I've got a service that runs scans of various servers. The networks in question can be huge (hundreds of thousands of network nodes).
The current version of the software is using a queueing/threading architecture designed by us which works but isn't as efficient as it could be (not least of which because jobs can spawn children which isn't handled well)
V2 is coming up and I'm considering using the TPL. It seems like it should be ideally suited.
I've seen this question, the answer to which implies there's no limit to the tasks TPL can handle. In my simple tests (Spin up 100,000 tasks and give them to TPL), TPL barfed fairly early on with an Out-Of-Memory exception (fair enough - especially on my dev box).
The Scans take a variable length of time but 5 mins/task is a good average.
As you can imagine, scans for huge networks can take a considerable length of time, even on beefy servers.
I've already got a framework in place which allows the scan jobs (stored in a Db) to be split between multiple scan servers, but the question is how exactly I should pass work to the TPL on a specific server.
Can I monitor the size of TPL's queue and (say) top it up if it falls below a couple of hundred entries? Is there a downside to doing this?
I also need to handle the situation where a scan needs to be paused. This is seems easier to do by not giving the work to TPL than by cancelling/resetting tasks which may already be partially processed.
All of the initial tasks can be run in any order. Children must be run after the parent has started executing but since the parent spawns them, this shouldn't ever be a problem. Children can be run in any order. Because of this, I'm currently envisioning that child tasks be written back to the Db not spawned directly into TPL. This would allow other servers to "work steal" if required.
Has anyone had any experience with using the TPL in this way? Are there any considerations I need to be aware of?
TPL is about starting small units of work and running them in parallel. It is not about monitoring, pausing, or throttling this work.
You should see TPL as a low-level tool to start "work" and to synchronize threads.
Key point: TPL tasks != logical tasks. Logical tasks are in your case scan-tasks ("scan an ip-range from x to y"). Such a task should not correspond to a physical task "System.Threading.Task" because the two are different concepts.
You need to schedule, orchestrate, monitor and pause the logical tasks yourself because TPL does not understand them and cannot be made to.
Now the more practical concerns:
TPL can certainly start 100k tasks without OOM. The OOM happened because your tasks' code exhausted memory.
Scanning networks sounds like a great case for asynchronous code because while you are scanning you are likely to wait on results while having a great degree of parallelism. You probably don't want to have 500 threads in your process all waiting for a network packet to arrive. Asynchronous tasks fit well with the TPL because every task you run becomes purely CPU-bound and small. That is the sweet spot for TPL.
Consider the time for completing a task on a processor core is a distribution with mean m and standard deviation s. If the same task runs on n cores, what is the mean and standard deviation of the time it takes to complete the task? (the task is finished when one of the cores finishes the task)
This is more of a statistics question, than anything else. Without information on the distribution function of the time t a single task needs to complete, I could only give you a hint: You need to calculate the distribution function of the minimum of t for n of your tasks, as seen here. Using that you can then calculate the mean and the standard deviation.
PS: Is this homework?
EDIT:
Whether - and how much - it's worth to use multiple cores, depends on several things:
What you need to do. If you have to run the same program with different inputs, launching multiple instances makes a lot of sense. It might not cut down the overall time down to 1/n and each experiment will still need at least as much time as before, but the time needed for the whole series will be signigicantly less.
If on the other hand, you are hoping to run the same task with e.g. a different seed and keep the one that converges the fastest, you will probably gain far less, as estimated by the first part of my answer.
How well you have parallelized your tasks. n completely independent tasks is the ideal scenario. n threads with multiple synchronization points etc are not going to be near as efficient.
How well your hardware can handle multiple tasks. For example if each of these tasks needs a lot of memory, it will probably be faster to use a single core only, than forcing the system to use the swap space/pagefile/whatever your OS calls it by running multiple instances at once.
While designing a fairly simple backup system for Linux in python, I'm finding myself asking the question, could there be any time advantage to backing up up several datasets/archives simultaneously?
My intuition tells me that writing to several archives simultaneously would not buy me much time as I/O would already be the greatest bottleneck.
