {0}" -f $spWeb.Url)
$matchObject = $true
break
}
$spWeb.Dispose()
}

# If we don’t yet have match, we’ll continue with list iteration
if ($matchObject -eq $false)
{
Write-Host ("Phase 2: Examining all lists and libraries ({0} total)" -f $listsTotal)
$allWebs = $targetSite.AllWebs
foreach ($spWeb in $allWebs)
{
$allLists = $spWeb.Lists
foreach ($spList in $allLists)
{
$itemsTotal += $spList.Items.Count
if ($spList.ID -eq $targetGuid)
{
Write-Host "`nMATCH FOUND: List/Library"
Write-Host ("- List Title: {0}" -f $spList.Title)
Write-Host ("- List Default View URL: {0}" -f $spList.DefaultViewUrl)
Write-Host ("- Parent Web Title: {0}" -f $spWeb.Title)
Write-Host ("- Parent Web URL: {0}" -f $spWeb.Url)
$matchObject = $true
break
}
}
if ($matchObject -eq $true)
{
break
}

}
$spWeb.Dispose()
}

# No match yet? Look at list items (which includes folders)
if ($matchObject -eq $false)
{
Write-Host ("Phase 3: Examining all list and library items ({0} total)" -f $itemsTotal)
$allWebs = $targetSite.AllWebs
foreach ($spWeb in $allWebs)
{
$allLists = $spWeb.Lists
foreach ($spList in $allLists)
{
try
{
$listItem = $spList.GetItemByUniqueId($targetGuid)
}
catch
{
$listItem = $null
}
if ($listItem -ne $null)
{
Write-Host "`nMATCH FOUND: List/Library Item"
Write-Host ("- Item Name: {0}" -f $listItem.Name)
Write-Host ("- Item Type: {0}" -f $listItem.FileSystemObjectType)
Write-Host ("- Site-Relative Item URL: {0}" -f $listItem.Url)
Write-Host ("- Parent List Title: {0}" -f $spList.Title)
Write-Host ("- Parent List Default View URL: {0}" -f $spList.DefaultViewUrl)
Write-Host ("- Parent Web Title: {0}" -f $spWeb.Title)
Write-Host ("- Parent Web URL: {0}" -f $spWeb.Url)
$matchObject = $true
break
}
}
if ($matchObject -eq $true)
{
break
}

}
$spWeb.Dispose()
}

# No match yet? Too bad; we’re done.
if ($matchObject -eq $false)
{
Write-Host ("`nNO MATCH FOUND FOR GUID: {0}" -f $targetGuid)
}

# Dispose of the site collection
$targetSite.Dispose()
Write-Host ("`nTotal seconds to execute search: {0}`n" -f ((Get-Date) – $searchStart).TotalSeconds)

# Abort script processing in the event an exception occurs.
trap
{
Write-Warning "`n*** Script execution aborting. See below for problem encountered during execution. ***"
$_.Message
break
}
}

# Launch script
FindObject $SiteUrl $ObjectGuid
[/sourcecode]

Conclusion

Again, I don’t envision this being something that everyone needs. I want to share it anyway. One thing I learned with the “duplicate GUID” script I referenced earlier is that I generally underestimate the number of people who might find something like this useful.

Have fun with it, and please feel free to share your feedback!

Additional Reading and Resources

Event: SharePoint Saturday Ozarks
Twitter: Kirk Talbot (@kctElgin)
Post: Finding Duplicate GUIDs in Your SharePoint Site Collection
Event: SharePoint Saturday Louisville

Do You Know What’s Going to Happen When You Enable the SharePoint BLOB Cache?

The SharePoint BLOB Cache can be a very powerful tool for use in improving farm performance and scalability, but some planning should take place before the BLOB Cache is enabled. In this post, I explain how end users can suffer if BLOB Cache planning isn’t performed. I also make some recommendations on how to configure the BLOB Cache to provide administrators with performance benefits that don’t come at the cost of a negative end user experience.

The topic of the SharePoint BLOB Cache and how it operates jumped back into the front of my brain recently given some conversations I’ve had and things I’ve seen (e.g., a promising CodePlex project called the SharePoint 2010 BlobCache Manager).

SharePoint PSA

This post is my way of doing something akin to a SharePoint public service announcement. I’ve recently seen some caching-related functionality and topics – especially the BLOB Cache – getting some real traction in different circles, and I think that the attention and love is generally a good thing. I am somewhat concerned, though, by the fact that the discussions and projects that have been surfacing don’t seem to say much beyond the Post-It on the right.

What do I mean by “Just do-it?” Well, here’s the high-level summary of what I’ve been seeing people say, post, and practice with the SharePoint BLOB Cache:

The SharePoint BLOB Cache can lighten the load on your SQL Servers by caching BLOB (binary large object) data such as images, video, audio, CSS, etc., on your web front-ends (WFEs)
BLOB assets are then served directly from the WFEs. This prevents regular round trips from the WFEs to SQL Servers for every BLOB item needed, and this conserves network bandwidth and reduces SQL Server load.
To realize the benefits of the BLOB Cache, simply turn it on and you’re good to go. Nothing to it!

To be fair, I think that I’ve done a disservice by contributing to the perception that all you need to do to kick-start BLOB caching is change this web.config line …

[sourcecode language=”xml”]
<BlobCache location="C:\BlobCache\14" path="\.(gif|jpg|jpeg|jpe|jfif|bmp|dib|tif|tiff|ico|png|wdp|hdp|css|js|asf|avi|flv|m4v|mov|mp3|mp4|mpeg|mpg|rm|rmvb|wma|wmv)$" maxSize="10" enabled="false" />
[/sourcecode]

… to this:

If you look closely, you’ll see that the only difference between the two XML elements is that the enabled attribute is changed from false to true in the second example.

As you might have guessed, I wouldn’t be writing this blog post if simply changing the BlobCache element’s enabled attribute to true didn’t cause potential problems.

The Small Print

At the recent SPTechCon in San Francisco, I gave a five-minute lightning talk called Pushing SharePoint’s ‘Go Faster’ Button. It was a lighthearted look at SharePoint performance, and it focused on a couple of caching changes that could be easily implemented to improve SharePoint performance. One of the recommended changes was (surprise surprise) to simply “turn on” SharePoint’s BLOB Cache.

I only had five minutes to deliver the lightning talk, so I had to cram all of the disclaimers for what I was recommending into the legal style slide that appears on the left. Although the slide got a chuckle from the crowd (the print did look pretty small on-screen), I actually did invest some time in its warnings and watch-outs for anyone who wanted to go and dig them up later.

Of the two tips I delivered in the lightning talk, Tip #2 dealt with the SharePoint BLOB cache. I included a very specific warning in the “Disclaimer of Liability” aimed at those who sought to simply “set it and forget it.” The text of that warning read:

Failure to specify a max-age attribute in the BlobCache element of the web.config will result in the default value of 86,400 seconds (24 hours) being used. Use of a non-zero max-age attribute will result in the attachment of client-side cacheability headers to assets that are being BLOB cached, and such headers can result in BLOB assets being cached on the client beyond the duration of the current user session; such caching can easily result in "stale" BLOB resources being used from the client rather than newer ones being fetched from the WFE, so adjust max-age values carefully.

Put another way: if you simply enable the BLOB cache and do nothing else, your users may be getting a SharePoint behavior change that you hadn’t intended for them to have.

Why Did You Have To Bring Age Into This?

The sticking point with SharePoint’s default BlobCache element and attribute settings is that a max-age of 24 hours is assumed and used when the max-age attribute isn’t explicitly specified or set. What does that mean? I wrote a separate post a while back titled Client-Server Interactions and the max-age Attribute with SharePoint BLOB Caching, and that post addressed the effect that explicit and implicit max-age attribute value specifications have on BLOB Caching. I recommend checking out the post for the full background; for anyone who needs a quick summary, though, I can distill it down to two bullet points:

Enabling the BLOB Cache without specifying a max-age attribute means that BLOBs will be cached on both the WFEs in your farm and within users’ browser caches (through the use of Cache-Control HTTP headers).
In collaboration environments and anyplace else where BLOB assets may be edited or turn over frequently (within the course of a day), the default client-side caching behavior can mess with the UI/UX of your SharePoint site in all sorts of interesting ways.

What does this mean for the average user of SharePoint? Well, let me walk through a fictitious scenario with supporting detail – as told from the perspective of a SharePoint end user. If you already understand the problem, you’re short on time, and you want to get right to what I recommend, jump down to the “Recommendations Before You Enable the BLOB Cache” section.

Acme Online Goes Live!

Welcome to the Acme Corporation! The Acme Corporation recently completed a “webification” of its entire product catalog, and the end result is a publishing site collection that is implemented in SharePoint 2010. The site collection houses all of Acme’s products, and those products are available for the public to browse and order. Acme’s web content management team is responsible for maintaining the product catalog as it appears on the site, and that team is led by a crafty old fellow named Wile E. Coyote (who we’ll simply refer to as “Wiley” from here on out).

Wiley has many years of experience with Acme’s products and has tried nearly all of them personally; he’s something of a legend. He and his team worked diligently to get Acme’s products into SharePoint before the launch. Not all of the products made it into SharePoint before the launch, though, so a phased approach was taken to rolling out the entire catalog.

The Launch

The first products that Wiley and his team worked to get into SharePoint were Acme’s line of explosives. To prepare for the launch of the new online catalog, Wiley wrote up an article on Acme’s top-selling “Bundle o’ Dynamite” product. The article featured a picture of the Bundle o’ Dynamite, along with some descriptive text about the product, how it operates, a few safety warnings, and a couple of other informational points. When Wiley finished, a mockup of the article page looked like the screenshot seen on the left.

Unbeknownst to Wiley, the Acme product catalog site collection is served-up by one Web application through one zone (the Default zone) on one WFE. This means that all product catalog requests, whether they come from customers or Wiley’s team, go to one IIS site on one server. The first time that someone (or more specifically, someone’s browser) requests the article page that Wiley put together, a series of web requests are kicked-off to pull down the page content, images, scripts, CSS, and everything else needed to render the page in a browser. This series of interactions (captured using Fiddler) is shown on the top right.

Subsequent requests for the same article page (within the context of a single browser session) will follow the series of interactions seen directly to the right. One thing that you may notice upon inspecting the Fiddler trace is that subsequent page requests result in fewer calls back to the server. This is because SharePoint applies per session caching to many of the items it passes back to the browser, and this caching (which is not the same as BLOB caching) removes the need for constant re-fetching of items that haven’t changed.

In both of the Fiddler traces above, the focus is on the newsarticleimage.jpg file – the file which houses a picture of the Bundle o’ Dynamite. The first time the browser requests the image within a session, a successful HTTP 200 response is returned to the browser along with the image. Also important to note is the Cache-Control header that comes back with the image:

[sourcecode language=”text”]
Cache-Control: private,max-age=0
[/sourcecode]

The private part of the Cache-Control header tells the client browser to cache the image locally for the duration of the browser session. The max-age=0 portion says, in effect, that subsequent uses of the image by the browser (from its cache) should be validated with a call back to the WFE to ensure that the image hasn’t changed.

