i have a parse method in my program, which first reads a file from disk then, parses the lines and creats an object for every line. For every file a collection with the objects from the lines is saved afterwards. The files are about 300MB.
This takes about 2.5-3 minutes to complete.
My question: Can i expect a significant speed up if i split the tasks up to one thread just reading files from disk, another parsing the lines and a third saving the collections? Or would this maybe slow down the process?
How long is it common for a modern notebook harddisk to read 300MB? I think, the bottleneck is the cpu in my task, because if i execute the method one core of cpu is always at 100% while the disk is idle more then the half time.
greetings, rain
EDIT:
private CANMessage parseLine(String line)
{
try
{
CANMessage canMsg = new CANMessage();
int offset = 0;
int offset_add = 0;
char[] delimiterChars = { ' ', '\t' };
string[] elements = line.Split(delimiterChars);
if (!isMessageLine(ref elements))
{
return canMsg = null;
}
offset = getPositionOfFirstWord(ref elements);
canMsg.TimeStamp = Double.Parse(elements[offset]);
offset += 3;
offset_add = getOffsetForShortId(ref elements, ref offset);
canMsg.ID = UInt16.Parse(elements[offset], System.Globalization.NumberStyles.HexNumber);
offset += 17; // for signs between identifier and data length number
canMsg.DataLength = Convert.ToInt16(elements[offset + offset_add]);
offset += 1;
parseDataBytes(ref elements, ref offset, ref offset_add, ref canMsg);
return canMsg;
}
catch (Exception exp)
{
MessageBox.Show(line);
MessageBox.Show(exp.Message + "\n\n" + exp.StackTrace);
return null;
}
}
}
So this is the parse method. It works this way, but maybe you are right and it is inefficient. I have .NET Framwork 4.0 and i am on Windows 7. I have a Core i7 where every core has HypterThreading, so i am only using about 1/8 of the cpu.
EDIT2: I am using Visual Studio 2010 Professional. It looks like the tools for a performance profiling are not available in this version (according to msdn MSDN Beginners Guide to Performance Profiling).
EDIT3: I changed the code now to use threads. It looks now like this:
foreach (string str in checkedListBoxImport.CheckedItems)
{
toImport.Add(str);
}
for(int i = 0; i < toImport.Count; i++)
{
String newString = new String(toImport.ElementAt(i).ToArray());
Thread t = new Thread(() => importOperation(newString));
t.Start();
}
While the parsing you saw above is called in the importOperation(...).
With this code it was possible to reduce the time from about 2.5 minutes to "only" 40 seconds. I got some concurrency problems i have to track but at least this is much faster then before.
Thank you for your advice.
It's unlikely that you are going to get consistent metrics for laptop hard disk performance as we have no idea how old your laptop is nor do we know if it is sold state or spinning.
Considering you have already done some basic profiling, I'd wager the CPU really is your bottleneck as it is impossible for a single threaded application to use more than 100% of a single cpu. This is of course ignoring your operating system splitting the process over multiple cores and other oddities. If you were getting 5% CPU usage instead, it'd be most likely were bottle necking at IO.
That said your best bet would be to create a new thread task for each file you are processing and send that to a pooled thread manager. Your thread manager should limit the number of threads you are running to either the number of cores you have available or if memory is an issue (you did say you were generating 300MB files after all) the maximum amount of ram you can use for the process.
Finally, to answer the reason why you don't want to use a separate thread for each operation, consider what you already know about your performance bottlenecks. You are bottle necked on cpu processing and not IO. This means that if you split your application into separate threads your read and write threads would be starved most of the time waiting for your processing thread to finish. Additionally, even if you made them process asynchronously, you have the very real risk of running out of memory as your read thread continues to consume data that your processing thread can't keep up with.
Thus, be careful not to start each thread immediately and let them instead be managed by some form of blocking queue. Otherwise you run the risk of slowing your system to a crawl as you spend more time in context switches than processing. This is of course assuming you don't crash first.
It's unclear how many of these 300MB files you've got. A single 300MB file takes about 5 or 6 seconds to read on my netbook, with a quick test. It does indeed sound like you're CPU-bound.
It's possible that threading will help, although it's likely to complicate things significantly of course. You should also profile your current code - it may well be that you're just parsing inefficiently. (For example, if you're using C# or Java and you're concatenating strings in a loop, that's frequently a performance "gotcha" which can be easily remedied.)