On the other hand, if using something like bz2, would there be an advantage with multi-threading since higher demand of CPU will decrease I/O demand? Or is it a wash since all threads would be doing essentially the same thing and therefore sharing the same bottlenecks?
It depends on your system. If you have multiple disks, it could be very worthwhile to parallelize your backup job. If you have multiple processors, compressing multiple jobs in parallel may be worth your while.
If the processor is slow enough (and the disks are fast enough) that zipping makes your CPU a bottleneck, you'll make some gains on multicore or hyperthreaded processors. The reduced I/O demand from zipped data being written is almost certainly a win if your CPU can keep up with the read speed of your drive(s).
Anyway, this is all very system dependent. Try it and see. Run two jobs at once and then run the same two in serial and see which took longer. The cheap (coding-wise) way is to just run your backup script twice with different input and output parameters. Once you've established a winner, you can go farther down the path.
I am using a third party API which performs what I would assume are expensive operations in terms of time/resources used (image recognition, etc). What tell-tale signs are there that the code under test should be made to use threads to increase performance?
I have a profiler and will be profiling the code I write which will rely on this API.
Thanks
If you have two distinct sequences of events that don't depend on one-another, then consider it. If you have to write bunches of logic just to make sure that two operations aren't getting in each-others way, it pays off by making the two pieces of code clearer.
If on the other hand you find that, in attempting to make something multithreaded, you have to add gobs of code to communicate results between the threads, because one (or both) can't proceed without some information from the other, that's a good sign that you are trying to make threads where they don't make sense.
One case where it makes sense to go multi-threaded, even when you have to add communication to do it, is when you have one task that needs to stay available for input, and another to do heavy computing. One thread may poll for input from somewhere, blocking when none is available, so that when input is available it is responded to in a timely manner, and feed jobs to another 'worker' thread, so that processing continues at all times, not just when there's input.
One other thing to consider, is that even when a job is 'embarrassingly parallel' (i.e., requiring little or no communication between the parallelized parts), there are cases where multithreading may not be worthwhile. If your CPU can assign different threads to different cores, multithreading will give you a speed up, by allowing multiple cores to chew through the work simultaneously. But on a single core processor, or even a multi-core one with an unfortunate OS, having multiple threads will not speed things up, as the one core will still have to get through all the work.
Image processing is often cpu-bound. However, if your image-processing api already is designed to leverage multiple cpus, multi-threading probably won't help you. The strategy I usually consider for quickly determining if multi-threading will help is to write a simple program which does the relevant processing over and over again. Then, I will run it on a set of data, then run two instances of the process simultaneously,each on half of the data. There is no need to ensure the data is equalized for such a test; if one process runs out it will just run one instance for anything left. Timing is done via wall-clock time. I mean this literally; pick a large enough data set that it will take at least a full minute to run, but ideally 5 minutes or longer).
If running two copies at the same time improves throughput significantly, multi-threading is probably a good idea. Obviously this strategy is only practical in certain instances and in some cases multi-threading can involve leveraging shared output in ways this trick can't emulate. But, it's an absurdly easy test to run, and rarely requires much, if any, code to be written.
What are some concrete examples of applications that need to be multi-threaded, or don't need to be, but are much better that way?
Answers would be best if in the form of one application per post that way the most applicable will float to the top.
There is no hard and fast answer, but most of the time you will not see any advantage for systems where the workflow/calculation is sequential. If however the problem can be broken down into tasks that can be run in parallel (or the problem itself is massively parallel [as some mathematics or analytical problems are]), you can see large improvements.
If your target hardware is single processor/core, you're unlikely to see any improvement with multi-threaded solutions (as there is only one thread at a time run anyway!)
Writing multi-threaded code is often harder as you may have to invest time in creating thread management logic.
Some examples
Image processing can often be done in parallel (e.g. split the image into 4 and do the work in 1/4 of the time) but it depends upon the algorithm being run to see if that makes sense.
Rendering of animation (from 3DMax,etc.) is massively parallel as each frame can be rendered independently to others -- meaning that 10's or 100's of computers can be chained together to help out.