And that’s what is shown happening in the second Fiddler trace. When subsequent page requests attempt to use the image, a GET request from the browser is answered by the WFE with

[sourcecode language=”text”]
HTTP/1.1 304 NOT MODIFIED
[/sourcecode]

This response code tells the browser that the image hasn’t changed and that it’s safe to use the locally cached copy. If the image were to change, then an HTTP 200 would be returned instead and the new/updated version of the image would be sent to the browser.

When the browser is closed, the locally cached copy of the image is flushed and the process begins anew the next time the browser opens.

Meep Meep

Not long after the launch of Acme’s online product catalog, customers began complaining that browsing the catalog was simply too slow. After some discussion, Management decided to bring in Roadrunner Consulting to assess the site and make suggestions that would improve performance.

Roadrunner’s team raced around (as they are wont to do), ran some tests, made some observations, and provided a list of suggestions. At the top of the list was “Implement SharePoint BLOB Caching.”

So, Acme’s SharePoint administrators jumped right in and turned on BLOB caching. Since the site is served up through a single IIS site (SharePoint zone), the admins set enabled=“true” in the BlobCache element of the site’s web.config file. No other changes were made to the BlobCache element.

So, what happened? Well, things got snappier! The administrators watching their back-end performance noticed that the file system on the WFE started to cache BLOBs that were being requested by users. Each request to the WFE for one of those BLOBs resulted in the BLOB being served back directly from the WFE without a round-trip to the SQL Server. Internal network bandwidth utilization dropped significantly, and the SQL Servers started breathing a bit easier. The administrators were most definitely happy with the change they’d made … and it was as easy as setting enabled=”true” in the BlobCache element of the web.config file. Talk about the greatest thing since sliced bread! Everyone exchanged a round of high-fives after the change was made, and talks of how the geeks would rise up to dominate the world resumed.

So, how do things look on the client side after enabling the BLOB Cache? Well, when someone goes to retrieve Wiley’s article for the first time, the first browser request series for the page looks much like it did without the BLOB Cache enabled. See the Fiddler trace on the right.

There is one very important difference when retrieving items with the BLOB Cache enabled, though, and you have to look closely to see it. Do you see the Cache-Control HTTP header that is returned with the request for the newsarticleimage.jpg image? It’s different than it was before the BLOB Cache was enabled. Now it says

[sourcecode language=”text”]
Cache-Control: public, max-age=86400
[/sourcecode]

Whoa … what does this mean? Well, it means two important things. First, the public designation means that when the image is cached by the browser, it will no longer be private to the current session. It can be re-used across sessions, so it won’t necessarily “go away” when the browser is closed.

Second, the max-age=86400 means that the image will continue to “live” in the browser’s cache for 86400 seconds, or 24 hours. For that period of time, the browser won’t even attempt to contact the WFE to see if the image has changed; it will just use the copy that it holds onto. Nothing short of a browser cache flush (which is manual intervention by the user) will change this behavior.

And that’s what we see with the Fiddler trace on the right. This trace represents what subsequent page requests look like for the next 24 hours. Notice that the newsarticleimage.jpg image doesn’t get re-requested or checked. There are no HTTP 304 response codes coming back, because the browser simply isn’t requesting the image; it’s using its cached copy.

Admittedly, the Fiddler trace will look a little different when the browser is closed and re-opened … but a re-fetch of the newsarticleimage.jpg file will not take place for a full 24 hours unless a user clears the browser cache.

What does this change in behavior mean for actual users of the site? Read on to find out …

Running Off the Edge of the Cliff

Shortly after the BLOB Cache changes were made, Wiley got an (unrelated) call from the Fulfillment Department. They were furious because they’d been getting all sorts of returns for the Bundle o’ Dynamite. The reason for the returns? It’s because Wiley put the wrong image in his article page!

Even though Acme sells a product called the “Bundle o’ Dynamite,” the actual product that ships is a barrel of TNT. Since the product image was wrong, customers were incorrectly concluding that they’d get several sticks of dynamite instead of a barrel, and this was rubbing many of them the wrong way. Who knew?

Wiley went out to SharePoint, checked the article that he wrote, and saw that he did indeed use a series of dynamite sticks for an image. The page should have actually appeared as it does in the screenshot that is above and to the left. After a quick facepalm, Wiley realized that he needed to make a change – and fast.

Wiley went out to the Publishing Images library for the site collection and uploaded a new version of the newsarticleimage.jpg image file – one that contained a barrel of TNT instead of a bundle of dynamite. He then browsed to the article page and did a refresh.

Nothing changed.

Wiley hit F5 in his browser. Still nothing changed.

Over the course of the hour that followed, Wiley grew increasingly more bewildered and panicked as he tried in vain to get the new TNT barrel to show up on the article page. He uploaded the image several more times, closed and re-opened his browser, deleted and then reloaded the image, re-published and re-approved the actual article page, and even got the administrators to flush the SharePoint BLOB Cache. None of the actions made a difference.

The Coyote Never Wins

Why didn’t any of Wiley’s efforts make a difference? Because what Wiley didn’t understand was that there was nothing he could do short of flushing his cache that would prompt the browser to re-request the updated image. The browser started using the cached copy of the image after the first request Wiley made in the morning; i.e., the request to verify that the image on the page was incorrect as Fulfillment indicated. For another 24 hours (86400 seconds), the browser would continue to use the cached image.

Wiley’s image problem was just one of the potential issues that might surface as a result of the BLOB Cache change. It was also one of the more visible problems. In looking at the path attribute of the BlobCache element, you might have noticed some of the other file types that got cached by default – file types with js (JavaScript) and css (Cascading Style Sheets) extensions, for example. Any of those file types which were served from site collection lists and libraries would also be impacted by the “fetch once and use for 24 hours” behavior.

Recommendations Before You Enable the BLOB Cache

I hope the example featuring Wiley did an adequate job of explaining why I think that blindly turning on the BLOB Cache can be a bad thing for end users. Having seen first-hand what an improperly configured BLOB Cache can do to the user experience, I’d like to offer up a handful of suggestions based on my own experience.

1. Don’t just “enable” the BLOB Cache with its out-of-the-box (OOTB) default settings. There are a couple of OOTB settings that you should really think hard about changing. I mentioned the default max-age value you get if you don’t actually specify the attribute value. I’m going to talk more about that one in a bit. Also: do you really want the BLOB Cache using your system drive (C:) as its target location for cached files? Most admins I know aren’t particularly friendly with that idea, so relocate the BLOB Cache to another drive.

2. If your Web application has only one zone (i.e., the Default zone), strongly consider specifying a max-age attribute value of zero (max-age=”0”). Why do I say this? Because it avoids the situation I described with Wiley above, and it’s a compromise that gives administrators some of the performance boosts they seek without completely shafting users in the process.

When the BLOB Cache is enabled and a max-age attribute value of 0 is explicitly specified, things change a bit. BLOB caching and offloading still happens on the WFEs, so administrators get the internal performance boosts they were probably seeking in the first place. On the other side of the equation (i.e., the “user side”), persistent client side caching ceases as shown on the left. Although the Cache-Control header still specifies public cacheability, the max-age=0 ensures that the browser will round-trip to the server each time it intends to use a locally cached resource to ensure that the most up-to-date copy of the resource is in the cache. This will keep users like Wiley from going off the deep end due to the wonky and inconsistent user experience that afflicts users who need to edit and proof a site that employs persistent client-side caching.

3. If you have a Web application that is extended to two or more zones, apply BLOB Cache settings that are appropriate for each zone. This is relatively common in public-facing SharePoint site collections and Web applications where anonymous access is in-use. In these particular scenarios, there are usually at least two SharePoint zones per Web application: an internal zone (typically the Default zone) through which editors and other users may authenticate to carry out content work, and an external zone (e.g., the Internet zone) which is set up for anonymous access and “external consumption.”

In this dual-zone scenario, it makes sense to configure each zone (IIS site) differently since usage patterns differ between zones. The BlobCache element in the web.config for the internal (Default) zone, for example, should probably be configured according to #2 (above – the one zone scenario with a max-age attribute value of zero). For the web.config that is used in the external zone, though, it may make sense to apply a non-zero max-age value for use with the BLOB Cache – especially since anonymous users aren’t (normally) content editors. A non-zero max-age means fewer trips (overall) to your WFEs from outside the LAN environment, and this helps to keep bandwidth utilization on your Internet connection. There is still a risk that external users may see “stale” content, but the impact is generally more acceptable for straight viewers since they aren’t actively working on content.

4. Consider changing the path expression to restrict what goes into the BLOB Cache. The default path expression for SharePoint 2010’s BlobCache element looks like this:

[sourcecode language=”text”]
\.(gif|jpg|jpeg|jpe|jfif|bmp|dib|tif|tiff|ico|png|wdp|hdp|css|js|asf|avi|flv|m4v|mov|mp3|mp4|mpeg|mpg|rm|rmvb|wma|wmv)$
[/sourcecode]

Most administrators are savvy enough to add and remove file extensions from this expression as needed; for example, taking |wmv out of the path expression means that the BLOB Cache will no longer store and serve files with a .wmv extension. Adding and removing extensions really only scratches the surface of what can be done, though. The path attribute value is actually a regular expression, so the full power of regular expressions can be applied to select and exclude files for use with the BLOB Cache.

Suppose you want to explicitly control which images, videos, and other files (that match the list of extensions) end up in the BLOB Cache? Maybe you want to specially name files you intend to cache with an additional .cache extension before the actual file type extension (e.g., .gif). To accomplish this, you could change the path expression to this:

[sourcecode language=”text”]
\.cache\.(gif|jpg|jpeg|jpe|jfif|bmp|dib|tif|tiff|ico|png|wdp|hdp|css|js|asf|avi|flv|m4v|mov|mp3|mp4|mpeg|mpg|rm|rmvb|wma|wmv)$
[/sourcecode]

With this path expression, filenames like these would be included in the BLOB Cache:

SampleImage.cache.jpg
MyVideo.cache.wmv

… but anything without the additional .cache qualifier would get omitted, such as:

AnotherImage.jpg
ExcludeThisVideo.wmv

This is just a simple example, but hopefully it gives you an idea of what you could do with the path regular expression to control the contents of the BLOB Cache.

Summing It Up

The SharePoint BLOB Cache is a powerful mechanism to improve farm performance and scalability, but it shouldn’t be turned on without some forethought and a couple of changes to the default BlobCache element attribute values.

If you are an administrator and have enabled the BLOB Cache with its default values, check with your users. They might have some feedback for you …

Additional Reading and Resources

CodePlex: SharePoint 2010 BlobCache Manager
Event: SPTechCon San Francisco 2012
Prezi: Pushing SharePoint’s ‘Go Faster’ Button
Blog Post: Client-Server Interactions and the max-age Attribute with SharePoint BLOB Caching
Tool: Fiddler Web Debugging Proxy

Mirror, Mirror, In the Farm …

SQL Server mirroring support is a welcome addition to SharePoint 2010. Although SharePoint 2010 makes use of the Failover Partner keyword in its connection strings, SharePoint itself doesn’t appear to know whether or not SQL Server has failed-over for any given database. This post explores this topic in more depth and provides a PowerShell script to dump a farm’s mirroring configuration.

