My C program which uses sorting runs 10x slower the first time than other times. It uses file of integers to sort and even if I change the numbers, program still runs faster. When I restart the PC, the very first time program runs 10x slower. I use time to count the time.
The operating system holds the data in RAM even if it's not needed anymore (this is called "caching"), so when the program runs again, it gets all data from there and there's no disk I/O. Even when you change the data, that change happens in RAM first, and it stays there even after its written to the file.
It doesn't stay in RAM forever though, mind you. If the memory is needed for something else, the cache is deleted. At that point, a disk access is needed (and it's cached in RAM again at that point.)
This is why first access after a reboot is always slow; the data hasn't been cached yet since it was never read from the file.
You have to make hypothesis and confront them to reality. The first you can reasonably make is that it does smell a lot like a caching issue !
Ask yourself those questions :
Does my data fits in free RAM (= is my file cached by the OS FS cache
?)
Does my data fits in CPU data cache ?
Does my data fits in HDD internal cache ?
The most easy hypothesis to discard is the FS cache. Under linux, just issue sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches between each call to your program. The first will make sure the cached data will make it to the physical medium (hard drive), the second will drop the content of the filesystem cache from memory.
The 'physical medium' might be the HDD cache itself, so beware... Under linux you can disable this "write-back" cache with the command hdparm -W 0 <device>, for instance if you are working with drive sda, hdparm -W 0 /dev/sda will do the job. You might want to re-enable it after you are finished with your tests :)
Another hypothesis is the CPU cache, have a look at How can I do a CPU cache flush in x86 Windows? and How to clear CPU L1 and L2 cache
Well, it may or may not be one of those, but it doesn't hurt trying :)
If your program does network access then that could be the reason for the initial delay. Many network protocols need time to setup things. Some examples:
DNS: if your program does any network access, chances are it needs to resolve a hostname to an IP address. The first time it would need at least a network round trip to populate a local cache. Following requests would be shorter.
Networked filesystems (NFS, CIFS and others): opening files can happen through the network.
Even some seemingly innocuous library functions can require network access: the users list for the host can be on a remote directory server.
Appart from this you could use some low level tracing tool to see where the time is spent. On linux a basic tool is strace -r. There is probably some similar tool for other systems. Your compiler must also come with a profiler (i.e. gprof for GCC or maybe Valgrind).
I had a very similar issue but I wasn't loading in a large file - so I was baffled at the long first execution time (caching couldn't have been the issue).
This answer pointed me in the right direction - it was my real-time anti-virus protection. Every time I recompiled the program it would re-scan it as being potentially malicious. I added my project path as an "Exception" to Avira's (in my case) real-time virus protection.
Program execution on the first execution is now lightening quick!
This is nothing new, not just your program many popular commercial softwares face this problem.
To start with check this MATLAB Article about slow fist time execution
In case of other programming language which runs on a Virtual Machine like C# or Java this is quite common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation#Startup_delay_and_optimizations
Caching is a good reason for that to happen in C but still 10x is quite a long duration..It might be also possible that you system was loading other resources after you restart.
You should run the program after say 10 minutes after restart for better results. All the startup application would be loaded by that time. (10 minutes ---- depends on the number of startup applications and the time it takes to start each of them)
This is because of compiler optimatization ,what it does is it caches the result for Temoparal Locality and the activation record is saved,time is also saved because the binding object donot have to be reloaded again during Linking Stage
There are two components to the time measured
If you are reading a file from disk,and loading it in memory - and sorting :
1)Time to read the file & store it in an array
2)Time of sorting
Were these measured separately?
Can you check this out?
Invalidating Linux Buffer Cache
Instead of doing a restart, if repeating the experiment with clearing the cache gives the same result, then you can infer that File buffer caching effects were not factored into.
Related
I run a benchmark several times, to note down the mean reading. But I notice that after the first run, the subsequent runs are faster. I guess it has something to do with the Instruction Cache, so when I run the program next time, the benchmark already has instructions in the cache. Is there a way to start a program with both cold instruction and data caches?
This is a normal behavior. One way to avoid this problem is run few warm up before the main run. These warm up runs will overwrite the cache memory that grown up previously running program. While calculating the mean value, exclude the warm up runs values only take real run. A various bench marking tools out there which takes these approach like. kernbench, lmbench etc. Where a warmup value is available.