GUI programming often helps to have at least two threads when doing something slow, e.g. processing large number of files - this allows the interface to remain responsive whilst the worker does the hard work (in C# the BackgroundWorker is an example of this)
GUI's are an interesting area as the "responsiveness" of the interface can be maintained without multi-threading if the worker algorithm keeps the main GUI "alive" by giving it time, in Windows API terms (before .NET, etc) this could be achieved by a primitive loop and no need for threading:
MSG msg;
while(GetMessage(&msg, hwnd, 0, 0))
{
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
// do some stuff here and then release, the loop will come back
// almost immediately (unless the user has quit)
}
Servers are typically multi-threaded (web servers, radius servers, email servers, any server): you usually want to be able to handle multiple requests simultaneously. If you do not want to wait for a request to end before you start to handle a new request, then you mainly have two options:
Run a process with multiple threads
Run multiple processes
Launching a process is usually more resource-intensive than lauching a thread (or picking one in a thread-pool), so servers are usually multi-threaded. Moreover, threads can communicate directly since they share the same memory space.
The problem with multiple threads is that they are usually harder to code right than multiple processes.
There are really three classes of reasons that multithreading would be applied:
Execution Concurrency to improve compute performance: If you have a problem that can be broken down into pieces and you also have more than one execution unit (processor core) available then dispatching the pieces into separate threads is the path to being able to simultaneously use two or more cores at once.
Concurrency of CPU and IO Operations: This is similar in thinking to the first one but in this case the objective is to keep the CPU busy AND also IO operations (ie: disk I/O) moving in parallel rather than alternating between them.
Program Design and Responsiveness: Many types of programs can take advantage of threading as a program design benefit to make the program more responsive to the user. For example the program can be interacting via the GUI and also doing something in the background.
Concrete Examples:
Microsoft Word: Edit document while the background grammar and spell checker works to add all the green and red squiggle underlines.
Microsoft Excel: Automatic background recalculations after cell edits
Web Browser: Dispatch multiple threads to load each of the several HTML references in parallel during a single page load. Speeds page loads and maximizes TCP/IP data throughput.
These days, the answer should be Any application that can be.
The speed of execution for a single thread pretty much peaked years ago - processors have been getting faster by adding cores, not by increasing clock speeds. There have been some architectural improvements that make better use of the available clock cycles, but really, the future is taking advantage of threading.
There is a ton of research going on into finding ways of parallelizing activities that we traditionally wouldn't think of parallelizing. Even something as simple as finding a substring within a string can be parallelized.
Basically there are two reasons to multi-thread:
To be able to do processing tasks in parallel. This only applies if you have multiple cores/processors, otherwise on a single core/processor computer you will slow the task down compared to the version without threads.
I/O whether that be networked I/O or file I/O. Normally if you call a blocking I/O call, the process has to wait for the call to complete. Since the processor/memory are several orders of magnitude quicker than a disk drive (and a network is even slower) it means the processor will be waiting a long time. The computer will be working on other things but your application will not be making any progress. However if you have multiple threads, the computer will schedule your application and the other threads can execute. One common use is a GUI application. Then while the application is doing I/O the GUI thread can keep refreshing the screen without looking like the app is frozen or not responding. Even on a single processor putting I/O in a different thread will tend to speed up the application.
The single threaded alternative to 2 is to use asynchronous calls where they return immediately and you keep controlling your program. Then you have to see when the I/O completes and manage using it. It is often simpler just to use a thread to do the I/O using the synchronous calls as they tend to be easier.
The reason to use threads instead of separate processes is because threads should be able to share data easier than multiple processes. And sometimes switching between threads is less expensive than switching between processes.
As another note, for #1 Python threads won't work because in Python only one python instruction can be executed at a time (known as the GIL or Global Interpreter Lock). I use that as an example but you need to check around your language. In python if you want to do parallel calculations, you need to do separate processes.
Many GUI frameworks are multi-threaded. This allows you to have a more responsive interface. For example, you can click on a "Cancel" button at any time while a long calculation is running.
Note that there are other solutions for this (for example the program can pause the calculation every half-a-second to check whether you clicked on the Cancel button or not), but they do not offer the same level of responsiveness (the GUI might seem to freeze for a few seconds while a file is being read or a calculation being done).