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for some time, but I’m only now getting around to it. It’s a quick one, and it’s intended to share a couple of observations and a script that may be of use to those of you who are SharePoint 2010 administrators.

Mirroring and SharePoint

The use of SQL Server mirroring isn’t something that’s unique to SharePoint, and it was possible to leverage mirroring with SharePoint 2007 … though I tended to steer people away from trying it unless they had a very specific reason for doing so and no other approach would work. There were simply too many hoops you needed to jump through in order to get mirroring to work with SharePoint 2007, primarily because SharePoint 2007 wasn’t mirroring-aware. Even if you got it working, it was … finicky.

SharePoint 2010, on the other hand, is fully mirroring-aware through the use of the Failover Partner keyword in connection strings used by SharePoint to connect to its databases.

(Side note: if you aren’t familiar with the Failover Partner keyword, here’s an excellent breakdown by Michael Aspengren on how the SQL Server Native Provider leverages it in mirroring configurations.)

There are plenty of blog posts, articles (like this one from TechNet), and books (like the SharePoint 2010 Disaster Recovery Guide that John Ferringer and I wrote) that talk about how to configure mirroring. It’s not particularly tough to do, and it can really help you in situations where you need a SQL Server-based high availability and/or remote redundancy solution for SharePoint databases.

This isn’t a blog post about setting up mirroring; rather, it’s a post to share some of what I’ve learned (or think I’ve learned) and related “ah-ha” moments when it comes to mirroring.

What Are You Pointing At?

This all started when Jay Strickland (one of the Quality Assurance (QA) folks on my team at Idera) ran into some problems with one of our SharePoint 2010 farms that was used for QA purposes. The farm contained two SQL Server instances, and the database instances were setup such that the databases on the second instance mirrored the databases on the first (principal) instance. Jay had configured SharePoint’s service applications and Web applications for mirroring, so all was good.

But not really. The farm had been running properly for quite some time, but something had gone wrong with the farm’s mirroring configuration – or so it seemed. That’s when Jay pinged me on Skype one day with a question (which I’m paraphrasing here):

Is there any way to tell (from within SharePoint) which SQL Server instance is in-use by SharePoint at any given time for a database that is being mirrored?

It seemed like a simple question that should have a simple answer, but I was at a loss to give Jay anything usable off the top of my head. I told Jay that I’d get back to him and started doing some digging.

The SPDatabase Type

Putting on my developer hat for a second, I recalled that all SharePoint databases are represented by an instance of the SPDatabase type (Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.Database specifically) or one of the other classes that derive from it, such as SPContentDatabase. Running down the available members for the SPDatabase type, I came up with the following properties and methods that were tied to mirroring in some way:

FailoverServer
FailoverServiceInstance
AddFailoverServiceInstance()

What I thought I would find (but didn’t) was one or more properties and/or methods that would allow me to determine which SQL Server instance was serving as the active connection point for SharePoint requests.

In fact, the more digging that I did, the more that it appeared that SharePoint had no real knowledge of where it was actually connecting to for data in mirrored setups. It was easy enough to specify which database instances should be used for mirroring configurations, but there didn’t appear to be any way to determine (from within SharePoint) if the principal was in-use or if failover to the mirrored instance had taken place.

The Key Takeaway

If you’re familiar with SQL Server mirroring and how it’s implemented, then the following diagram (which I put together for discussion) probably looks familiar:

This diagram illustrates a couple of key points:

SharePoint connects to SQL Server databases using the SQL Server Native Client
SharePoint supplies a connection string that tells the native client which SQL Server instances (as Data Source and Failover Partner) should be used as part of a mirroring configuration.
It’s the SQL Server Native Client that actually determines where connections are made, and the results of the Client’s decisions don’t directly surface through SharePoint.

SQL Server’s Management Objects (SMO)

Apparently not.

Checking with the Experts

I hate when I can’t nail down a definitive answer. Despite all my reading, I wanted to bounce the conclusions I was drawing off of a few people to make sure I wasn’t missing something obvious (or hidden) with my interpretation.

I shot Bill Baer (Senior Technical Product Manager for SharePoint and an MCM) a note with my question about information surfacing through SharePoint. If anyone could have given me a definitive answer, it would have been him. Unfortunately, I didn’t hear back from him. In his defense, he’s pretty doggone busy.
I put a shout out on Twitter, and I did hear back from my good friend Todd Klindt. While he couldn’t claim with absolute certainty that my understanding was on the mark, he did indicate that my understanding was in-line with everything he’d read and conclusions he had drawn.
I turned to Enrique Lima, another good friend and SQL Server MCM, with my question. Enrique confirmed that SQL SMO would provide some answers, but he didn’t have additional thoughts on how that information might surface through SharePoint.

Long and short: I didn’t receive rock-solid confirmation on my conclusions, but my understanding appeared to be on-the-mark. If anyone knows otherwise, though, I’d love to hear about it (and share the information here – with proper recognition for the source, of course!)

Back to the Farm

In the end, I wasn’t really able to give Jay much help with the QA farm that he was trying to diagnose. Since I couldn’t determine where SharePoint was pointing from within SharePoint itself, I did the next best thing: I threw together a PowerShell script that would dump the (mirroring) configuration for each database in the SharePoint farm.

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]
<#
.SYNOPSIS
SPDBMirrorInfo.ps1
.DESCRIPTION
Examines each of the databases in the SharePoint environment to identify which have failover partners and which don’t.
.NOTES
Author: Sean McDonough
Last Revision: 19-August-2011
#>
function DumpMirroringInfo ()
{
# Make sure we have the required SharePoint snap-in loaded.
$spCmdlets = Get-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell -ErrorAction silentlycontinue
if ($spCmdlets -eq $Null)
{ Add-PSSnapin Microsoft.SharePoint.PowerShell }

# Grab databases and determine which have failover support (and which don’t)
$allDatabases = Get-SPDatabase
$dbsWithoutFailover = $allDatabases | Where-Object {$_.FailoverServer -eq $null} | Sort-Object -Property Name
$dbsWithFailover = $allDatabases | Where-Object {$_.FailoverServer -ne $null} | Sort-Object -Property Name

# Write out unmirrored databases
if ($dbsWithoutFailover -eq $null)
{ Write-Host "`n`nNo databases are configured without a mirroring partner." }
else
{
Write-Host ("`n`nDatabases without a mirroring partner: {0}" -f $dbsWithoutFailover.Count)
$dbsWithoutFailover | Format-Table -Property Name, Server -AutoSize
}

# Dump results for mirrored databases
if ($dbsWithFailover -eq $null)
{ Write-Host "`nNo databases are configured with a mirroring partner." }
else
{
Write-Host ("`nDatabases with a mirroring partner: {0}" -f $dbsWithFailover.Count)
$dbsWithFailover | Format-Table -Property Name, Server, FailoverServer -AutoSize
}

# For ease of reading
Write-Host ("`n`n")
}
DumpMirroringInfo
[/sourcecode]

The script itself isn’t rocket science, but it did actually prove helpful in identifying some databases that had apparently “lost” their failover partners.

Additional Reading and Resources

MSDN: Using Database Mirroring
Whitepaper: Using database mirroring (Office SharePoint Server)
Blog Post: Clarification on the Failover Partner in the connectionstring in Database Mirror setup
TechNet: Configure availability by using SQL Server database mirroring (SharePoint Server 2010)
Book: The SharePoint 2010 Disaster Recovery Guide
Blog: John Ferringer’s “My Central Admin”
Blog: Jay Strickland’s “Slinger’s Thoughts
Company: Idera
MSDN: SPDatabase members
MSDN: SQL Server Management Objects (SMO)
Blog: Bill Baer
Blog: Todd Klindt’s SharePoint Admin Blog
Blog: Enrique Lima’s Intentional Thinking

Crashing OWSTIMER.EXE after SharePoint 2010 SP1 Installation

While applying service pack 1 (SP1) for SharePoint 2010 to my environments, I encountered an odd problem that left my SharePoint Timer Service (OWSTIMER.EXE) repeatedly crashing. This post walks through my analysis, troubleshooting, and (quasi-)resolution.

After much anticipation, Microsoft finally released service pack 1 (SP1) for SharePoint 2010 earlier last week. Like so many other SharePoint professionals, I headed out to Microsoft’s site and pulled down everything I needed to patch-up my servers and virtual machines (VMs).

I’ve patched about four different server and VM environments with SP1 thus far, and although my experience with SP1 has been relatively positive, I did run into one particular snag that I thought I’d blog about. It was a weird one. I don’t claim to have good answers, but (at a minimum) I wanted to share my experience and observations.

What Happened?

My primary development environment is a virtual machine running Windows Server 2008 R2, SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise, SharePoint Server 2010, and the Office Web Apps. I don’t have any cumulative updates (CUs) or hotfixes installed, and everything is patched-up via Windows Update. Generally speaking, life is pretty happy in my little VM bubble. I sometimes have a hiccup or two due to the VM’s role as a domain controller (DC), but I can usually resolve those problems without too much trouble.

The relative peace and tranquility I normally experience was interrupted by none other than SP1. Like a bull in a china shop, SP1 announced that it had arrived on the scene with the dialog seen on the right. What struck me as weird is that all I had done up until the point when the dialog started appearing was the following:

Install SharePoint Foundation 2010 SP1
Reboot (as prompted by the SPF 2010 SP1 installer)
Install SharePoint Server 2010 SP1.

I hadn’t even run PSCONFIG or gone through the SharePoint 2010 Products Configuration Wizard, and suddenly I started getting unhandled exceptions. I still had the Office Web Apps SP1 package to install and wasn’t planning to run PSCONFIG until all the binaries had been laid down. My first reaction was “huh, that’s weird. I’ll just reboot.” That didn’t make the problem go away. Neither did running PSCONFIG and upgrading the farm. Shortly after rebooting, the dialog shown above would start appearing. If I’d clear it out by saying clicking “No,” I’d have another one waiting for me in about a minute.

My “Ostrich Maneuver” wasn’t cutting the mustard, so I had to dig in and figure out what I needed to do in order to get my environment back in order.

Reluctant Analysis

The Visual Studio Just-In-Time Debugger dialog was popping up about every minute, so I figured that it was as good a place to start as any. The only thing the dialog really told me was the following:

the problem was with OWSTIMER.EXE (i.e., the SharePoint Timer Service)
a System.ServiceModel.EndpointNotFoundException was being thrown

Since this was my development environment and Visual Studio 2010 was installed, I decided to attach the VS debugger to the SharePoint Timer Service process and see if I could learn anything more. The dialog on the left was the result.

