I am running a python program on a Raspberry Pi. This program writes data to a txt-file every second (every second some data is changed).
On a laptop I am running a Studio Basic program that reads that data file over the network from the Raspberry. This works OK as long as the time between the reads from that that file are more than 15 seconds apart. If I read/access faster than the same data is read. It looks that the windows program reads from a cache if it is accessed in less than 15 seconds. Is there a way to change the time limit so I can read more often (let us say every 5 seconds).
Note if I read the txt-data file using another python program in the Raspberry Pi than the changed data is read OK by that program. So the problem lies in the Windows system.
Please refer to this File Caching document, use win32file.CreateFile and specify FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING to disable the cache, all read and write operations will directly access the physical disk.
EDIT :
For using CreateFile in VB.net, please refer to:
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/4a2ebfaa-d56d-487a-b03d-0f9ca72e3bbc/createfile-and-deviceiocontrol-function-in-vbnet?forum=winembplatdev
Related
Is it possible at all to read the value (presumably a variable, since it changes every few seconds and is shown on screen) from a process in Windows? This is some custom, fairly old (10y) Windows GUI application that shows values (part counter) from manufacturing machine connected to it via some proprietary protocol (even using a dedicated PCI commmunications card).
I got the idea when reading about people modifying settings in a game (change high-score, change difficulty level, etc).
On Windows, there is an official API ReadProcessMemory for reading data from a process's memory:
ReadProcessMemory copies the data in the specified address range from the address space of the specified process into the specified buffer of the current process. Any process that has a handle with PROCESS_VM_READ access can call the function.
While I am hopeful that it works once the address/offset of the value in question is known, I am not so sure if this application will allocate memory differently when started the next time.
This is how I would approach it:
continuously, e.g. every second
take a screen shot of the application,
take a process dump (procdump from sysinternals) of the application
analyse the process dump and try to find the location/offset of the value in question
compare process dumps from different startups of the application to see if the value is at the same offset
Is this feasible, or is it completely obvious that memory allocation is very dynamic (between restarts and even during runtime) and using an offset-based approach will be doomed?
For a university project I am using bifacial_radiance v0.4.0 to run simulations of approx. 270 000 rows of data in an EWP file.
I have set up a scene with some panels in a module following a tutorial on the bifacial_radiance GitHub page.
I am running the python script for this on a high power computer with 64 cores. Since python natively only uses 1 processor I want to use multiprocessing, which is currently working. However it does not seem very fast, even when starting 64 processes it uses roughly 10 % of the CPU's capacity (according to the task manager).
The script will first create the scene with panels.
Then it will look at a result file (where I store results as csv), and compare it to the contents of the radObj.metdata object. Both metdata and my result file use dates, so all dates which exist in the metdata file but not in the result file are stored in a queue object from the multiprocessing package. I also initialize a result queue.
I want to send a lot of the work to other processors.
To do this I have written two function:
A file writer function which every 10 seconds gets all items from the result queue and writes them to the result file. This function is running in a single multiprocessing.Process process like so:
fileWriteProcess = Process(target=fileWriter,args=(resultQueue,resultFileName)).start()
A ray trace function with a unique ID which does the following:
Get an index ìdx from the index queue (described above)
Use this index in radObj.gendaylit(idx)
Create the octfile. For this I have modified the name which the octfile is saved with to use a prefix which is the name of the process. This is to avoid all the processes using the same octfile on the SSD. octfile = radObj.makeOct(prefix=name)
Run an analysis analysis = bifacial_radiance.AnalysisObj(octfile,radObj.basename)
frontscan, backscan = analysis.moduleAnalysis(scene)
frontDict, backDict = analysis.analysis(octfile, radObj.basename, frontscan, backscan)
Read the desired results from resultDict and put them in the resultQueue as a single line of comma-separated values.
This all works. The processes are running after being created in a for loop.
This speeds up the whole simulation process quite a bit (10 days down to 1½ day), but as said earlier the CPU is running at around 10 % capacity and the GPU is running around 25 % capacity. The computer has 512 GB ram which is not an issue. The only communication with the processes is through the resultQueue and indexQueue, which should not bottleneck the program. I can see that it is not synchronizing as the results are written slightly unsorted while the input EPW file is sorted.
My question is if there is a better way to do this, which might make it run faster? I can see in the source code that a boolean "hpc" is used to initiate some of the classes, and a comment in the code mentions that it is for multiprocessing, but I can't find any information about it elsewhere.
I am doing some research and need to collect all the kernel function calls within a certain time span, e.g. 60 seconds. I am using Raspberry Pi 4B.
I've tried to use the function tracer ftrace and read the trace_pipe via
echo function > current_tracer
echo 1 > tracing_on
cat trace_pipe > /home/pi/trace/test.txt
This method seems to be too slow and too much data gets lost due to overfilled buffer: approx. 50-60M data points get lost and I only get about 3 M data points. So that's not a good statistics.
I also tried to use trace-cmd:
trace-cmd record -p function sleep 60
With trace-cmd about 20 M data points get lost, which is much better, but still not good enough to build a good statistics. Furthermore the file I get by doing
trace-cmd report > /home/pi/trace/test_trace-cmd.txt
is about 5-6 Gb and takes a few minutes to write. I don't have an intention to make this file smaller (I assume it is impossible). But I just can't wait for so long.
I also worry about producing too much overhead to the system by saving such big trace files. Is it the case?
I am wondering, if it would possible to direct the output of the trace_pipe (or maybe of some other tracing file) to some I/O pin, so that I can connect some logic analyser to this pin and read the data flow by some other device? There will be no need to save the tracing file on the raspberry itself then. I also hope I can reduce the amount of data getting lost.
New to this forum - looks great!
I have some Processing code that periodically reads data wirelessly from remote devices and writes that data as bytes to a file, e.g. data.dat. I want to write an Objective C program on my Mac Mini using Xcode to read this file, parse the data, and act on the data if data values indicate a problem. My question is: can my two different programs access the same file asynchronously without a problem? If this is a problem can you suggest a technique that will allow these operations?
Thanks,
Kevin H.
Multiple processes can read from the same file at a time without any problem. A process can also read from a file while another writes without problem, although you'll have to take care to ensure that you read in any new data that was written. Multiple processes should not write to the same file at at the same time, though. The OS will let you do it, but the ordering of data will be undefined, and you'll like overwrite data—in general, you're gonna have a bad time if you do that. So you should take care to ensure that only one process writes to a file at a time.
The simplest way to protect a file so that only one process can write to it at a time is with the C function flock(), although that function is admittedly a bit rudimentary and may or may not suit your use case.
I have a program that creates a file of about 50MB size. During the process the program frequently rewrites sections of the file and forces the changes to disk (in the order of 100 times). It uses a FileChannel and direct ByteBuffers via fc.read(...), fc.write(...) and fc.force(...).
New text:
I have a better view on the problem now.
The problem appears to be that I use three different JVMs to modify a file (one creates it, two others (launched from the first) write to it). Every JVM closes the file properly before the next JVM is started.
The problem is that the cost of fc.write() to that file occasionally goes through the roof for the third JVM (in the order of 100 times the normal cost). That is, all write operations are equally slow, it is not just one that hang very long.
Interestingly, one way to help this is to insert delays (2 seconds) between the launching of JVMs. Without delay, writing is always slow, with delay, the writing is slow aboutr every second time or so.
I also found this Stackoverflow: How to unmap a file from memory mapped using FileChannel in java? which describes a problem for mapped files, which I'm not using.
What I suspect might be going on:
Java does not completely release the file handle when I call close(). When the next JVM is started, Java (or Windows) recognizes concurrent access to that file and installes some expensive concurrency handler for that file, which makes writing expensive.
Would that make sense?
The problem occurs on Windows 7 (Java 6 and 7, tested on two machines), but not under Linux (SuSE 11.3 64).
Old text:
The problem:
Starting the program from as a JUnit test harness from eclipse or from console works fine, it takes around 3 seconds.
Starting the program through an ant task (or through JUnit by kicking of a separate JVM using a ProcessBuilder) slows the program down to 70-80 seconds for the same task (factor 20-30).
Using -Xprof reveals that the usage of 'force0' and 'pwrite' goes through the roof from 34.1% (76+20 tics) to 97.3% (3587+2913+751 tics):
Fast run:
27.0% 0 + 76 sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.force0
7.1% 0 + 20 sun.nio.ch.FileDispatcher.pwrite0
[..]
Slow run:
Interpreted + native Method
48.1% 0 + 3587 sun.nio.ch.FileDispatcher.pwrite0
39.1% 0 + 2913 sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.force0
[..]
Stub + native Method
10.1% 0 + 751 sun.nio.ch.FileDispatcher.pwrite0
[..]
GC and compilation are negligible.
More facts:
No other methods show a significant change in the -Xprof output.
It's either fast or very slow, never something in-between.
Memory is not a problem, all test machines have at least 8GB, the process uses <200MB
rebooting the machine does not help
switching of virus-scanners and similar stuff has no affect
When the process is slow, there is virtually no CPU usage
It is never slow when running it from a normal JVM
It is pretty consistently slow when running it in a JVM that was started from the first JVM (via ProcessBuilder or as ant-task)
All JVMs are exactly the same. I output System.getProperty("java.home") and the JVM options via RuntimeMXBean RuntimemxBean = ManagementFactory.getRuntimeMXBean(); List arguments = RuntimemxBean.getInputArguments();
I tested it on two machines with Windows7 64bit, Java 7u2, Java 6u26 and JRockit, the hardware of the machines differs, though, but the results are very similar.
I tested it also from outside Eclipse (command-line ant) but no difference there.
The whole program is written by myself, all it does is reading and writing to/from this file, no other libraries are used, especially no native libraries. -
And some scary facts that I just refuse to believe to make any sense:
Removing all class files and rebuilding the project sometimes (rarely) helps. The program (nested version) runs fast one or two times before becoming extremely slow again.
Installing a new JVM always helps (every single time!) such that the (nested) program runs fast at least once! Installing a JDK counts as two because both the JDK-jre and the JRE-jre work fine at least once. Overinstalling a JVM does not help. Neither does rebooting. I haven't tried deleting/rebooting/reinstalling yet ...
These are the only two ways I ever managed to get fast program runtimes for the nested program.
Questions:
What may cause this performance drop for nested JVMs?
What exactly do these methods do (pwrite0/force0)? -
Are you using local disks for all testing (as opposed to any network share) ?
Can you setup Windows with a ram drive to store the data ? When a JVM terminates, by default its file handles will have been closed but what you might be seeing is the flushing of the data to the disk. When you overwrite lots of data the previous version of data is discarded and may not cause disk IO. The act of closing the file might make windows kernel implicitly flush data to disk. So using a ram drive would allow you to confirm that their since disk IO time is removed from your stats.
Find a tool for windows that allows you to force the kernel to flush all buffers to disk, use this in between JVM runs, see how long that takes at the time.
But I would guess you are hitten some iteraction with the demands of the process and the demands of the kernel in attempting to manage disk block buffer cache. In linux there is a tool like "/sbin/blockdev --flushbufs" that can do this.
FWIW
"pwrite" is a Linux/Unix API for allowing concurrent writing to a file descriptor (which would be the best kernel syscall API to use for the JVM, I think Win32 API already has provision for the same kinds of usage to share a file handle between threads in a process, but since Sun have Unix heritige things get named after the Unix way). Google "pwrite(2)" for more info on this API.
"force" I would guess that is a file system sync, meaning the process is requesting the kernel to flush unwritten data (that is currently in disk block buffer cache) into the file on the disk (such as would be needed before you turned your computer off). This action will happen automatically over time, but transactional systems require to know when the data previously written (with pwrite) has actually hit the physical disk and is stored. Because some other disk IO is dependant on knowing that, such as with transactional checkpointing.
One thing that could help is making sure you explicitly set the FileChannel to null. Then call System.runFinalization() and maybe System.gc() at the end of the program. You may need more than 1 call.
System.runFinalizersOnExit(true) may also help, but it's deprecated so you will have to deal with the compiler warnings.