If you do opt for a multi-threaded approach, then to avoid thrashing the disk, you may want to have one thread read each file into memory (one at a time) and then pass that data to a pool of parsing threads. Of course, that assumes you've also got enough memory to do so.
If you could specify the platform and provide your parsing code, we may be able to help you optimize it. At the moment all we can really say is that yes, it sounds like you're CPU bound.
That long for only 300 MB is bad.
There's different things that could be impacting performance as well depending upon the situation, but typically it's reading the hard disk is still likely the biggest bottleneck unless you have something intense going on during the parsing, and which seems the case here because it only takes several seconds to read 300MB from a harddisk (unless it's way bad fragged maybe).
If you have some inefficient algorithm in the parsing, then picking or coming up with a better algorithm would probably be more beneficial. If you absolutely need that algorithm and there's no algorithmic improvement available, it sounds like you might be stuck.
Also, don't try to multithread to read and write at the same time with the multithreading, you'll likely slow things way down to increased seeking.
Given that you think this is a CPU bound task, you should see some overall increase in throughput with separate IO threads (since otherwise your only processing thread would block waiting for IO during disk read/write operations).
Interestingly I had a similar issue recently and did see a significant net improvement by running separate IO threads (and enough calculation threads to load all CPU cores).
You don't state your platform, but I used the Task Parallel Library and a BlockingCollection for my .NET solution and the implementation was almost trivial. MSDN provides a good example.
UPDATE:
As Jon notes, the time spent on IO is probably small compared to the time spent calculating, so while you can expect an improvement, the best use of time may be profiling and improving the calculation itself. Using multiple threads for the calculation will speed up significantly.
Hmm.. 300MB of lines that have to be split up into a lot of CAN message objects - nasty! I suspect the trick might be to thread off the message assembly while avoiding excessive disk-thrashing between the read and write operations.
If I was doing this as a 'fresh' requirement, (and of course, with my 20/20 hindsight, knowing that CPU was going to be the problem), I would probably use just one thread for reading, one for writing the disk and, initially at least, one thread for the message object assembly. Using more than one thread for message assembly means the complication of resequencing the objects after processing to prevent the output file being written out-of-order.
I would define a nice disk-friendly sized chunk-class of lines and message-object array instances, say 1024 of them, and create a pool of chunks at startup, 16 say, and shove them onto a storage queue. This controls and caps memory use, greatly reduces new/dispose/malloc/free, (looks like you have a lot of this at the moment!), improves the efficiency of the disk r/w operations as only large r/w are performed, (except for the last chunk which will be, in general, only partly filled), provides inherent flow-control, (the read thread cannot 'run away' because the pool will run out of chunks and the read thread will block on the pool until the write thread returns some chunks), and inhibits excess context-switching because only large chunks are processed.
The read thread opens the file, gets a chunk from the queue, reads the disk, parses into lines and shoves the lines into the chunk. It then queues the whole chunk to the processing thread and loops around to get another chunk from the pool. Possibly, the read thread could, on start or when idle, be waiting on its own input queue for a message class instance that contains the read/write filespecs. The write filespec could be propagated through a field of the chunks, so supplying the the write thread wilth everything it needs via. the chunks. This makes a nice subsystem to which filespecs can be queued and it will process them all without any further intervention.
The processing thread gets chunks from its input queue and splits the the lines up into the message objects in the chunk and then queues the completed, whole chunks to the write thread.
The write thread writes the message objects to the output file and then requeues the chunk to the storage pool queue for re-use by the read thread.
All the queues should be blocking producer-consumer queues.
One issue with threaded subsystems is completion notification. When the write thread has written the last chunk of a file, it probably needs to do something. I would probably fire an event with the last chunk as a parameter so that the event handler knows which file has been completely written. I would probably somethihng similar with error notifications.
If this is not fast enough, you could try:
1) Ensure that the read and write threads cannot be preemepted in favour of the other during chunk-disking by using a mutex. If your chunks are big enough, this probably won't make much difference.
2) Use more than one processing thread. If you do this, chunks may arrive at the write-thread 'out-of-order'. You would maybe need a local list and perhaps some sort of sequence-number in the chunks to ensure that the disk writes are correctly ordered.
Good luck, whatever design you come up with..
Rgds,
Martin
Related
I want to see the intrinsic difference between a thread and a long-running go block in Clojure. In particular, I want to figure out which one I should use in my context.
I understand if one creates a go-block, then it is managed to run in a so-called thread-pool, the default size is 8. But thread will create a new thread.
In my case, there is an input stream that takes values from somewhere and the value is taken as an input. Some calculations are performed and the result is inserted into a result channel. In short, we have input and out put channel, and the calculation is done in the loop. So as to achieve concurrency, I have two choices, either use a go-block or use thread.
I wonder what is the intrinsic difference between these two. (We may assume there is no I/O during the calculations.) The sample code looks like the following:
(go-loop []
(when-let [input (<! input-stream)]
... ; calculations here
(>! result-chan result))
(recur))
(thread
(loop []
(when-let [input (<!! input-stream)]
... ; calculations here
(put! result-chan result))
(recur)))
I realize the number of threads that can be run simultaneously is exactly the number of CPU cores. Then in this case, is go-block and thread showing no differences if I am creating more than 8 thread or go-blocks?
I might want to simulate the differences in performance in my own laptop, but the production environment is quite different from the simulated one. I could draw no conclusions.
By the way, the calculation is not so heavy. If the inputs are not so large, 8,000 loops can be run in 1 second.
Another consideration is whether go-block vs thread will have an impact on GC performance.
There's a few things to note here.
Firstly, the thread pool that threads are created on via clojure.core.async/thread is what is known as a cached thread pool, meaning although it will re-use recently used threads inside that pool, it's essentially unbounded. Which of course means it could potentially hog a lot of system resources if left unchecked.
But given that what you're doing inside each asynchronous process is very lightweight, threads to me seem a little overkill. Of course, it's also important to take into account the quantity of items you expect to hit the input stream, if this number is large you could potentially overwhelm core.async's thread pool for go macros, potentially to the point where we're waiting for a thread to become available.
You also didn't mention preciously where you're getting the input values from, are the inputs some fixed data-set that remains constant at the start of the program, or are inputs continuously feed into the input stream from some source over time?
If it's the former then I would suggest you lean more towards transducers and I would argue that a CSP model isn't a good fit for your problem since you aren't modelling communication between separate components in your program, rather you're just processing data in parallel.
If it's the latter then I presume you have some other process that's listening to the result channel and doing something important with those results, in which case I would say your usage of go-blocks is perfectly acceptable.
Consider that the sequental version of the program already exists and implements a sequence of "read-compute-write" operations on a single input file and other single output file. "Read" and "write" operations are performed by the 3rd-party library functions which are hard (but possible) to modify, while the "compute" function is performed by the program itself. Read-write library functions seems to be not thread-safe, since they operate with internal flags and internal memory buffers.
It was discovered that the program is CPU-bounded, and it is planned to improve the program by taking advantage of multiple CPUs (up to 80) by designing the multi-processor version of the program and using OpenMP for that purpose. The idea is to instantiate multiple "compute" functions with same single input and single output.
It is obvious that something nedds to be done in insuring the consistent access to reads, data transfers, computations and data storages. Possible solutions are: (hard) rewrite the IO library functions in thread-safe manner, (moderate) write a thread-safe wrapper for IO functions that would also serve as a data cacher.
Is there any general patterns that cover the subject of converting, wrapping or rewriting the single-threaded code to comply with OpenMP thread-safety assumptions?
EDIT1: The program is fresh enough for changes to make it multi-threaded (or, generally a parallel one, implemented either by multi-threading, multi-processing or other ways).
As a quick response, if you are processing a single file and writing to another, with openMP its easy to convert the sequential version of the program to a multi-thread version without taking too much care about the IO part, provided that the compute algorithm itself can be parallelized.
This is true because usually the main thread, takes care of the IO. If this cannot be achieved because the chunks of data are too big to read at once, and the compute algorithm cannot process smaller chunks, you can use the openMP API to synchronize the IO in each thread. This does not mean that the whole application will stop or wait until the other threads finish computing so new data can be read or written, it means that only the read and write parts need to be done atomically.
For example, if the flow of your sequencial application is as follows:
1) Read
2) compute
3) Write
Given that it truly can be parallelized, and each chunk of data needs to be read from within each thread, each thread could follow the next design:
1) Synchronized read of chunk from input (only one thread at the time could execute this section)
2) Compute chunk of data (done in parallel)
3) Synchronized write of computed chunk to output (only one thread at the time could execute this section)
if you need to write the chunks in the same order you have read them, you need to buffer first, or adopt a different strategy like fseek to the correct position, but that really depends if the output file size is known from the start, ...
Take special attention to the openMP scheduling strategy, because the default may not be the best to your compute algorithm. And if you need to share results between threads, like the offset of the input file you have read, you may use reduction operations provided by the openMP API, which is way more efficient than making a single part of your code run atomically between all threads, just to update a global variable, openMP knows when its safe to write.
EDIT:
In regards of the "read, process, write" operation, as long as you keep each read and write atomic between every worker, I can't think any reason you'll find any trouble. Even when the data read is being stored in a internal buffer, having every worker accessing it atomically, that data is acquired in the exact same order. You only need to keep special attention when saving that chunk to the output file, because you don't know the order each worker will finish processing its attributed chunk, so, you could have a chunk ready to be saved that was read after others that are still being processed. You just need each worker to keep track of the position of each chunk and you can keep a list of pointers to chunks that need to be saved, until you have a sequence of finished chunks since the last one saved to the output file. Some additional care may need to be taken here.
If you are worried about the internal buffer itself (and keeping in mind I don't know the library you are talking about, so I can be wrong) if you make a request to some chunk of data, that internal buffer should only be modified after you requested that data and before the data is returned to you; and as you made that request atomically (meaning that every other worker will need to keep in line for its turn) when the next worker asks for his piece of data, that internal buffer should be in the same state as when the last worker received its chunk. Even in the case that the library particularly says it returns a pointer to a position of the internal buffer and not a copy of the chunk itself, you can make a copy to the worker's memory before releasing the lock on the whole atomic read operation.
If the pattern I suggested is followed correctly, I really don't think you would find any problem you wouldn't find in the same sequential version of the algorithm.
with a little of synchronisation you can go even further. Consider something like this:
#pragma omp parallel sections num_threads
{
#pragma omp section
{
input();
notify_read_complete();
}
#pragma omp section
{
wait_read_complete();
#pragma omp parallel num_threads(N)
{
do_compute_with_threads();
}
notify_compute_complete();
}
#pragma omp section
{
wait_compute_complete();
output();
}
}
So, the basic idea would be that input() and output() read/write chunks of data. The compute part then would work on a chunk of data while the other threads are reading/writing. It will take a bit of manual synchronization work in notify*() and wait*(), but that's not magic.
Cheers,
-michael
I've found myself recently using the SemaphoreSlim class to limit the work in progress of a parallelisable operation on a (large) streamed resource:
// The below code is an example of the structure of the code, there are some
// omissions around handling of tasks that do not run to completion that should be in production code
SemaphoreSlim semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(Environment.ProcessorCount * someMagicNumber);
foreach (var result in StreamResults())
{
semaphore.Wait();
var task = DoWorkAsync(result).ContinueWith(t => semaphore.Release());
...
}
This is to avoid bringing too many results into memory and the program being unable to cope (generally evidenced via an OutOfMemoryException). Though the code works and is reasonably performant, it still feels ungainly. Notably the someMagicNumber multiplier, which although tuned via profiling, may not be as optimal as it could be and isn't resilient to changes to the implementation of DoWorkAsync.
In the same way that thread pooling can overcome the obstacle of scheduling many things for execution, I would like something that can overcome the obstacle of scheduling many things to be loaded into memory based on the resources that are available.
Since it is deterministically impossible to decide whether an OutOfMemoryException will occur, I appreciate that what I'm looking for may only be achievable via statistical means or even not at all, but I hope that I'm missing something.
Here I'd say that you're probably overthinking this problem. The consequences for overshooting are rather high (the program crashes). The consequences for being too low are that the program might be slowed down. As long as you still have some buffer beyond a minimum value, further increases to the buffer will generally have little to no effect, unless the processing time of that task in the pipe is extraordinary volatile.
If your buffer is constantly filling up it generally means that the task before it in the pipe executes quite a bit quicker than the task that follows it, so even without a fairly small buffer it is likely to always ensure the task following it has some work. The buffer size needed to get 90% of the benefits of a buffer is usually going to be quite small (a few dozen items maybe) whereas the side needed to get an OOM error are like 6+ orders of magnate higher. As long as you're somewhere in-between those two numbers (and that's a pretty big range to land in) you'll be just fine.
Just run your static tests, pick a static number, maybe add a few percent extra for "just in case" and you should be good. At most, I'd move some of the magic numbers to a config file so that they can be altered without a recompile in the event that the input data or the machine specs change radically.
My application scenario is like this: I want to evaluate the performance gain one can achieve on a quad-core machine for processing the same amount of data. I have following two configurations:
i) 1-Process: A program without any threading and processes data from 1M .. 1G, while system was assumed to run only single core of its 4-cores.
ii) 4-threads-Process: A program with 4-threads (all threads performing same operation) but processing 25% of the input data.
In my program for creating 4-threads, I used pthread's default options (i.e., without any specific pthread_attr_t). I believe the performance gain of 4-thread configuration comparing to 1-Process configuration should be closer to 400% (or somewhere between 350% and 400%).
I profiled the time spent in creation of threads just like this below:
timer_start(&threadCreationTimer);
pthread_create( &thread0, NULL, fun0, NULL );
pthread_create( &thread1, NULL, fun1, NULL );
pthread_create( &thread2, NULL, fun2, NULL );
pthread_create( &thread3, NULL, fun3, NULL );
threadCreationTime = timer_stop(&threadCreationTimer);
pthread_join(&thread0, NULL);
pthread_join(&thread1, NULL);
pthread_join(&thread2, NULL);
pthread_join(&thread3, NULL);
Since increase in the size of the input data may also increase in the memory requirement of each thread, then so loading all data in advance is definitely not a workable option. Therefore, in order to ensure not to increase the memory requirement of each thread, each thread reads data in small chunks, process it and reads next chunk process it and so on. Hence, structure of the code of my functions run by threads is like this:
timer_start(&threadTimer[i]);
while(!dataFinished[i])
{
threadTime[i] += timer_stop(&threadTimer[i]);
data_source();
timer_start(&threadTimer[i]);
process();
}
threadTime[i] += timer_stop(&threadTimer[i]);
Variable dataFinished[i] is marked true by process when the it received and process all needed data. Process() knows when to do that :-)
In the main function, I am calculating the time taken by 4-threaded configuration as below:
execTime4Thread = max(threadTime[0], threadTime[1], threadTime[2], threadTime[3]) + threadCreationTime.
And performance gain is calculated by simply
gain = execTime1process / execTime4Thread * 100
Issue:
On small data size around 1M to 4M, the performance gain is generally good (between 350% to 400%). However, the trend of performance gain is exponentially decreasing with increase in the input size. It keeps decreasing until some data size of upto 50M or so, and then become stable around 200%. Once it reached that point, it remains almost stable for even 1GB of data.
My question is can anybody suggest the main reasoning of this behaviour (i.e., performance drop at the start and but remaining stable later)?
And suggestions how to fix that?
For your information, I also investigated the behaviour of threadCreationTime and threadTime for each thread to see what's happening. For 1M of data the values of these variables are small and but with increase in the data size both these two variables increase exponentially (but threadCreationTime should remain almost same regardless of data size and threadTime should increase at a rate corresponding to data being processing). After keep on increasing until 50M or so threadCreationTime becomes stable and threadTime (just like performance drop becomes stable) and threadCreationTime keep increasing at a constant rate corresponding to increase in data to be processed (which is considered understandable).
Do you think increasing the stack size of each thread, process priority stuff or custom values of other parameters type of scheduler (using pthread_attr_init) can help?
PS: The results are obtained while running the programs under Linux's fail safe mode with root (i.e., minimal OS is running without GUI and networking stuff).
Since increase in the size of the input data may also increase in the
memory requirement of each thread, then so loading all data in advance
is definitely not a workable option. Therefore, in order to ensure not
to increase the memory requirement of each thread, each thread reads
data in small chunks, process it and reads next chunk process it and
so on.
Just this, alone, can cause a drastic speed decrease.
If there is sufficient memory, reading one large chunk of input data will always be faster than reading data in small chunks, especially from each thread. Any I/O benefits from chunking (caching effects) disappears when you break it down into pieces. Even allocating one big chunk of memory is much cheaper than allocating small chunks many, many times.
As a sanity check, you can run htop to ensure that at least all your cores are being topped out during the run. If not, your bottleneck could be outside of your multi-threading code.
Within the threading,
threading context switches due to many threads can cause sub-optimal speedup
as mentioned by others, a cold cache due to not reading memory contiguously can cause slowdowns
But re-reading your OP, I suspect the slowdown has something to do with your data input/memory allocation. Where exactly are you reading your data from? Some kind of socket? Are you sure you need to allocate memory more than once in your thread?
Some algorithm in your worker threads is likely to be suboptimal/expensive.