Although the dialog didn’t contain a substantial amount of new information, it did include a few tidbits I needed to continue my hunt for the culprit behind my constant timer service crashes:

The exception was being generated by the metadata exchange (MEX) endpoint for a service that resided on the ResourceManagementService path. Since the connection was being actively refused, there was a decent chance that the service simply wasn’t running
The service in question was apparently running (or expected to be running) on TCP port 5725

A web search for “SharePoint” and “5725” quickly brought me to the Plan security hardening (SharePoint Server 2010) page on TechNet. On that page, I found the following under the User Profile service hardening requirements section:

TCP port 5725 must be open on the server that runs the Forefront Identity Management agent and is set up to crawl a directory store.

The revelation that I was dealing with Forefront Identity Manager (FIM) and the SharePoint 2010 User Profile Service (UPS) immediately kicked-off a round of cursing and forehead slapping that took a couple of minutes to rein in.

User Profile Service Investigation

I’m sure that the ResourceManagementService path and port 5725 is obvious to many of you, but I’ll come clean and tell you that I try to stay as far away from the User Profile Service as I possibly can. Unless I know that I’m going to be doing something with the UPS and social networking, I don’t even bother with it in most of my SharePoint environments. Why? Because the UPS is just a colossal pain in the butt to configure and keep running. It is the bane of SharePoint administrators everywhere. Since I’m averse to pain and rarely do anything with it, I stay away from the UPS.

I had trouble believing that I would have gone through the trouble of configuring the UPS in my development environment, so I decided to take a look in Central Administration. Much to my surprise, I had actually taken the time to jump through all of the hoops (as shown on the right) to get the service running, AD synchronization going, etc.

If the UPS was running and the service was actually started (which I confirmed through the Services on Server section of Central Administration), why was I seeing constant timer service crashes?

I decided to look a little further; specifically, I went in to look at the actual Forefront Identity Manager Service which backstops the whole User Profile Service. I popped-open Start –> Administrative Tools –> Services and navigated to the FIM service. The result (which is shown on the left) explained a lot.

Even though the service was set to auto-start, it wasn’t running. Without the service running, it would make sense that attempts to reach it or interact with it would fail.

I decided to manually start the service. Once I did so, the OWSTIMER.EXE crashes ceased. I thought I was in the clear … until I rebooted. Once I rebooted, the FIM service failed to start again and the OWSTIMER.EXE exceptions started happening again. Ugh.

Rewind

I spent about an hour or two poking and prodding, but I didn’t make much headway. Since I was more interested in getting my development environment usable than solving my UPS problems, I decided to cut bait and rewind.

Remember: this is a VM that we’re talking about. Since I try to practice what I preach (particularly from a backup and restore perspective), I had taken a VM snapshot prior to the start of SP1 work. I rolled-back to my pre-SP1 state and took a different approach to the service pack application.

Fans of the movie Aliens will appreciate my application of the “Ellen Ripley Strategy” as shown on the right:

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

As mentioned earlier, I seldom if ever use the User Profile Service. If it was causing me problems with the application of SP1, I decided that it had to go. At a minimum, I wanted to see if SP1 would go on properly without an instance of the User Profile Service Application running in my environment.

I deleted my UPS service application instance and decided to have a look at the FIM service again. What I saw (on the left) looked a bit different. Rather than being set to auto-start (“Automatic”), both the FIM Service and its associated synchronization service were set to “Disabled.”

I then went through the process of laying down the various service packs, and even before running PSCONFIG I knew that things were going to be different. Applying the SharePoint 2010 Server Service Pack 1 binaries did not start a constant stream of OWSTIMER.EXE exceptions. I was able to lay down all of the service packs and run PSCONFIG without issue. Problem solved.

That’s Your Solution?

So, is deleting your UPS service application instance a solution to this problem? In most production environments, I’d wager that the answer is “probably not".” If I think about the situation from a production perspective, the answer may be to preserve the appropriate UPS databases, tear down the UPS service application instance for SP1 application, and then rebuild the UPS service application afterwards.

My primary objective with this post, though, was to simply provide some initial root-cause analysis and troubleshooting. I may be the only person seeing this; if so, I hope that what I’ve written was at least entertaining. If you happen to be seeing the same symptoms I saw, though, then I hope that what I’ve written saves you a little time while troubleshooting.

Additional Reading and References

Microsoft: Technical details about the SharePoint 2010 and Office Server 2010 SP1 releases
TechNet: Plan security hardening (SharePoint Server 2010)
IMDB: Aliens

Finding Duplicate GUIDs in Your SharePoint Site Collection

In this self-described “blog post you should never need,” I talk about finding objects with duplicate GUIDs in a client’s SharePoint site collection. I supply the PowerShell script used to find the duplicate GUIDs and offer some suggestions for how you might remedy such a situation.

This is a bit of an oldie, but I figured it might help one or two random readers.

Let me start by saying something right off the bat: you should never need what I’m about to share. Of course, how many times have you heard “you shouldn’t ever really need this” when it comes to SharePoint? I’ve been at it a while, and I can tell you that things that never should happen seem to find a way into reality – and into my crosshairs for troubleshooting.

Disclaimer

The story and situation I’m about to share is true. I’m going to speak in generalities when it comes to the identities of the parties and software involved, though, to “protect the innocent” and avoid upsetting anyone.

The Predicament

I was part of a team that was working with a client to troubleshoot problems that the client was encountering when they attempted to run some software that targeted SharePoint site collections. The errors that were returned by the software were somewhat cryptic, but they pointed to a problem handling certain objects in a SharePoint site collection. The software ran fine when targeting all other site collections, so we naturally suspected that something was wrong with only one specific site collection.

After further examination of logs that were tied to the software, it became clear that we had a real predicament. Apparently, the site collection in question contained two or more objects with the same identity; that is, the objects had ID properties possessing the same GUID. This isn’t anything that should ever happen, but it had. SharePoint continued to run without issue (interestingly enough), but the duplication of object GUIDs made it downright difficult for any software that depended on unique object identities being … well, unique.

Although the software logs told us which GUID was being duplicated, we didn’t know which SharePoint object or objects the GUID was tied to. We needed a relatively quick and easy way to figure out the name(s) of the object or objects which were being impacted by the duplicate GUIDs.

Tackling the Problem

It is precisely in times like those described that PowerShell comes to mind.

My solution was to whip-up a PowerShell script (FindDuplicateGuids.ps1) that processed each of the lists (SPList) and webs (SPWeb) in a target site collection. The script simply collected the identities of each list and web and reported back any GUIDs that appeared more than once.

The script created works with both SharePoint 2007 and SharePoint 2010, and it has no specific dependencies beyond SharePoint being installed and available on the server where the script is run.

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]
########################
# FindDuplicateGuids.ps1
# Author: Sean P. McDonough (sean@sharepointinterface.com)
# Blog: http://SharePointInterface.com
# Last Update: August 29, 2013
#
# Usage from prompt: ".\FindDuplicateGuids.ps1 <siteUrl>"
# where <siteUrl> is site collection root.
########################

#########
# IMPORTS
# Import/load common SharePoint assemblies that house the types we’ll need for operations.
#########
Add-Type -AssemblyName "Microsoft.SharePoint, Version=12.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=71e9bce111e9429c"

###########
# FUNCTIONS
# Leveraged throughout the script for one or more calls.
###########
function SpmBuild-WebAndListIdMappings {param ($siteUrl)
$targetSite = New-Object Microsoft.SharePoint.SPSite($siteUrl)
$allWebs = $targetSite.AllWebs
$mappings = New-Object System.Collections.Specialized.NameValueCollection
foreach ($spWeb in $allWebs)
{
$webTitle = "WEB ‘{0}’" -f $spWeb.Title
$mappings.Add($spWeb.ID, $webTitle)
$allListsForWeb = $spWeb.Lists
foreach ($currentList in $allListsForWeb)
{
$listEntry = "LIST ‘{0}’ in Web ‘{1}’" -f $currentList.Title, $spWeb.Title
$mappings.Add($currentList.ID, $listEntry)
}
$spWeb.Dispose()
}
$targetSite.Dispose()
return ,$mappings
}

function SpmFind-DuplicateMembers {param ([System.Collections.Specialized.NameValueCollection]$nvMappings)
$duplicateMembers = New-Object System.Collections.ArrayList
$allkeys = $nvMappings.AllKeys
foreach ($keyName in $allKeys)
{
$valuesForKey = $nvMappings.GetValues($keyName)
if ($valuesForKey.Length -gt 1)
{
[void]$duplicateMembers.Add($keyName)
}
}
return ,$duplicateMembers
}

########
# SCRIPT
# Execution of actual script logic begins here
########
$siteUrl = $Args[0]
if ($siteUrl -eq $null)
{
$siteUrl = Read-Host "`nYou must supply a site collection URL to execute the script"
}
if ($siteUrl.EndsWith("/") -eq $false)
{
$siteUrl += "/"
}
Clear-Host
Write-Output ("Examining " + $siteUrl + " …`n")
$combinedMappings = SpmBuild-WebAndListIdMappings $siteUrl
Write-Output ($combinedMappings.Count.ToString() + " GUIDs processed.")
Write-Output ("Looking for duplicate GUIDs …`n")
$duplicateGuids = SpmFind-DuplicateMembers $combinedMappings
if ($duplicateGuids.Count -eq 0)
{
Write-Output ("No duplicate GUIDs found.")
}
else
{
Write-Output ($duplicateGuids.Count.ToString() + " duplicate GUID(s) found.")
Write-Output ("Non-unique GUIDs and associated objects appear below.`n")
foreach ($keyName in $duplicateGuids)
{
$siteNames = $combinedMappings[$keyName]
Write-Output($keyName + ": " + $siteNames)
}
}
$dumpData = Read-Host "`nDo you want to send the collected data to a file? (Y/N)"
if ($dumpData -match "y")
{
$fileName = Read-Host " Output file path and name"
Write-Output ("Results for " + $siteUrl) | Out-File -FilePath $fileName
$allKeys = $combinedMappings.AllKeys
foreach ($currentKey in $allKeys)
{
Write-Output ($currentKey + ": " + $combinedMappings[$currentKey]) | Out-File -FilePath $fileName -Append
}
}
Write-Output ("`n")
[/sourcecode]

Running this script in the client’s environment quickly identified the two lists that contained the same ID GUIDs. How did they get that way? I honestly don’t know, nor am I going to hazard a guess …

What Next?

If you’re in the unfortunate position of owning a site collection that contains objects possessing duplicate ID GUIDs, let me start by saying “I feel for you.”

Having said that: the quickest fix seemed to be deleting the objects that possessed the same GUIDs. Those objects were then rebuilt. I believe we handled the delete and rebuild manually, but there’s nothing to say that an export and subsequent import (via the Content Deployment API) couldn’t be used to get content out and then back in with new object IDs.

A word of caution: if you do leverage the Content Deployment API and do so programmatically, simply make sure that object identities aren’t retained on import; that is, make sure that SPImportSettings.RetainObjectIdentity = false – not true.

