What is the difference between Effective access time and Average access time.(Please tell from "Operating system" and "computer organization" point of view)
More often than not, we ignore weights while finding arithmetic means. Effective access time and average access time have a very subtle difference between them.
Say, I have a memory with access time 100. I also have a cache with hit rate of 90% and access time of 10. Now, we need to find the 'average' access time for the memory.
We know that 90% of time, the access time will be 10 and for the remaining 10% of the time, the access time will be 100***. So, effectively, the access time for the system will be (90/100)*10+(10/100)*100. This is referred to as effective access time. In statistical term, weighted average.
Average access time simply means the two weights are equal. Or in other words, the two events are equally probable and therefore will contribute equally to the final mean of the system. In that case, the average will be
(50/100)*10+(50/100)*100= (1/2)(100+10) which is the average which we have been using ever since(add the two and divide it by 2).
*** The access time will be more than 100 since we need to account for the cache search time as well and also the bus latency. The example is just cooked up and does not represent accurate modeling of the access time.
Related
I need to provide the business with a report estimating number of users (devices in this case) the system can cope with without extensive delays and errors.
Assuming each device polls-communicates with the server every 5 seconds or so would it be acceptable to multiple the number of concurrent users I stress test with by 5 to get the figure required by the business?
In general what are the best means of answering such a question considering the above factors?
I am guessing that the collision rate (making them concurrent) may well be over the ratio of 5 (the seconds it takes for the device before it asks to communicate with the server).
Any advice?
I am using JMeter to produce concurrent user/device throughput.
Edit as requested to explain further:
From an analytics point of view if each device will attempt to connect and communicate with the server every 5 seconds and we wish to receive a response within the time it is ready to re-communicate (in other words in next 4 seconds), the collision chances literally for other devices running the same software is calculated on the elapsed time between the two calls no?
I am looking for statistical analysis methodology really to find a percent to multiply the concurrent test results to a real environment.
I know it is a general question without a specific / explicit answer but more the methodology, if there is one, of how can one project the number of "active" users the system can cope with from the known "concurrent" users. I would have though that given the frequency of calls is known and that each call takes 300ms in average one could somehow project the actual users (maybe by an industry standard multiplier?)
Scenario:
Suppose we have infinite cache memory size. Caching is just limited by timeout, value of this timeout is half an hour. Cache is initially empty.
Problem:
We have 50,000 distinct request. Our system is querying, randomly, at the rate of 15 request/second i.e. 27,000 request in half an hour . What kind of curve or average value of cache hit rate could we expect for first 5 hours?
Note: This scenario is fixed. I need an approach to find out hit rate. If you think tag is wrong, please suggest appropriate tag.
I think you're right and this is a math question (certainly not a programming
problem).
One approach is to consider the extremes -- what is the hit rate for the
first query when the the system starts running? For the second query?
After one second? After 10? After a minute? And what is the likelyhood
that any random query will be found in the cache once the system has been
running a long time?
These are few specific values, and together they give you a curve.
I don't think great numeric precision is necessary; the long-term average
and the shape of the curve is more interesting.
There's a large set of objects. Set is dynamic: objects can be added or deleted any time. Let's call the total number of objects N.
Each object has two properties: mass (M) and time (T) of last update.
Every X minutes a small batch of those should be selected for processing, which updates their T to current time. Total M of all objects in a batch is limited: not more than L.
I am looking to solve three tasks here:
find a next batch object picking algorithm;
introduce object classes: simple, priority (granted fit into at least each n-th batch) and frequent (fit into each batch);
forecast system capacity exhaust (time to add next server = increase L).
What kind of model best describes such a system?
The whole thing is about a service that processes the "objects" in time intervals. Each object should be "measured" each N hours. N can vary in a range. X is fixed.
Objects are added/deleted by humans. N grows exponentially, rather slow, with some spikes caused by publications. Of course forecast can't be precise, just some estimate. M varies from 0 to 1E7 with exponential distribution, most are closer to 0.
I see there can be several strategies here:
A. full throttle - pack each batch as much as close to 100%. As N grows, average interval a particular object gets a hit will grow.