All the answers so far are focusing on the fact that multi-threading or multi-processing are necessary to make the best use of modern hardware.
There is however also the fact that multithreading can make life much easier for the programmer. At work I program software to control manufacturing and testing equipment, where a single machine often consists of several positions that work in parallel. Using multiple threads for that kind of software is a natural fit, as the parallel threads model the physical reality quite well. The threads do mostly not need to exchange any data, so the need to synchronize threads is rare, and many of the reasons for multithreading being difficult do therefore not apply.
Edit:
This is not really about a performance improvement, as the (maybe 5, maybe 10) threads are all mostly sleeping. It is however a huge improvement for the program structure when the various parallel processes can be coded as sequences of actions that do not know of each other. I have very bad memories from the times of 16 bit Windows, when I would create a state machine for each machine position, make sure that nothing would take longer than a few milliseconds, and constantly pass the control to the next state machine. When there were hardware events that needed to be serviced on time, and also computations that took a while (like FFT), then things would get ugly real fast.
Not directly answering your question, I believe in the very near future, almost every application will need to be multithreaded. The CPU performance is not growing that fast these days, which is compensated for by the increasing number of cores. Thus, if we will want our applications to stay on the top performance-wise, we'll need to find ways to utilize all your computer's CPUs and keep them busy, which is quite a hard job.
This can be done via telling your programs what to do instead of telling them exactly how. Now, this is a topic I personally find very interesting recently. Some functional languages, like F#, are able to parallelize many tasks quite easily. Well, not THAT easily, but still without the necessary infrastructure needed in more procedural-style environments.
Please take this as additional information to think about, not an attempt to answer your question.
The kind of applications that need to be threaded are the ones where you want to do more than one thing at once. Other than that no application needs to be multi-threaded.
Applications with a large workload which can be easily made parallel. The difficulty of taking your application and doing that should not be underestimated. It is easy when your data you're manipulating is not dependent upon other data but v. hard to schedule the cross thread work when there is a dependency.
Some examples I've done which are good multithreaded candidates..
running scenarios (eg stock derivative pricing, statistics)
bulk updating data files (eg adding a value / entry to 10,000 records)
other mathematical processes
E.g., you want your programs to be multithreaded when you want to utilize multiple cores and/or CPUs, even when the programs don't necessarily do many things at the same time.
EDIT: using multiple processes is the same thing. Which technique to use depends on the platform and how you are going to do communications within your program, etc.
Although frivolous, games, in general are becomming more and more threaded every year. At work our game uses around 10 threads doing physics, AI, animation, redering, network and IO.
Just want to add that caution must be taken with treads if your sharing any resources as this can lead to some very strange behavior, and your code not working correctly or even the threads locking each other out.
mutex will help you there as you can use mutex locks for protected code regions, a example of protected code regions would be reading or writing to shared memory between threads.
just my 2 cents worth.
The main purpose of multithreading is to separate time domains. So the uses are everywhere where you want several things to happen in their own distinctly separate time domains.
HERE IS A PERFECT USE CASE
If you like affiliate marketing multi-threading is essential. Kick the entire process off via a multi-threaded application.
Download merchant files via FTP, unzipping the files, enumerating through each file performing cleanup like EOL terminators from Unix to PC CRLF then slam each into SQL Server via Bulk Inserts then when all threads are complete create the full text search indexes for a environmental instance to be live tomorrow and your done. All automated to kick off at say 11:00 pm.
BOOM! Fast as lightening. Heck you have so much time left you can even download merchant images locally for the products you download, save the images as webp and set the product urls to use local images.
Yep I did it. Wrote it in C#. Works like a charm. Purchase a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 64-core with 256gb memory and fast drives like nvme, get lunch come back and see it all done or just stay around and watch all cores peg to 95%+, listen to the pc's fans kick, warm up the room and the look outside as the neighbors lights flicker from the power drain as you get shit done.
Future would be to push processing to GPU's as well.
Ok well I am pushing it a little bit with the neighbors lights flickering but all else was absolutely true. :)