Additional Reading and References

TechNet: Import and export: STSADM operations
MSDN: SPImportSettings.RetainObjectIdentity

Client-Server Interactions and the max-age Attribute with SharePoint BLOB Caching

This post discusses how client-side caching and the max-attribute work with SharePoint BLOB caching. Client-server request/response interactions are covered, and some max-age watch-outs are also detailed.

I first presented (in some organized capacity) on SharePoint’s platform caching capabilities at SharePoint Saturday Ozarks in June of 2010, and since that time I’ve consistently received a growing number of questions on the topic of SharePoint BLOB caching. When I start talking about BLOB caching itself, the area that seems to draw the greatest number of questions and “really?!?!” responses is the use of the max-age attribute and how it can profoundly impact client-server interactions.

I’d been promising a number of people (including Todd Klindt and Becky Bertram) that I would write a post about the topic sometime soon, and recently decided that I had lollygagged around long enough.

Before I go too far, though, I should probably explain why the max-age attribute is so special … and even before I do that, we need to agree on what “caching” is and does.

Caching 101

Why does SharePoint supply caching mechanisms? Better yet, why does any application or hardware device employ caching? Generally speaking, caching is utilized to improve performance by taking frequently accessed data and placing it in a state or location that facilitates faster access. Faster access is commonly achieved through one or both of the following mechanisms:

By placing the data that is to be accessed on a faster storage medium; for example, taking frequently accessed data from a hard drive and placing it into memory.
By placing the data that is to be accessed closer to the point of usage; for example, offloading files from a server that is halfway around the world to one that is local to the point of consumption to reduce round-trip latency and bandwidth concerns. For Internet traffic, this scenario can be addressed with edge caching through a content delivery network such as that which is offered by Akamai’s EdgePlatform.

Oftentimes, data that is cached is expensive to fetch or computationally calculate. Take the digits in pi (3.1415926535 …) for example. Computing pi to 100 decimals requires a series of mathematical operations, and those operations take time. If the digits of pi are regularly requested or used by an application, it is probably better to compute those digits once and cache the sequence in memory than to calculate it on-demand each time the value is needed.

Caching usually improves performance and scalability, and these ultimately tend to translate into a better user experience.

SharePoint and caching

Through its publishing infrastructure, SharePoint provides a number of different platform caching capabilities that can work wonders to improve performance and scalability. Note that yes, I did say “publishing infrastructure” – sorry, I’m not talking about Windows SharePoint Services 3 or SharePoint Foundation 2010 here.

With any paid version of SharePoint, you get object caching, page output caching, and BLOB caching. With SharePoint 2010 and the Office Web Applications, you also get the Office Web Applications Cache (for which I highly recommend this blog post written by Bill Baer).

Each of these caching mechanisms and options work to improve performance within a SharePoint farm by using a combination of the two mechanisms I described earlier. Object caching stores frequently accessed property, query, and navigational data in memory on WFEs. Basic BLOB caching copies images, CSS, and similar resource data from content databases to the file system of WFEs. Page output caching piggybacks on ASP.NET page caching and holds SharePoint pages (which are expensive to render) in memory and serves them back to users. The Office Web Applications Cache stores the output of Word documents and PowerPoint presentations (which is expensive to render in web-accessible form) in a special site collection for subsequent re-use.

Public-facing SharePoint

Each of the aforementioned caching mechanisms yields some form of performance improvement within the SharePoint farm by reducing load or processing burden, and that’s all well and good … but do any of them improve performance outside of the SharePoint farm?

What do I even mean by “outside of the SharePoint farm?” Well, consider a SharePoint farm that serves up content to external consumers – a standard/typical Internet presence web site. Most of us in the SharePoint universe have seen (or held up) the Hawaiian Airlines and Ferrari websites as examples of what SharePoint can do in a public-facing capacity. These are exactly the type of sites I am focused on when I ask about what caching can do outside of the SharePoint farm.

For companies that host public-facing SharePoint sites, there is almost always a desire to reduce load and traffic into the web front-ends (WFEs) that serve up those sites. These companies are concerned with many of the same performance issues that concern SharePoint intranet sites, but public-facing sites have one additional concern that intranet sites typically don’t: Internet bandwidth.

Even though Internet bandwidth is much easier to come by these days than it used to be, it’s not unlimited. In the age of gigabit Ethernet to the desktop, most intranet users don’t think about (nor do they have to concern themselves with) the actual bandwidth to their SharePoint sites. I can tell you from experience that such is not the case when serving up SharePoint sites to the general public

So … for all the platform caching options that SharePoint has, is there anything it can actually do to assist with the Internet bandwidth issue?

Enter BLOB caching and the max-age attribute

As it turns out, the answer to that question is “yes” … and of course, it centers around BLOB caching and the max-age attribute specifically. Let’s start by looking at the <BlobCache /> element that is present in every SharePoint Server 2010 web.config file.

BLOB caching disabled

This is the default <BlobCache /> element that is present in all starting SharePoint Server 2010 web.config files, and astute readers will notice that the enabled attribute has a value of false. In this configuration, BLOB caching is turned off and every request for BLOB resources follows a particular sequence of steps. The first request in a browser session looks like this:

In this series of steps

A request for a BLOB resource is made to a WFE
The WFE fetches the BLOB resource from the appropriate content database
The BLOB is returned to the WFE
The WFE returns an HTTP 200 status code and the BLOB to the requester

Here’s a section of the actual HTTP response from server (step #4 above):

[sourcecode highlight=”2″]
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-Control: private,max-age=0
Content-Length: 1241304
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Expires: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:59:39 GMT
Last-Modified: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:59:40 GMT
ETag: "{9EE83B76-50AC-4280-9270-9FC7B540A2E3},7"
Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5
SPRequestGuid: 45874590-475f-41fc-adf6-d67713cbdc85
[/sourcecode]

You’ll notice that I highlighted the Cache-Control header line. This line gives the requesting browser guidance on what it should and shouldn’t do with regard to caching the BLOB resource (typically an image, CSS file, etc.) it has requested. This particular combination basically tells the browser that it’s okay to cache the resource for the current user, but the resource shouldn’t be shared with other users or outside the current session.

Since the browser knows that it’s okay to privately cache the requested resource, subsequent requests for the resource by the same user (and within the same browser session) follow a different pattern:

When the browser makes subsequent requests like this for the resource, the HTTP response (in step #2) looks different than it did on the first request:

[sourcecode]
HTTP/1.1 304 NOT MODIFIED
Cache-Control: private,max-age=0
Content-Length: 0
Expires: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:59:59 GMT
[/sourcecode]

A request is made and a response is returned, but the HTTP 304 status code indicates that the requested resource wasn’t updated on the server; as a result, the browser can re-use its cached copy. Being able to re-use the cached copy is certainly an improvement over re-fetching it, but again: the cached copy is only used for the duration of the browser session – and only for the user who originally fetched it. The requester also has to contact the WFE to determine that the cached copy is still valid, so there’s the overhead of an additional round-trip to the WFE for each requested resource anytime a page is refreshed or re-rendered.

BLOB caching enabled

Even if you’re not a SharePoint administrator and generally don’t poke around web.config files, you can probably guess at how BLOB caching is enabled after reading the previous section. That’s right: it’s enabled by setting the enabled attribute to true as follows:

When BLOB caching is enabled in this fashion, the request pattern for BLOB resources changes quite a bit. The first request during a browser session looks like this:

In this series of steps

A request for a BLOB resource is made to a WFE
The WFE returns the BLOB resource from a file system cache

The gray arrow that is shown indicates that at some point, an initial fetch of the BLOB resource is needed to populate the BLOB cache in the file system of the WFE. After that point, the resource is served directly from the WFE so that subsequent requests are handled locally for the duration of the browser session.

As you might imagine based on the interaction patterns described thus far, simply enabling the BLOB cache can work wonders to reduce the load on your SQL Servers (where content databases are housed) and reduce back-end network traffic. Where things get really interesting, though, is on the client side of the equation (that is, the Requester’s machine) once a resource has been fetched.

What about the max-age attribute?

You probably noticed that a max-age attribute wasn’t specified in the default (previous) <BlobCache /> element. That’s because the max-age is actually an optional attribute. It can be added to the <BlobCache /> element in the following fashion:

Before explaining exactly what the max-age attribute does, I think it’s important to first address what it doesn’t do and dispel a misconception that I’ve seen a number of times. The max-age attribute has nothing to do with how long items stay within the BLOB cache on the WFE’s file system. max-age is not an expiration period or window of viability for content on the WFE. The server-side BLOB cache isn’t like other caches in that items expire out of it. New assets will replace old ones via a maintenance thread that regularly checks associated site collections for changes, but there’s no regular removal of BLOB items from the WFE’s file system BLOB cache simply because of age. max-age has nothing to do with server side operations.

So, what does the max-age attribute actually do then? Answer: it controls information that is sent to requesters for purposes of specifying how BLOB items should be cached by the requester. In short: max-age controls client-side cacheability.

The effect of the max-age attribute

max-age values are specified in seconds; in the case above, 43200 seconds translates into 12 hours. When a max-age value is specified for BLOB caching, something magical happens with BLOB requests that are made from client browsers. After a BLOB cache resource is initially fetched by a requester according to the previous “BLOB caching enabled” series of steps, subsequent requests for the fetched resource look like this for a period of time equal to the max-age:

You might be saying, “hey, wait a minute … there’s only one step there. The request doesn’t even go to the WFE?” That’s right: the request doesn’t go to the WFE. It gets served directly from local browser cache – assuming such a cache is in use, of course, which it typically is.

Why does this happen? Let’s take a look at the HTTP response that is sent back with the payload on the initial resource request when BLOB caching is enabled:

[sourcecode highlight=”2″]
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-Control: public, max-age=43200
Content-Length: 1241304
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Last-Modified: Thu, 22 May 2008 21:26:03 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
ETag: "{F60C28AA-1868-4FF5-A950-8AA2B4F3E161},8pub"
Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5
SPRequestGuid: 45874590-475f-41fc-adf6-d67713cbdc85
[/sourcecode]

The Cache-Control header line in this case differs quite a bit from the one that was specified when BLOB caching was disabled. First, the use of public instead of private tells the receiving browser or application that the response payload can be cached and made available across users and sessions. The response header max-age attribute maps directly to the value specified in the web.config, and in this case it basically indicates that the payload is valid for 12 hours (43,200 seconds) in the cache. During that 12 hour window, any request for the payload/resource will be served directly from the cache without a trip to the SharePoint WFE.

Implications that come with max-age

On the plus side, serving resources directly out of the client-side cache for a period of time can dramatically reduce requests and overall traffic to WFEs. This can be a tremendous bandwidth saver, especially when you consider that assets which are BLOB cached tend to be larger in nature – images, media files, etc. At the same time, serving resources directly out of the cache is much quicker than round-tripping to a WFE – even if the round trip involves nothing more than an HTTP 304 response to say that a cached resource may be used instead of being retrieved.

While serving items directly out of the cache can yield significant benefits, I’ve seen a few organizations get bitten by BLOB caching and excessive max-age periods. This is particularly true when BLOB caching and long max-age periods are employed in environments where images and other BLOB cached resources are regularly replaced and changed-out. Let me illustrate with an example.