B. equal temperament :) - try to keep an average interval around some value. A batch fill level will be growing from some low level. When it reaches closer to 100% – time to get more servers.
C. - ?
Here is a pretty complete design for your problem.
Your question does not optimally match your description of the system this is for. So I'll assume that the description is accurate.
When you schedule a measurement you should pass an object, a first time it can be measured, and when you want the measurement to happen by. The object should have a weight attribute and a measured method. When the measurement happens, the measured method will be called, and the difference between your classes is whether, and with what parameters, they will reschedule themselves.
Internally you will need a couple of priority queues. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap_(data_structure) for details on how to implement one.
The first queue is by time the measurement can happen, all of the objects that can't be measured yet. Every time you schedule a batch you will use that to find all of the new measurements that can happen.
The second queue is of measurements that are ready to go now, and is organized by which scheduling period they should happen by, and then weight. I would make them both ascending. You can schedule a batch by pulling items off of that queue until you've got enough to send off.
Now you need to know how much to put in each batch. Given the system that you have described, a spike of events can be put in manually, but over time you'd like those spikes to smooth out. Therefore I would recommend option B, equal temperament. So to do this, as you put each object into the "ready now" queue, you can calculate its "average work weight" as its weight divided by the number of periods until it is supposed to happen. Store that with the object, and keep a running total of what run rate you should be at. Every period I would suggest that you keep adding to the batch until one of three conditions has been met:
You run out of objects.
You hit your maximum batch capacity.
You exceed 1.1 times your running total of your average work weight. The extra 10% is because it is better to use a bit more capacity now than to run out of capacity later.
And finally, capacity planning.
For this you need to use some heuristic. Here is a reasonable one which may need some tweaking for your system. Maintain an array of your past 10 measurements of running total of average work weight. Maintain an "exponentially damped average of your high water mark." Do that by updating each time according to the formula:
average_high_water_mark
= 0.95 * average_high_water_mark
+ 0.5 * max(last 10 running work weight)
If average_high_water_mark ever gets within, say, 2 servers of your maximum capacity, then add more servers. (The idea is that a server should be able to die without leaving you hosed.)
I think answer A is good. Bin packing is to maximize or minimize and you have only one batch. Sort the objects by m and n.
If i do a benchmark, and for example i found the following:
With 1 concurrent user, The api give 150 req/s. (9000 req/minute)
With more than 300 concurrent user, The api start throwing exception.
An app is doing request 1 every 30 minute.
Is it correct if I say:
the best cases is that the api could handle (30 * 9000 = 270.000 user). That is under 30 minute, there would be 270.000 sequential request and each are coming from different user
The worst cases would be when there is 300 user posting request at the same time.
And if it's true, would there any way to calculate the average case ?
Is is the same as calculating worst case, average case complexity of an algorithm ?
One theoretical tool to answer these questions is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queueing_theory. It says that you are very unlikely to get the level of performance that you are assuming, because the load applied to the system fluctuates, so that there are busy periods and quiet periods. If the system has nothing to do in quiet periods it is forced into idleness that you haven't accounted for. In busy periods, on the other hand, it will typically build up long queues of pending work, until the queues get so long that customers walk away, or the queues become longer than the system can support and it collapses, or both.
The graph at figure 1 page 3 of http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dsmyers/cs547/lecture_12_mm1_queue.pdf shows a graph of response time vs applied load for what is probably the most optimistic even vaguely realistic situation. You can see that response time gets very large as you approach maximum load.
By far the most sensible thing to do is to run tests which apply a realistic load to your application - this is important enough for people to build things like http://jmeter.apache.org/. If you want a rule of thumb I'd say don't plan to stress the system at more than 50% of theoretical capacity as you originally calculated.
Background
Echo Nest have a rate limited API. A given application (identified in requests using an API key) can make up to 120 REST calls a minute. The service response includes an estimate of the total number of calls made in the last minute; repeated abuse of the API (exceeding the limit) may cause the API key to be revoked.
When used from a single machine (a web server providing a service to clients) it is easy to control access - the server has full knowledge of the history of requests and can regulate itself correctly.
But I am working on a program where distributed, independent clients make requests in parallel.