Are your thread starting on creation ? If it is the case, then the following will happen :
while your parent thread is creating thread, the thread already created will start to run. When you hit timerStop (ThreadCreation timer), the four have already run
for a certain time. So threadCreationTime overlaps threadTime[i]
As it is now, you don't know what you are measuring. This won't solve your problem, because obviously you have a problem since threadTime does not augment linearly, but at least you won't add overlapping times.
To have more info you can use the perf tool if it is available on your distro.
for example :
perf stat -e cache-misses <your_prog>
and see what happens with a two thread version, a three thread version etc...
I have a function where I will compress a bunch of files into a single compressed file..it is taking a long time(to compress),so I tried implementing threading in my application..Say if I have 20 files for compression,I separated that as 5*4=20,inorder to do that I have separate variables(which are used for compression) for all 4 threads in order to avoid locks and I will wait until the 4 thread finishes..Now..the threads are working but i see no improvement in their performance..normally it will take 1 min for 20 files(for example) after implementing threading ...there is only 5 or 3 sec difference., sometimes the same.
here i will show the code for 1 thread(so it is for other3 threads)
//main thread
myClassObject->thread1 = AfxBeginThread((AFX_THREADPROC)MyThreadFunction1,myClassObject);
....
HANDLE threadHandles[4];
threadHandles[0] = myClassObject->thread1->m_hThread;
....
WaitForSingleObject(myClassObject->thread1->m_hThread,INFINITE);
UINT MyThreadFunction(LPARAM lparam)
{
CMerger* myClassObject = (CMerger*)lparam;
CString outputPath = myClassObject->compressedFilePath.GetAt(0);//contains the o/p path
wchar_t* compressInputData[] = {myClassObject->thread1outPath,
COMPRESS,(wchar_t*)(LPCTSTR)(outputPath)};
HINSTANCE loadmyDll;
loadmydll = LoadLibrary(myClassObject->thread1outPath);
fp_Decompress callCompressAction = NULL;
int getCompressResult=0;
myClassObject->MyCompressFunction(compressInputData,loadClient7zdll,callCompressAction,myClassObject->thread1outPath,
getCompressResult,minIndex,myClassObject->firstThread,myClassObject);
return 0;
}
Firstly, you only wait on one of the threads. I think you want WaitForMultipleObjects.
As for the lack of speed up have you considered that your actual bottleneck is NOT the compression but the file loading? File loading is slow and 4 threads contending for time slices of the hard disk "could" even result in lower performance.
This is why premature optimisation is evil. You need to profile, profile and profile again to work out where your REAL bottlenecks are.
Edit: I can't really comment on your WaitForMultipleObjects unless I see the code. I have never had any problems with it myself ...
As for a bottleneck. Its a metaphor if you try to pour a large amount of liquid out of a cylinder by tipping it upside-down then the water leaves at a constant rate. If you try to do this with a bottle you will notice that it can't do it as fast. This is because there is only so much liquid that can flow through the thin part of the bottle (not to mention the air entering into it). Thus the limitation of your water emptying from the container is limited by the neck of the bottle (the thin part).
In programming when you talk about a bottle neck you are talking about the slowest part of the code. In this case if your threads spend most of their time waiting for the disk load to complete then you are going to get very little speed up by multi-threading as you can only load so much at once. In fact when you try to load 4 times as much at once then you will start to find that you have to wait around just as long for the load to complete. In your single threading case you wait around and once its loaded you compress. In the 4 threaded case you are waiting around 4 times as long for all the loads to complete and then you compress all 4 files simultaneously. This is why you get a small speed up. Unfortunately due to the fact you are spending most of your time waiting for the loads to complete you won't see anything approaching a 4x speed up. Hence the limiting factor of your method is not the compression but the loading the file from disk and hence it gets called a bottleneck.
Edit2: In a case such as you are suggesting you will find the best speed up would be had by eliminating the amount of time you are waiting for data to load from disk.
1) If you load a file as multiple of disk pages (usually 2048 byte but you can query windows to get the size) you get best possible load performance. If you load sizes that aren't a multiple of this you will get quite a serious performance hit.
2) Look at asynchronous loading. For example you could be loading all of file 2 (or more) in to memory while you are processing file 1. This means that you aren't waiting around for the load to complete. Its unlikely, though, you'll get a vast speed up here as you'll probably still end up waiting for the load. The other thing to try is to load "chunks" of the audio file asynchronously. ie:
Load chunk 1.
Start chunk 2 loading.
Process chunk 1.
Wait for chunk 2 to load.
Start chunk 3 loading.
Process chunk 2.
(And so on)
3) You could just buy a faster disk drive.