Suppose a site collection that hosts collaboration activities for a graphic design group is being served through a Web application zone where BLOB caching is enabled and a max-age period of 43,200 seconds (12 hours) is specified. One of the designers who uses the site collection arrives in the morning, launches her browser, and starts doing some work in the site collection. Most of the scripts, CSS, images, and other BLOB assets that are retrieved will be cached by the user’s browser for the rest of the work day. No additional fetches for such assets will take place.

In this particular scenario, caching is probably a bad thing. Users trying to collaborate on images and other similar (BLOB) content are probably going to be disrupted by the effect of BLOB caching. The max-age value (duration) in-use would either need to be dialed-back significantly or BLOB caching would have to be turned-off entirely.

What you don’t see can hurt you

There’s one more very important point I want to make when it comes to BLOB caching and the use of the max-age attribute: the default <BlobCache /> element doesn’t come with a max-age attribute value, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one in-use. If you fail to specify a max-age attribute value, you end up with the default of 86,400 seconds – 24 hours.

This wasn’t always the case! In some recent exploratory work I was doing with Fiddler, I was quite surprised to discover client-side caching taking place where previously it hadn’t. When I first started playing around with BLOB caching shortly after MOSS 2007 was released, omitting the max-age attribute in the <BlobCache /> element meant that a max-age value of zero (0) was used. This had the effect of caching BLOB resources in the file system cache on WFEs without those resources getting cached in public, cross-session form on the client-side. To achieve extended client-side caching, a max-age value had to be explicitly assigned.

Somewhere along the line, this behavior was changed. I’m not sure where it happened, and attempts to dig back through older VM images (for HTTP response comparisons) didn’t give me a read on when Microsoft made the change. If I had to guess, though, it probably happened somewhere around service pack 1 (SP1). That’s strictly a guess, though. I had always gotten into the habit of explicitly including a max-age value – even if it was zero – so it wasn’t until I was playing with the BLOB caching defaults in a SharePoint 2010 environment that I noticed the 24 hour client-side caching behavior by default. I then backtracked to verify that the behavior was present in both SharePoint 2007 and SharePoint 2010, and it affected both authenticated and anonymous users. It wasn’t a fluke.

So watch-out: if you don’t specify a max-age value, you’ll get 24 hour client-side caching by default! If users complain of images that “won’t update” and stale BLOB-based content, look closely at max-age effects.

An alternate viewpoint on the topic

As I was finishing up this post, I decided that it would probably be a good idea to see if anyone else had written on this topic. My search quickly turned up Chris O’Brien’s “Optimization, BLOB caching and HTTP 304s” post which was written last year. It’s an excellent read, highly informative, and covers a number of items I didn’t go into.

Throughout this post, I took the viewpoint of a SharePoint administrator who is seeking to control WFE load and Internet bandwidth consumption. Chris’ post, on the other hand, was written primarily with developer and end-user concerns in mind. I wasn’t aware of some of the concerns that Chris points out, and I learned quite a few things while reading his write-up. I highly recommend checking out his post if you have a moment.

Additional Reading and References

Event: SharePoint Saturday Ozarks (June 2010)
Blob Post: We Drift Deeper Into the Sound … as the (BLOB Cache) Flush Comes
Blog: Todd Klindt’s SharePoint Admin Blog
Blog: Becky Bertram’s Blog
Definition: lollygag
Technology: Akamai’s EdgePlatform
Wikipedia: Pi
TechNet: Cache settings operations (SharePoint Server 2010)
Bill Baer: The Office Web Applications Cache
SharePoint Site: Hawaiian Airlines
SharePoint Site: Ferrari
W3C Site: Cache-Control explanations
Tool: Fiddler
Blog Post: Chris O’Brien: Optimization, BLOB caching and HTTP 304s

A Tale of Two Cmdlets

In this post I investigate the differences between the Backup-SPFarm and Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlets in the process of configuration-only backup in SharePoint 2010. I also extrapolate a bit on how the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase may have come to be.

I recently authored a blog post titled “Configuration-Only Backup and Restore in SharePoint 2010,” and in that post I tried to address some of the false hopes and misunderstandings I saw arising around SharePoint 2010’s configuration-only backup and restore capabilities.

While I was putting the post together, I was reminded of another head-scratcher that I’ve seen confuse some folks on a handful of occasions; specifically, what the differences are between the Backup-SPFarm and Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase PowerShell cmdlets in SharePoint 2010 when it comes to configuration-only backup.

Before I go too far, I should probably rewind a bit and explain a few things.

Many Paths to the Destination

If you aren’t yet familiar with configuration-only backup and restore in SharePoint 2010, the basics of it are covered in this TechNet article and in my previous post. I’d recommend checking both out before continuing.

Configuration-only backups in SharePoint 2010 can be generated in several different ways;

Using the “Backup up only configuration settings” option when running a backup using Central Administration’s Farm Backup and Restore capabilities.
Through STSADM.exe using STSADM.exe –o backup with the –ConfigurationOnly switch.
By running the Backup-SPFarm PowerShell cmdlet along with the –ConfigurationOnly switch.
By executing the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase PowerShell cmdlet.

Option #1 is obviously designed for the “UI-oriented” administrator who wants to accomplish a configuration-only backup with a point-and-click interface. Option #2 works, but Microsoft has been pretty clear that STSADM.exe is on its way out and should be generally be avoided in favor of the PowerShell cmdlets shown in Options #3 and #4.

Options #3 and #4 are where I’ve actually seen some administrative head-scratching start. Both options leverage PowerShell, and both produce a configuration-only backup. The Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet would seem most appropriate for the job … but is it? If it is most appropriate, then why the redundant capability with the Backup-SPFarm cmdlet?

Two Cmdlets, One Function?

We have two PowerShell cmdlets that produce the same type of backup set. Understanding how the cmdlets differ starts with an analysis of the syntax and parameters for each one. Let’s start by looking at the syntax for each of the cmdlets in full.

First, the Backup-SPFarm cmdlet.

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]Backup-SPFarm -BackupMethod <String> -Directory <String> [-AssignmentCollection <SPAssignmentCollection>] [-BackupThreads <Int32>] [-ConfigurationOnly <SwitchParameter>] [-Confirm [<SwitchParameter>]] [-Force <SwitchParameter>] [-Item <String>] [-Percentage <Int32>] [-WhatIf [<SwitchParameter>]] [<CommonParameters>][/sourcecode]

Next, the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet.

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase -Directory <String> [-AssignmentCollection <SPAssignmentCollection>] [-DatabaseCredentials <PSCredential>] [-DatabaseName <String>] [-DatabaseServer <String>] [-Item <String>] [<CommonParameters>][/sourcecode]

Each of the cmdlets requires that you specify where the backup set should be created using the –Directory switch, and each cmdlet permits the selection of either the entire configuration hierarchy (the default) or specific subset of it through the –Item switch.

There’s quite a bit of noise in the full syntax for each cmdlet, particularly for Backup-SPFarm, so let’s distill things down a bit and look at each cmdlet in turn.

Backup-SPFarm

For the purposes of this discussion, the following represents the core syntactical elements of interest for configuration-only backup using the Backup-SPFarm cmdlet:

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]Backup-SPFarm [-ConfigurationOnly <SwitchParameter>][/sourcecode]

All you need to do is specify the –ConfigurationOnly switch and you’re ready to go. There’s really not much more to it than that.

Under the hood, this method of configuration-only backup creation is the same as running a configuration-only backup operation from within SharePoint Central Administration. Backup-SPFarm assumes that you’ve got a live SharePoint farm, that it’s operating properly, and that you want to capture its configuration with the backup process.

Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase

So then, what’s the deal with Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase?

[sourcecode language=”powershell”]Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase [-DatabaseCredentials <PSCredential>] [-DatabaseName <String>] [-DatabaseServer <String>][/sourcecode]

Clearly there’s something more going on with this cmdlet. Looking at the parameters, it should be clear that the –DatabaseName and –DatabaseServer switches allow you to specify an alternate configuration database and server location as the target of the configuration-only backup operation you intend to perform. If you happen to require SQL Server authentication to access the configuration database, then you can specify connection credentials with the –DatabaseCredentials switch.

In most cases where I’ve seen the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet described, these extra database-centric parameters have been passed-off as giving you the ability to backup configuration databases that reside in other (non-local) farms. I’ve also seen it suggested that it would be possible to centralize configuration-only backups for multiple farms using this cmdlet. While I think that those are certainly possibilities, I think that they fail to consider the bigger picture and backup/restore as an end-to-end process.

It’s All About Recovery

First, let me close the case on the Backup-SPFarm cmdlet. Under normal circumstances, Backup-SPFarm is how you should be running a configuration-only backup if you need it. The TechNet documentation spells this out in the description for both the Backup-SPFarm and Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlets. Although Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase can be used to backup the configuration database of an operational farm, that’s not really its intended use (as I see it, anyway).

To understand the real value of the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet, you need to think past the execution of backups and consider the process of recovery. In many of the organizations I’ve consulted for, the SharePoint environments were not protected using the native backup and restore capabilities that come with the platform. Quite a few of these mid-size and enterprise organizations handled SharePoint farm protection using SQL Server backups, third-party tools, or a combination of the two. Usability guidelines for the native backup capabilities were sometimes the reason for avoiding SharePoint’s built-in tools; in other cases, backups were controlled and managed by a different internal group that had already standardized on their own (non-SharePoint) backup tool or product.

In each of the aforementioned backup scenarios, the primary goal was protection of SharePoint’s SQL Server databases. Content databases were utterly critical targets in these backup scenarios since nothing would bring them back if they were lost. Whether or not other databases were backed up depended on the recovery strategy. In the event of catastrophic farm failure, some administrators try to recover all parts of the farm; others prefer to rebuild the farm from scratch and bolt the content databases back in. Many different approaches to the recovery challenge exist, and each has benefits and disadvantages.

Regardless of the restore approach taken for database backups, the SharePoint farm configuration database has generally been regarded as relatively useless. After all, farm configuration databases are not normally portable. When you rebuild a SharePoint farm, you end up with a new farm configuration database. In SharePoint 2007, it was generally accepted that the farm configuration database was “throwaway;” backing it up wasn’t even necessary unless you had some very specific (and oftentimes proprietary) use case for it.

The Restore Process: SharePoint 2010-Style

With SharePoint 2010, the question of “should I backup the farm configuration database?” should generally be answered with a “yes.” The same restrictions regarding the use of a farm configuration database backup still apply from SharePoint 2007 (i.e., you can’t simply “drop it into” a live SharePoint farm and go), but we now have configuration-only backup and restore with SharePoint 2010.

If you think about the database or file-based approach to backup, and you consider the process of restoring or rebuilding a SharePoint farm, then you’ll probably understand where the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet actually fits in. The cmdlet is less about backup than it is about restore.