And, if the benchmark you're running depends on data that needs to read from disk then, disk caching has some impact too, one way to avoid is to caching those data onto ram, if possible. This technique is used in kernbench, to avoid, disk cache related issue.
I am working on an embedded application without any OS that needs the use of a File System. I've been over this many times with the people in the project and some agree with me that the system must make a proper shut down of the system whenever there is a power failure or else the file system might go crazy.
Some people say that it doesn't matter if you simply power off the system and let nature run its course, but I think that's one of the worst things to do, especially if you know this will bring you a problem and probably shorten your product's life span.
In the last paragraph I just assumed that it is a problem, but my question remains:
Does a power down have any effect on the file system?
Here is a list of various techniques to help an embedded system tolerate a power failure. These may not be practical for your particular application.
Use a Journaling File System - Can tolerate incomplete writes due to power failure, OS crash, etc. Most modern filesystems are journaled, but do your homework to confirm.
Unless your application needs the write performance, disable all write caching. Check your disk drivers for caching options. Under Linux/Unix, consider mounting the filesystem in sync mode.
Unless it must be writable, make it read-only. Try to keep your application executables and operating system files on their own partition(s), with write protections in place (e.g. mount read only in Linux). Your read/write data should be on its own partition. Even if your application data gets corrupted, your system should still be able to boot (albeit with a fail safe default configuration).
3a. For data that is only written once (e.g. Configuration Settings), try to keep it mounted as read-only most of the time. If there is a settings change mount is as R/W temporarily, update the data, and then unmount/remount it as read-only.
3b. Use a technique similar to 3a to handle application/OS updates in the field.
3c. If it is impractical for you to mount the FS as read-only, at least consider opening individual files as read-only (e.g. fp=fopen("configuration.ini", "r")).
If possible, use separate devices for your storage. Keeping things in separate partitions provides some protection, but there are still edge cases where a partition table may become corrupt and render the entire drive unreadable. Using physically separate devices further isolates against one corrupt device bringing down the whole system. In a perfect world, you would have at least 4 separate devices:
4a. Boot Loader
4b. Operating System & Application Code
4c. Configuration Settings
4e. Application Data
Know the characteristics of your storage devices, and control the brand/model/revision of devices used. Some hard disks ignore cache flush commands from the OS. We had cases where some models of CompactFlash cards would corrupt themselves during a power failure, but the "industrial" models did not have this problem. Of course, this information was not published in any datasheet, and had to be gathered by experimental testing. We developed a list of approved CF cards, and kept inventory of those cards. We periodically had to update this list as older cards became obsolete, or the manufacturer would make a revision.
Put your temporary files in a RAM Disk. If you keep those writes off-disk, you eliminate them as a potential source of corruption. You also reduce flash wear and tear.
Develop automated corruption detection and recovery methods. - All of the above techniques will not help you if the application simply hangs because a missing config file. You need to be able to recover as gracefully as possible:
7a. Your system should maintain at least two copies of its configuration settings, a "primary" and a "backup". If the primary fails for some reason, switch to the backup. You should also consider mechanisms for making backups whenever whenever the configuration is changed, or after a configuration has been declared "good" by the user (testing vs production mode).
7b. Did your Application Data partition fail to mount? Automatically run chkdsk/fsck.
7c. Did chkdsk/fsck fail to fix the problem? Automatically re-format the partition and get it back to a known state.
7d. Do you have a Boot Loader or other method to restore the OS and application after a failure?
7e. Make sure your system will beep, flash an LED, or something to indicate to the user what happened.
Power Failures should be part of your system qualification testing. The only way you will be sure you have a robust system is to test it. Yank the power cord from the system and document what happens. Try yanking the power at multiple points in the system operation (during runtime, while booting, mid configuration, etc). Repeat each test multiple times.
If you cannot mitigate all power failure problems, incorporate a battery or Supercapacitor into the system - Keep in mind that you will need a background process in your OS to initiate a graceful shutdown when power gets low. Also, batteries will require periodic testing and replacement with age.
Addition to msemack's response, unfortunately my rating is too low to post a comment to his answer vs. a separate answer.
Does a power down have any effect on the file system?
Yes, if proper measures aren't put in place to prevent corruption. See previous answers for file system options to help mitigate. However if ATA flush/sleep aren't properly implemented on your device you may run into the scenario we did. In our scenario the device was corrupt beyond the file system, and fdisk/format would not recover the device.