In such a case it is much less clear what an optimal solution would be. And in general the problem appears to be undecidable - if over 120 clients, all with no previous history, make an initial request at the same time, then the rate will be exceeded.
But since this is a personal project, and client use is expected to be sporadic (bursty), and my projects have never been hugely successful, that is not expected to be a huge problem. A more likely problem is that there are times when a smaller number of clients want to make many requests as quickly as possible (for example, a client may need, exceptionally, to make several thousand requests when starting for the first time - it is possible two clients would start at around the same time, so they must cooperate to share the available bandwidth).
Given all the above, what are suitable algorithms for the clients so that they rate-limit appropriately? Note that limited cooperation is possible because the API returns the total number of requests in the last minute for all clients.
Current Solution
My current solution (when the question was written - a better approach is given as an answer) is quite simple. Each client has a record of the time the last call was made and the number of calls made in the last minute, as reported by the API, on that call.
If the number of calls is less than 60 (half the limit) the client does not throttle. This allows for fast bursts of small numbers of requests.
Otherwise (ie when there are more previous requests) the client calculates the limiting rate it would need to work at (ie period = 60 / (120 - number of previous requests)) and then waits until the gap between the previous call and the current time exceeds that period (in seconds; 60 seconds in a minute; 120 max requests per minute). This effectively throttles the rate so that, if it were acting alone, it would not exceed the limit.
But the above has problems. If you think it through carefully you'll see that for large numbers of requests a single client oscillates and does not reach maximum throughput (this is partly because of the "initial burst" which will suddenly "fall outside the window" and partly because the algorithm does not make full use of its history). And multiple clients will cooperate to an extent, but I doubt that it is optimal.
Better Solutions
I can imagine a better solution that uses the full local history of the client and models other clients with, say, a Hidden Markov Model. So each client would use the API report to model the other (unknown) clients and adjust its rate accordingly.
I can also imagine an algorithm for a single client that progressively transitions from unlimited behaviour for small bursts to optimal, limited behaviour for many requests without introducing oscillations.
Do such approaches exist? Can anyone provide an implementation or reference? Can anyone think of better heuristics?
I imagine this is a known problem somewhere. In what field? Queuing theory?
I also guess (see comments earlier) that there is no optimal solution and that there may be some lore / tradition / accepted heuristic that works well in practice. I would love to know what... At the moment I am struggling to identify a similar problem in known network protocols (I imagine Perlman would have some beautiful solution if so).
I am also interested (to a lesser degree, for future reference if the program becomes popular) in a solution that requires a central server to aid collaboration.
Disclaimer
This question is not intended to be criticism of Echo Nest at all; their service and conditions of use are great. But the more I think about how best to use this, the more complex/interesting it becomes...
Also, each client has a local cache used to avoid repeating calls.
Updates
Possibly relevant paper.
The above worked, but was very noisy, and the code was a mess. I am now using a simpler approach:
Make a call
From the response, note the limit and count
Calculate
barrier = now() + 60 / max(1, (limit - count))**greedy
On the next call, wait until barrier
The idea is quite simple: that you should wait some length of time proportional to how few requests are left in that minute. For example, if count is 39 and limit is 40 then you wait an entire minute. But if count is zero then you can make a request soon. The greedy parameter is a trade-off - when greater than 1 the "first" calls are made more quickly, but you are more likely hit the limit and end up waiting for 60s.
The performance of this is similar to the approach above, and it's much more robust. It is particularly good when clients are "bursty" as the approach above gets confused trying to estimate linear rates, while this will happily let a client "steal" a few rapid requests when demand is low.
Code here.
After some experimenting, it seems that the most important thing is getting as good an estimate as possible for the upper limit of the current connection rates.
Each client can track their own (local) connection rate using a queue of timestamps. A timestamp is added to the queue on each connection and timestamps older than a minute are discarded. The "long term" (over a minute) average rate is then found from the first and last timestamps and the number of entries (minus one). The "short term" (instantaneous) rate can be found from the times of the last two requests. The upper limit is the maximum of these two values.
Each client can also estimate the external connection rate (from the other clients). The "long term" rate can be found from the number of "used" connections in the last minute, as reported by the server, corrected by the number of local connections (from the queue mentioned above). The "short term" rate can be estimated from the "used" number since the previous request (minus one, for the local connection), scaled by the time difference. Again, the upper limit (maximum of these two values) is used.
Each client computes these two rates (local and external) and then adds them to estimate the upper limit to the total rate of connections to the server. This value is compared with the target rate band, which is currently set to between 80% and 90% of the maximum (0.8 to 0.9 * 120 per minute).
From the difference between the estimated and target rates, each client modifies their own connection rate. This is done by taking the previous delta (time between the last connection and the one before) and scaling it by 1.1 (if the rate exceeds the target) or 0.9 (if the rate is lower than the target). The client then refuses to make a new connection until that scaled delta has passed (by sleeping if a new connected is requested).
Finally, nothing above forces all clients to equally share the bandwidth. So I add an additional 10% to the local rate estimate. This has the effect of preferentially over-estimating the rate for clients that have high rates, which makes them more likely to reduce their rate. In this way the "greedy" clients have a slightly stronger pressure to reduce consumption which, over the long term, appears to be sufficient to keep the distribution of resources balanced.
The important insights are:
By taking the maximum of "long term" and "short term" estimates the system is conservative (and more stable) when additional clients start up.
No client knows the total number of clients (unless it is zero or one), but all clients run the same code so can "trust" each other.
Given the above, you can't make "exact" calculations about what rate to use, but you can make a "constant" correction (in this case, +/- 10% factor) depending on the global rate.
The adjustment to the client connection frequency is made to the delta between the last two connection (adjusting based on the average over the whole minute is too slow and leads to oscillations).
Balanced consumption can be achieved by penalising the greedy clients slightly.
In (limited) experiments this works fairly well (even in the worst case of multiple clients starting at once). The main drawbacks are: (1) it doesn't allow for an initial "burst" (which would improve throughput if the server has few clients and a client has only a few requests); (2) the system does still oscillate over ~ a minute (see below); (3) handling a larger number of clients (in the worst case, eg if they all start at once) requires a larger gain (eg 20% correction instead of 10%) which tends to make the system less stable.
The "used" amount reported by the (test) server, plotted against time (Unix epoch). This is for four clients (coloured), all trying to consume as much data as possible.
The oscillations come from the usual source - corrections lag signal. They are damped by (1) using the upper limit of the rates (predicting long term rate from instantaneous value) and (2) using a target band. This is why an answer informed by someone who understand control theory would be appreciated...
It's not clear to me that estimating local and external rates separately is important (they may help if the short term rate for one is high while the long-term rate for the other is high), but I doubt removing it will improve things.
In conclusion: this is all pretty much as I expected, for this kind of approach. It kind-of works, but because it's a simple feedback-based approach it's only stable within a limited range of parameters. I don't know what alternatives might be possible.
Since you're using the Echonest API, why don't you take advantage of the rate limit headers that are returned with every API call?
In general you get 120 requests per minute. There are three headers that can help you self-regulate your API consumption:
X-Ratelimit-Used
X-Ratelimit-Remaining
X-Ratelimit-Limit
**(Notice the lower-case 'ell' in 'Ratelimit'--the documentation makes you think it should be capitalized, but in practice it is lower case.)
These counts account for calls made by other processes using your API key.
Pretty neat, huh? Well, I'm afraid there is a rub...
That 120-request-per-minute is really an upper bound. You can't count on it. The documentation states that value can fluctuate according to system load. I've seen it as low as 40ish in some calls I've made, and have in some cases seen it go below zero (I really hope that was a bug in the echonest API!)
One approach you can take is to slow things down once utilization (used divided by limit) reaches a certain threshold. Keep in mind though, that on the next call your limit may have been adjusted download significantly enough that 'used' is greater than 'limit'.
This works well up until a point. Since the Echonest doesn't adjust the limit in a predictable mannar, it is hard to avoid 400s in practice.
Here are some links that I've found helpful:
http://blog.echonest.com/post/15242456852/managing-your-api-rate-limit
http://developer.echonest.com/docs/v4/#rate-limits