If you’re trying to put a farm back together after a catastrophic failure using database backups, then you’re probably going to follow a series of steps that starts out like this:

Rebuild your servers with their operating systems
Install SharePoint
Create a new SharePoint farm (with a new farm configuration database)
Restore your old farm’s databases

Once you’ve completed step #3, you actually have a working SharePoint farm – it just doesn’t look anything like the farm you’re trying to rebuild/restore yet. You’ll probably still need to re-provision services and service applications, re-establish all of your farm’s configuration settings, etc.

Assuming you were capturing your farm configuration database as part of the backup cycle for your old farm, then step #4 is where the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase can be brought in to work its magic. The Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase does actually require a functional farm to properly operate (even against another configuration database), but it can be used to execute a configuration-only backup against the old (pre-catastrophe) farm configuration database that was restored into SQL Server from backup in step #4. The configuration-only backup set that is generated through the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase action can then be brought into the rebuilt farm almost immediately using the Restore-SPFarm cmdlet with the –ConfigurationOnly switch engaged.

The Data Protection Manager 2010 Connection

I’ll be clear and state that I don’t have hard evidence to say with certainty that my take on the Backup-SPFarm and Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase division of responsibilities is what Microsoft envisioned when they created them, but I am relatively confident based on what I’ve seen and know – especially when I factor-in Microsoft’s data protection product offerings and enterprise backup/restore strategy.

In particular, I’m talking about Microsoft’s own System Center Data Protection Manager (DPM) product line. The DPM product line conducts its backup and restore operations through the Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) that is built into the Windows operating system. VSS is a very powerful mechanism for the creation of consistent, point-in-time file snapshots … but at its core, VSS is file-based.

Even though DPM advertises some integration capabilities with SharePoint, it isn’t “aware” of SharePoint beyond its interface with the SharePoint Foundation Volume Shadow Copy Service Writer (SPF VSS Writer) and the SPF VSS Writer’s subordinate search index writer. For all practical purposes, this means that DPM can’t really treat SharePoint backups as much more than file-based backups. DPM’s approach to SharePoint farm protection is to backup SQL Server databases (including the configuration database) and the farm’s search index partitions. It doesn’t understand farm metadata, IIS configuration settings, the SharePoint Root (aka “14 hive”), etc. These additional targets can be backed-up using DPM’s file system protection capabilities, but they aren’t associated in any way with other SharePoint backups.

So even though DPM can protect a SharePoint farm configuration database, it can’t do anything more with it than you or I can do with a standard SQL Server database restore. If you realize that DPM only works with files and doesn’t have much in the way of application-level intelligence, this chart that compares its capabilities against other SharePoint protection mechanisms makes quite a bit of sense. It should also make it clear why even Microsoft’s products have a need for the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet.

Closing Thoughts

Don’t interpret what I’m saying as DPM 2010-bashing. On the contrary, I’ve been using DPM since it’s 2007 release in my home network environment, and I think it’s a pretty good product. I only brought up DPM to make my point about the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet – not to beat-up the product.

Since both SQL Server backups and DPM are capable of restoring a SharePoint configuration database – but not much more than that – the Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase cmdlet fills a very important role in the SharePoint restore process. It’s the “bridge” from many backup/restore solutions to SharePoint itself for purposes of getting back configuration data.

The general rule of thumb that I give people is this: use Backup-SPFarm if you’re trying to extract configuration data from a live farm, and use Backup-SPConfigurationDatabase if you’re trying to extract configuration data from a restored (and otherwise unassociated) configuration database.

Additional Resources and References

Blog Post: Configuration-Only Backup and Restore in SharePoint 2010
TechNet: Backup-SPFarm PowerShell cmdlet
TechNet: Backup-SPConfiguration PowerShell cmdlet
TechNet: Backup and recovery overview (SharePoint Server 2010)
TechNet: Restore-SPFarm PowerShell cmdlet
Product: Microsoft System Center Data Protection Manager 2010
MSDN: SharePoint Foundation VSS Writer
TechNet: Plan for backup and recovery (SharePoint Server 2010)

Configuration-Only Backup and Restore in SharePoint 2010

In this post, I discuss SharePoint 2010’s new configuration-only backup and restore capabilities, how they work, and why they probably aren’t going to remove the need for farm configuration documentation anytime soon.

Since our SharePoint 2010 Disaster Recovery Guide is written, starched, pressed, and ready to wear, I thought it was time to get back to some of the blogging I promised to start doing again once the book was finished. I guess that if I didn’t have something to write, I simply wouldn’t know what to do with myself. <insert smirk here>

Motivation For This Post

SharePoint 2010’s configuration-only backup and restore capabilities are on a long list of topics I’ve been meaning to blog about, but in all honesty it wasn’t at the top of that list. I’ve been seeing the topic start to get some real attention in a number of forums, though, from folks like Todd Klindt (in one of his recent netcasts) and Benjamin Athawes (in his blog and in the helpful replies he’s been providing out in Microsoft’s TechNet forums).

It seems that many folks in the SharePoint community have heard about configuration-only backup and restore, and I think there’s an awful lot of hope that it will help with some of the problems we faced with SharePoint 2007. By the time you finish reading this post, I hope to impart a solid understanding of what configuration-only backup and restore will – and won’t – do for you.

The Elephant In The Room

Before I go any further, let me address the question that I suspect the overwhelming majority of you probably want an answer to:

Will configuration-only backup and restore let me clone my SharePoint 2010 farm?

The quick answer: no. At the risk of being a bit flippant, I’ll include a slightly longer answer: heck no – not even close.

When configuration-only backup and restore was introduced to the world, it promised so much. I remember hearing the discussion of “farm templates” and of “cloning configuration.” I remember sitting through Bill Baer’s business continuity management (BCM) session at the SharePoint Conference in 2009 and thinking about all the things I was going to do with the new capability.

In light of what I now know about configuration-only backup and restore, I went back to the recorded SPC sessions (including SPC311 – Bill’s BCM session) to make sure I wasn’t hearing things. I wasn’t. My guess is that the initial vision for configuration-only backup and restore had to get scaled-back prior to the product becoming generally available. Maybe the team ran out of time, maybe they hit technical hurdles, or perhaps it was a combination of the two. Regardless, the capability in its current form isn’t quite what I had hoped it would be.

Enough with the hand-waving. Let’s dive in.

High-Level: What Is Configuration-Only Backup and Restore?

For a brief primer on configuration-only backup and restore, check out the “Backup and recovery overview (SharePoint 2010)” article on TechNet. If you don’t want to take the time to read the article, though, I’ll sum it up for you: a configuration-only backup and restore allows you to extract portable configuration settings from a SharePoint 2010 farm configuration database and apply those settings to a different farm. The promise, as indicated earlier, is that you could effectively “clone” the configuration of a farm. The configuration template that would be generated from this process could then be applied to other farms to create copies of the original farm’s settings and configuration. This would be extremely beneficial when duplicating environments (e.g., creating staging and testing environments that match a production environment), building development and demo virtual machines (VMs), and more.

Those of you who have worked with SharePoint 2007 recognize the leap forward that this represents. Anyone who has spent any amount of time exploring SharePoint backup and recovery knows that farm configuration databases are tied to their SharePoint environments. Microsoft doesn’t support transplanting one farm’s configuration database into another farm; most of the time, it simply wouldn’t work. Even if you could get it to work through some extremely impressive techno-jujitsu, you’d be in a horribly unsupported state as far as Microsoft support was concerned.

What Does It Look Like?

Configuration-only backup and restore in SharePoint 2010 is an extension to the existing catastrophic backup and restore capabilities located in the Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration and Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.Backup namespaces. The processes and mechanisms that allow you to create farm-level backups from Central Administration (through “Farm Backup and Restore”), PowerShell (via Backup-SPFarm), and STSADM.exe (via STSADM –o backup in catastrophic mode) are the same ones that are employed in configuration-only backups.

In fact, the backup sets that are generated from a configuration-only backup are basically the same, structurally speaking, as those that are generated from a “normal” (content + configuration) catastrophic backup. One easy way to determine the nature of a backup, though, is to crack open the backup location’s table of contents file (spbrtoc.xml) and examine the value within the <SPConfigurationOnly /> element for a given backup or restore run (represented by a <SPHistoryObject /> element).

For example, this particular backup run was clearly a configuration-only backup because its <SPConfigurationOnly /> element contains a value of True.
[sourcecode language=”xml” highlight=”9″]<SPHistoryObject>
<SPId>571d2ad2-f485-46de-918e-653e8868c8bc</SPId>
<SPRequestedBy>SPDC\s0ladmin</SPRequestedBy>
<SPBackupMethod>Full</SPBackupMethod>
<SPRestoreMethod>None</SPRestoreMethod>
<SPStartTime>08/18/2010 16:15:12</SPStartTime>
<SPFinishTime>08/18/2010 16:15:37</SPFinishTime>
<SPIsBackup>True</SPIsBackup>
<SPConfigurationOnly>True</SPConfigurationOnly>
<SPBackupDirectory>e:\temp\spbr0001\</SPBackupDirectory>
<SPDirectoryName>spbr0001</SPDirectoryName>
<SPDirectoryNumber>1</SPDirectoryNumber>
<SPTopComponent>Farm</SPTopComponent>
<SPTopComponentId>7850df11-60ef-460c-ab4a-9b7b9f2f735f</SPTopComponentId>
<SPWarningCount>0</SPWarningCount>
<SPErrorCount>0</SPErrorCount>
</SPHistoryObject>[/sourcecode]
If you browse the folder containing the backup set that is generated from a configuration-only backup, you’ll see the expected array of sequentially numbered hexadecimal .bak files, as well as a log file (spbackup.log) and backup component hierarchy file (spbackup.xml).

The .bak files themselves contain XML-serialized representations of various farm objects that were captured during the configuration backup process:

[sourcecode language=”xml” wraplines=”false”]<object type="Microsoft.Office.Server.Administration.DiagnosticsService, Microsoft.Office.Server, Version=14.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=71e9bce111e9429c">
<fld type="System.Collections.Hashtable, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089" name="m_Throttles" />
<fld name="m_Versions" type="null" />
<fld name="m_UpgradeContext" type="null" />
<fld type="System.Collections.Hashtable, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089" name="m_UpgradedPersistedFields" />
<fld name="m_Properties" type="null" />
<sFld type="String" name="m_LastUpdatedUser">SPDC\s0ladmin</sFld>
<sFld type="String" name="m_LastUpdatedProcess">psconfigui (4228)</sFld>
<sFld type="String" name="m_LastUpdatedMachine">SPDEV</sFld>
<sFld type="DateTime" name="m_LastUpdatedTime">2010-04-25T17:38:27</sFld>
</object>[/sourcecode]

Again, this is all very similar to a standard catastrophic farm backup. The one notable absence in the backup set that is produced during a configuration-only backup is that of SQL Server database backup files that begin (internally) with a telltale TAPE header. The absence of these files is expected, though, since configuration-only backups operate on farm configuration settings and metadata – not the content and other data that is housed primarily in SQL Server databases.