Instead an ATA security-erase was required to recover the device once corruption occurs. In order to avoid this, we implemented an ATA sleep command prior to power loss. This required hold-up of 400ms to support the 160ms ATA sleep took, and leave some head room for degradation of the caps over the life of the product.
Notes from our scenario:
fdisk/format failed to repair/recover the drive.
Our power-safe file system's check disk utility returned that the device had bad blocks, but there really weren't any.
flush/sync returned success, quickly, and most likely weren't implemented.
Once corrupt, dd could not read the device beyond the 1st partition boundary and returned i/o errors after.
hdparm used to issue ATA security-erase, as only method of recovery for some corruption scenarios.
For non-journalling filesystem unexpected turn-off can mean corruption of certain data including directory structure. This happens if there's unsaved data in the cache or if the FS is in the process of writing multi-block update and interruption happens when only some blocks are written.
Journalling addresses this problem mostly - if there's interruption in the middle, recovery routine or check-and-repair operation done by the FS (usually implicitly) brings the filesystem to consistent state. However this state is not always the latest - i.e. if there were some data in the memory cache, they can be lost even with journalling. This is because journalling saves you from corruption of the filesystem but doesn't do magic.
Write-through mode (no write caching) reduces possibility of the data loss but doesn't solve the problem completely, as journalling will work as a cache (for a very short time).
So unfortunately backup or data duplication are the main ways to prevent data loss.
It totally depends on the file system you are using and if it is acceptable to loose some data at power off based on your project requirements.
One could imagine using a file system that is secured against unattended power-off and is able to recover from a partial write sequence. So on the applicative side, if you don't have critic data that absolutely needs to be written before shuting down, there is no need for a specific power off detection procedure.
Now if you want a more specific answer for your project you will have to give more information on the file system you are using and your project requirements.
Edit: As you have critical applicative data to save before power-off, i think you have answered the question yourself. The only way to secure unattended power-off is to have a brown-out detection that alerts your embedded device coupled with some hardware circuitry that allows keeping delivering enought power to the device to perform the shutdown procedure.
The FAT file-system is particularly prone to corruption if a write is in progress or a file is open on shutdown - specifically if ther is a buffered operation that is not flushed . On one project I worked on the solution was to run a file system integrity check and repair (essentially chkdsk/scandsk) on start-up. This strategy did not prevent data loss, but it did prevent the file system becoming unusable.
A number of vendors provide journalling add-on components for FAT to counter exactly this problem. These include Segger, Quadros and Micrium for example.
Either way, your system should generally adopt a open-write-close approach to file access, or open-write-flush if you feel the need to keep the file open.
Before overwriting data in a file, I would like to be pretty sure the old data is stored on disk. It's potentially a very big file (multiple GB), so in-place updates are needed. Usually writes will be 2 MB or larger (my plan is to use a block size of 4 KB).
Instead of (or in addition to) calling fsync(), I would like to retain (not overwrite) old data on disk until the file system has written the new data. The main reasons why I don't want to rely on fsync() is: most hard disks lie to you about doing an fsync.
So what I'm looking for is what is the typical maximum delay for a file system, operating system (for example Windows), hard drive until data is written to disk, without using fsync or similar methods. I would like to have real-world numbers if possible. I'm not looking for advice to use fsync.
I know there is no 100% reliable way to do it, but I would like to better understand how operating systems and file systems work in this regard.
What I found so far is: 30 seconds is / was the default for /proc/sys/vm/dirty_expire_centiseconds. Then "dirty pages are flushed (written) to disk ... (when) too much time has elapsed since a page has stayed dirty" (but there I couldn't find the default time). So for Linux, 40 seconds seems to be on the safe side. But is this true for all file systems / disks? What about Windows, Android, and so on? I would like to get an answer that applies to all common operating systems / file system / disk types, including Windows, Android, regular hard disks, SSDs, and so on.
Let me restate this your problem in only slightly-uncharitable terms: You're trying to control the behavior of a physical device which its driver in the operating system cannot control. What you're trying to do seems impossible, if what you want is an actual guarantee, rather than a pretty good guess. If all you want is a pretty good guess, fine, but beware of this and document accordingly.
You might be able to solve this with the right device driver. The SCSI protocol, for example, has a Force Unit Access (FUA) bit in its READ and WRITE commands that instructs the device to bypass any internal cache. Even if the data were originally written buffered, reading unbuffered should be able to verify that it was actually there.
The only way to reliably make sure that data has been synced is to use the OS specific syncing mechanism, and as per PostgreSQL's Reliability Docs.
When the operating system sends a write request to the storage
hardware, there is little it can do to make sure the data has arrived
at a truly non-volatile storage area. Rather, it is the
administrator's responsibility to make certain that all storage
components ensure data integrity.
So no, there are no truly portable solutions, but it is possible (but hard) to write portable wrappers and deploy a reliable solution.
First of all thanks for the information that hard disks lie about flushing data, that was new to me.
Now to your problem: you want to be sure that all data that you write has been written to the disk (lowest level). You are saying that there are two parts which need to be controlled: the time when the OS writes to the hard drive and the time when the hard drive writes to the disk.
Your only solution is to use a fuzzy logic timer to estimate when the data will be written.
In my opinion this is the wrong way. You have control about when the OS is writing to the hard drive, so use the possibility and control it! Then only the lying hard drive is your problem. This problem can't be solved reliably. I think, you should tell the user/admin that he must take care when choosing the right hard drive. Of course it might be a good idea to implement the additional timer you proposed.
I believe, it's up to you to start a row of tests with different hard drives and Brad Fitzgerald's tool to get a good estimation of when hard drives will have written all data. But of course - if the hard drive wants to lie, you can never be sure that the data really has been written to the disk.
There are a lot of caches involved in giving users a responsive system.
There is cpu cache, kernel/filesystem memory cache, disk drive memory cache, etc. What you are asking is how long does it take to flush all the caches?
Or, another way to look at it is, what happens if the disk drive goes bad? All the flushing is not going to guarantee a successful read or write operation.
Disk drives do go bad eventually. The solution you are looking for is how can you have a redundant cpu/disk drive system such that the system survives a component failure and still keeps working.
You could improve the likelihood that system will keep working with aid of hardware such as RAID arrays and other high availability configurations.
As far software solution goes, I think the answer is, trust the OS to do the optimal thing. Most of them flush buffers out routinely.
This is an old question but still relevant in 2019. For Windows, the answer appears to be "at least after every one second" based on this:
To ensure that the right amount of flushing occurs, the cache manager spawns a process every second called a lazy writer. The lazy writer process queues one-eighth of the pages that have not been flushed recently to be written to disk. It constantly reevaluates the amount of data being flushed for optimal system performance, and if more data needs to be written it queues more data.
To be clear, the above says the lazy writer is spawned after every second, which is not the same as writing out data every second, but it's the best I can find so far in my own search for an answer to a similar question (in my case, I have an Android apps which lazy-writes data back to disk and I noticed some data loss when using an interval of 3 seconds, so I am going to reduce it to 1 second and see if that helps...it may hurt performance but losing data kills performance a whole lot more if you consider the hours it takes to recover it).
My C program which uses sorting runs 10x slower the first time than other times. It uses file of integers to sort and even if I change the numbers, program still runs faster. When I restart the PC, the very first time program runs 10x slower. I use time to count the time.
The operating system holds the data in RAM even if it's not needed anymore (this is called "caching"), so when the program runs again, it gets all data from there and there's no disk I/O. Even when you change the data, that change happens in RAM first, and it stays there even after its written to the file.
It doesn't stay in RAM forever though, mind you. If the memory is needed for something else, the cache is deleted. At that point, a disk access is needed (and it's cached in RAM again at that point.)
This is why first access after a reboot is always slow; the data hasn't been cached yet since it was never read from the file.
You have to make hypothesis and confront them to reality. The first you can reasonably make is that it does smell a lot like a caching issue !
Ask yourself those questions :
Does my data fits in free RAM (= is my file cached by the OS FS cache
?)
Does my data fits in CPU data cache ?
Does my data fits in HDD internal cache ?
The most easy hypothesis to discard is the FS cache. Under linux, just issue sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches between each call to your program. The first will make sure the cached data will make it to the physical medium (hard drive), the second will drop the content of the filesystem cache from memory.
The 'physical medium' might be the HDD cache itself, so beware... Under linux you can disable this "write-back" cache with the command hdparm -W 0 <device>, for instance if you are working with drive sda, hdparm -W 0 /dev/sda will do the job. You might want to re-enable it after you are finished with your tests :)
Another hypothesis is the CPU cache, have a look at How can I do a CPU cache flush in x86 Windows? and How to clear CPU L1 and L2 cache
Well, it may or may not be one of those, but it doesn't hurt trying :)
If your program does network access then that could be the reason for the initial delay. Many network protocols need time to setup things. Some examples:
DNS: if your program does any network access, chances are it needs to resolve a hostname to an IP address. The first time it would need at least a network round trip to populate a local cache. Following requests would be shorter.
Networked filesystems (NFS, CIFS and others): opening files can happen through the network.
Even some seemingly innocuous library functions can require network access: the users list for the host can be on a remote directory server.
Appart from this you could use some low level tracing tool to see where the time is spent. On linux a basic tool is strace -r. There is probably some similar tool for other systems. Your compiler must also come with a profiler (i.e. gprof for GCC or maybe Valgrind).
I had a very similar issue but I wasn't loading in a large file - so I was baffled at the long first execution time (caching couldn't have been the issue).
This answer pointed me in the right direction - it was my real-time anti-virus protection. Every time I recompiled the program it would re-scan it as being potentially malicious. I added my project path as an "Exception" to Avira's (in my case) real-time virus protection.
Program execution on the first execution is now lightening quick!
This is nothing new, not just your program many popular commercial softwares face this problem.
To start with check this MATLAB Article about slow fist time execution
In case of other programming language which runs on a Virtual Machine like C# or Java this is quite common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation#Startup_delay_and_optimizations
Caching is a good reason for that to happen in C but still 10x is quite a long duration..It might be also possible that you system was loading other resources after you restart.
You should run the program after say 10 minutes after restart for better results. All the startup application would be loaded by that time. (10 minutes ---- depends on the number of startup applications and the time it takes to start each of them)
This is because of compiler optimatization ,what it does is it caches the result for Temoparal Locality and the activation record is saved,time is also saved because the binding object donot have to be reloaded again during Linking Stage
There are two components to the time measured
If you are reading a file from disk,and loading it in memory - and sorting :
1)Time to read the file & store it in an array
2)Time of sorting
Were these measured separately?
Can you check this out?
Invalidating Linux Buffer Cache
Instead of doing a restart, if repeating the experiment with clearing the cache gives the same result, then you can infer that File buffer caching effects were not factored into.
I have an objective-c application for OS X that compares two sqlite DB's and produces a diff in json format. The db are quite large (10,000 items with many fields). Sometimes this applications runs in about 55 sec(using 95% of the cpu). Sometimes it takes around 8 min (using 12% of the cpu). This is with the same DB's. When it is only using a small portion of the cpu the rest is available. There does not appear to be anything taking priority over the process. Adding "nice -20" on the command seems to assure I get the cpu usage. My questions are
If nothing else is using the cpu why
does my app not take advantage of
it?
Is there something I can do
programatically to change this?
Is there something I can do to OS X to
change this?
Question 1:
Since, I assume, you have to read in the databases from disk, you aren't making full use of the CPU because your code is blocking on disk reads. On Mac OS X there is a lot of stuff running in the background that doesn't use a lot of CPU time but does send out a lot of disk reads, like Spotlight.
Question 2:
Probably not, other than make the most efficient use of disk access possible.
Question 3:
Shut down any other processes that are accessing the disk. This includes many system processes that you really shouldn't shut down, so I don't think there's much you can do here other than try running it on Darwin without all the Mac OS X fanciness.
It sounds like you're IO bound in the long cases. Are you doing anything else on the machine? The CPU isn't throttling itself - it's definitely waiting for something.
You can use some of the developer tools to look at your app while it's running - perhaps most useful would be "Instruments", which is a GUI on top of dtrace. You should have this installed if you're running the most recent Xcode. You can also use Shark, which is somewhat easier to use at first glance, but less informative in the long run.
Usually you get all the performance that's available. If the CPU is not at 100% there's something blocking it. In case of databases it's often locking. Use Shark to find out what's going on in your application.
When your program uses little CPU, probably because it is waiting for disk, especially when other processes are accessing to the disk at the same time. Another possibility is your program uses too much memory and the OS begins to use swap space.