“Wait,” you might be saying, “service applications typically have quite a bit of configuration data, and much of that data is housed in SQL Server databases. Wouldn’t those databases be captured by the configuration-only backup process?” Hold that question – I’ll be addressing it in a short bit.

A Quick Peek At What’s Going On Under The Hood

To better understand how configuration-only backup and restore works, it helps to dive below the backup set and into the SharePoint object model to see what’s actually happening. If you’re not a developer, no worries – I’ll try to keep this simple.

The type that is the backbone of configuration-only backup and restore operations is the IBackupRestoreConfiguration interface. Classes in the SharePoint object model can implement this interface (and supply a CanBackupRestoreAsConfiguration property value of true) if they wish to meet the bare minimum requirements for inclusion in configuration-only backup and restore operations.

If you’ve worked with catastrophic backup and restore in the SharePoint object model before, this interface name may seem a little familiar to you – even if it isn’t. That’s because extending the native catastrophic backup and restore functionality of SharePoint to include new content classes is done through the similarly named IBackupRestore interface. IBackupRestore came before IBackupRestoreConfiguration, and the latter is actually derived from the former. The patterns of interaction between the runtime backup objects and objects that implement these two interfaces is very similar – as you might expect given their inheritance relationship.

So you might be wondering, “So what? I don’t plan to build configuration-only backup and restore-capable components. Why are you going through all of this.” The answer to that question is relatively easy to answer: we can get a pretty clear understanding of what is actually included in configuration-only backup and restore operations by looking at the SharePoint classes that implement the IBackupRestoreConfiguration interface.

Hold onto the concept of examining types that implement IBackupRestoreConfiguration; we’ll be coming back to it in just a second.

What Does A Configuration-Only Backup Actually Capture? – Part 1

Let’s leave the SharePoint object model and come back up to ground level for a moment.

In plain English, configuration-only backup and restore is basically supposed to address the “I need to create a template of my farm” pain point we felt with SharePoint 2007. Does it? What gap is filled by the capability according to Microsoft?

If you read the TechNet article I linked to earlier, you’ll find just five types of settings (or configuration data items) that are actually listed as included in a configuration-only backup:

Antivirus
Information rights management (IRM)
Outbound e-mail settings (only restored when performing an "overwrite").
Customizations deployed as trusted solutions
Diagnostic logging

I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t exactly line up too well with the list of things I’d want to replicate from Farm A to Farm B if I were actually trying to clone Farm A configuration settings. Don’t get me wrong: several of the items listed are things I would want to bring across (especially the customizations in the farm solution store), but there are a whole host of additional things I’d want to see.

What Does A Configuration-Only Backup Actually Capture? – Part 2

The five bullet points I just supplied aren’t entirely well-defined, and they’re more than a little “light” in terms of farm configuration data. Let’s define the list a bit more clearly by seeing which classes in the SharePoint object model actually implement the required IBackupRestoreConfiguration interface.

When I fire-up Reflector and analyze the types that use the IBackupRestoreConfiguration interface, I come up with the following classes (ignoring the SPBackupRestore type, since its ImplementsIBackupRestoreConfiguration method only checks to see whether or not other objects themselves actually implement the interface):

Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPDiagnosticsServiceBase
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPFarm
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPResourceMeasure
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPSolution
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPSolutionCollection
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPSolutionLanguagePack
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPUserCodeExecutionTier
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPUserCodeLoadBalancerProvider
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPUserCodeProvider
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPUserCodeService
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration.SPWebService
Microsoft.SharePoint.UserCode.SPSolutionValidator

Each of these classes is capable of participating in a configuration-only backup because it implements IBackupRestoreConfiguration. The list is longer than the five bullets I mentioned earlier, but many of the classes cited can be grouped into common areas of functionality. The SPSolution, SPSolutionCollection, and SPSolutionLanguagePack types are associated with trusted solutions (the farm solution store), for example, while the SPDiagnosticsServiceBase type is tied to trace log and event throttling management (i.e., diagnostic logging). A simple one-to-one mapping between classes and settings areas (that you might find in Central Administration) doesn’t actually exist.

Identifying what is included in a configuration-only backup isn’t quite a quick and easy affair.

What Doesn’t A Configuration-Only Backup Capture?

Sometimes it’s simply easier to talk about what a thing isn’t rather than what it is. As you’re probably coming to see, configuration-only backup and restore is one of those things.

For those who hoped that configuration-only backup and restore would deliver us to the promised land of SharePoint farm templates and full configuration replication, the first signs of trouble in paradise come by reading the implementation notes for the IBackupRestoreConfiguration interface. In essence they state that you shouldn’t be implementing the interface to capture configuration settings unless the following three conditions are true for the settings in question:

The settings you’re trying to preserve are only configuration settings – not content like lists, documents, etc.
The settings you want to capture are scoped to the entire farm or the Content Publishing Web Service (i.e., they apply equally to all non-Central Admin Web applications and the site collections contained within them – not to just a subset)
The settings aren’t tied to server names or your specific SharePoint farm topology

That list starts “simple” and ends “rough.” With those three bullets, we can instantly rule-out configuration data that is tied to individual Web applications, content databases, site collections, and everything else below them. Configuration-only backup and restore won’t protect your per-Web application settings, either, including alternate access mappings (AAMs).

I’m making a special point of highlighting AAMs because configuration-only backup and restore was initially advertised as being capable of capturing these mappings. Sure, you can view AAMs within Central Administration and may think that they’re maintained at the farm level, but they aren’t – they’re tied to specific Web applications. AAMs for a Web application are represented (within the object model) as an instance of the SPAlternateUrlCollection class. The SPAlternateUrlCollection isn’t on the list of IBackupRestoreConfiguration implementers provided earlier, nor are its parent types (most notably the SPWebApplication type through its AlternateUrls property). Net effect: it isn’t included in configuration-only backup and restore operations.

Since cloning a SharePoint farm usually involves taking it from one environment to another, bullet #3 is a rather big sticking point, as well. Configuration-only backup and restore won’t handle anything that includes a server name, IP address, or any other environmentally-dependent setting. The reason is pretty simple – how would SharePoint know how to actually re-wire that stuff (in a new environment) on restore?

Ouch.

Okay, What About Service Applications?

The Service Application Framework is new to SharePoint 2010, and it represents a major step forward in correcting many of the performance, configuration, and scalability limits of MOSS 2007’s shared service provider (SSP) model. If you’ve touched SharePoint 2010 in any form, chances are you’ve at least stumbled into service applications in some form. Examples include the Managed Metadata Service, Business Data Connectivity (BCS) Services, and Search.

Although the Service Application Framework has been engineered to participate in normal (content+configuration) catastrophic backup and restore operations, it doesn’t do so through the standard IBackupRestore interface. Developers of service application and related classes can adorn their classes with a couple of different attributes (IisWebServiceApplicationBackupBehaviorAttribute and IIsWebServiceApplicationProxyBackupBehaviorAttribute – not exactly “short and sweet” in the name department), and they get backup and restore integration as a freebie. This is a big relief for developers, because properly implementing the IBackupRestore interface in their classes is anything but trivial.

There is a downside to the attribute-based backup and restore approach as its implemented, though: the Service Application Framework simply doesn’t participate in configuration-only backup and restore. When you execute a configuration-only backup, you won’t capture any configuration data tied to search, BCS, managed metadata, web analytics, Excel services, or any of the other service applications.

Double ouch.

The Verdict On Configuration-Only Backup And Restore

I’ll start by apologizing if this post dashed your hopes. Believe me when I say that I had very high hopes for configuration-only backup and restore, as well. Cloning farms by hand is painful work; I’ve done it enough times to know that much.

Since configuration-only backup and restore doesn’t actually cover any configuration data tied to service applications and individual Web applications, cloning a farm in SharePoint 2010 is still going to be a largely manual affair. Scripting can (and probably should) play a large role, and so will documentation.

There, I said it – the ugly “d” word. Documentation.

Documentation continues to play a big role in capturing configuration data in SharePoint 2010, but that doesn’t mean you have to resort to taking notes or capturing screenshots en masse.

Microsoft has (indirectly) acknowledged that configuration-only backup and restore isn’t going to round up all of our desired configuration settings, and they’ve attempted to lend us a hand through some PowerShell scripting. If you haven’t yet reviewed Microsoft’s farm documentation script on TechNet, I highly recommend that you check it out. Saying that the script’s treatment of farm configuration data is “extensive” is kind of like saying that a tsunami is a “big wave” – it doesn’t do it justice.

I also want to be clear and say that despite the limitations I’ve described, I still think that configuration-only backup and restore is worth some serious investigation for anyone trying to do template creation, cloning, and disaster recovery work. Given my focus on disaster recovery, for example, the ability to get a farm’s solution store backed-up in a form that can be restored easily at a later time is a huge benefit – one that would really ease the process of farm recovery in a true disaster scenario.

Additional Resources and References

Book: SharePoint 2010 Disaster Recovery Guide
Netcast: Todd Klindt’s Netcast 54
Blog: Benjamin Athawes’ Tales from a SharePoint Farm
Blog: Bill Baer’s TechNet Blog
TechNet: Backup and recovery overview (SharePoint 2010)
API: IBackupRestoreConfiguration
API: IBackupRestore
Product: Red Gate’s Reflector
MSDN: What’s New: Service Application Framework
TechNet: Document Farm Configuration Settings (PowerShell Script)

What Are the Office Web Apps?

A Word about the Plumbing

Inside the Office Web Apps Cache

Managing the Cache

Tip #1: Relocate the Cache to a New Database

Tip #2: Review Size and Expiration Settings

Tip #3: Give Yourself Some Warning

Knobs and Dials

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Configuring SharePoint 2010 Farm Backup and Restore

Why Now?

Oh Yeah? Prove It.

The Script

Test Results

Single-Server Farm

Multi-Server Farm

The Take-Away

References and Resources

Share this:

Like this:

The Situation

PowerShell to the Rescue

The Script

Conclusion

Additional Reading and Resources

Share this:

Like this:

SharePoint PSA

The Small Print

Why Did You Have To Bring Age Into This?

Acme Online Goes Live!

The Launch

Meep Meep

Running Off the Edge of the Cliff

The Coyote Never Wins

Recommendations Before You Enable the BLOB Cache

Summing It Up

Additional Reading and Resources

Share this:

Like this:

Mirroring and SharePoint

What Are You Pointing At?

The SPDatabase Type

The Key Takeaway

Checking with the Experts

Back to the Farm

Additional Reading and Resources

Share this:

Like this:

What Happened?

Reluctant Analysis

User Profile Service Investigation

Rewind

That’s Your Solution?

Additional Reading and References

Share this:

Like this:

Disclaimer

The Predicament

Tackling the Problem

What Next?

Additional Reading and References

Share this:

Like this:

Caching 101

SharePoint and caching

Public-facing SharePoint

Enter BLOB caching and the max-age attribute

BLOB caching disabled

BLOB caching enabled

What about the max-age attribute?

The effect of the max-age attribute

Implications that come with max-age

What you don’t see can hurt you

An alternate viewpoint on the topic

Additional Reading and References

Share this:

Like this: