Problem: I have a developers machine (read: fast, lots of memory), but the user has a users machine (read: slow, not very much memory).
I can simulate a slow network using Fiddler (http://www.fiddler2.com/fiddler2/)
I can look at how CPU is used over time for a process using Process Explorer (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx).
Is there any way I can restrict the amount of CPU a process can have, or the amount of memory a process can have in order to simulate a users machine more effectively? (In order to isolate performance problems for instance)
I suppose I could use a VM, but I'm looking for something a bit lighter.
I'm using Windows XP, but a solution for any Windows machine would be welcome. Thanks.
The platform SDK used to come with stress tools for doing just this back in the good old days (STRESS.EXE, CPUSTRESS.EXE in the SDK), but they might still be there (check your platform SDK and/or Visual Studio installation for these two files -- unfortunately I have niether the PSDK nor VS installed on the machine I'm typing from.)
Other tools:
memory: performance & reliability (e.g. handling failed memory allocation): can use EatMem
CPU: performance & reliability (e.g. race conditions): can use CPU Burn, Prime95, etc
handles (GDI, User): reliability (e.g. handling failed GDI resource allocation): ??? may have to write your own, but running out of GDI handles (buggy GTK apps would usually eat them all away until all other apps on the system would start falling dead like flies) is a real test for any Windows app
disk: performance & reliability (e.g. handling disk full): DiskFiller, etc.
AppVerifier has a low-resource simulation feature.
You could also try setting the priority of your process to be very low.
You can run MemAlloc to chew up RAM, possibly a few copies at once.
I found a related question:
Set Windows process (or user) memory limit
The accepted answer for the question has a link to the Windows API's SetProcessWorkingSetSize, so it's not exactly a tool that can limit the amount of memory that a process can use.
In terms of changing the amount of CPU resources a process can use, if you don't mind the granularity of per-core limiting of resources, Task Manager can change the processor affinity of a process.
In Task Manager, right-click a process and select "Set Affinity...", then select the processor cores that the process can be assigned to.
If the development machine has many cores but the user machine only has one, then, rather than allowing the process to run on all the available cores, set the process' processor affinity to only one core.
It has nothing to do with SetProcessWorkingSetSize
Just use internal Win32 kernel apis to restrict CPU Usage
Related
This question is about operating systems in general. Is there any necessary mechanism in implementation of operating systems that impacts flow of instructions my program sends to CPU?
For example if my program was set for maximum priority in OS, would it perform exactly the same when run without OS?
Is there any necessary mechanism in implementation of operating systems that impacts flow of instructions my program sends to CPU?
Not strictly necessary mechanisms (depending on how you define "OS"); but typically there's IRQs, exceptions and task switches.
IRQs are used by devices to ask the OS (their device driver) for attention; and interrupting the flow of instructions your program sends to CPU. The alternative is polling, which wastes a huge amount of CPU time checking if the device needs attention when it probably doesn't. Because applications need to use devices (file IO, keyboard, video, etc) and wasting CPU time is bad; IRQs significantly improve the performance of applications.
Exceptions (like IRQs) also interrupt the normal flow of instructions. They occur when the normal flow of instructions can't continue, either because your program crashed, or because your program needs something. The most common cause of exceptions is virtual memory (e.g. using swap space to let the application have more memory than actually exists so that the application can actually work properly; where the exception tells the OS that your program tried to access memory that has to be fetched from disk first). In general; this also improves performance for multiple reasons (because "can't execute because there's not enough RAM" can be considered "zero performance"; and because various tricks reduce RAM consumption and increase the amount of RAM that can be used for things like caching files which improve file IO speed).
Task switches is the basis of multi-tasking (e.g. being able to run more than one application at a time). If there are more tasks that want CPU time than there are CPUs, then the OS (scheduler) may (depending on task priorities and scheduler design) switch between them so that all the tasks get some CPU time. However; most applications spend most of their time waiting for something to do (e.g. waiting for user to press a key) and don't need CPU time while waiting; and if the OS is only running one task then the scheduler does nothing (no task switches because there's no other task to switch to). In other words, if the OS supports multi-tasking but you're only running one task, then it makes no difference.
Note that in some cases, IRQs and/or tasks are also used to "opportunistically" do work in the background (when hardware has nothing better to do) to improve performance (e.g. pre-fetch, pre-process and/or pre-calculate data before it's needed so that the resulting data is available instantly when it is needed).
For example if my program was set for maximum priority in OS, would it perform exactly the same when run without OS?
It's best to think of it as many layers - hardware & devices (CPU, etc), with kernel and device drivers on top, with applications on top of that. If you remove any of the layers nothing works (e.g. how can an application read and write files when there's no file system and no disk device drivers?).
If you shift all of the functionality that an OS provides into the application (e.g. a statically linked library that can make an application boot on bare metal); then if the functionality is the same the performance will be the same.
You can only improve performance by reducing functionality. For example, if you get rid of security you'll improve performance (temporarily, until your application becomes part of an attacker's botnet and performance becomes significantly worse due to all the bitcoin mining it's doing). In a similar way, you can get rid of flexibility (reboot the computer when you plug in a different USB flash stick), or fault tolerance (trash all of your data without any warning when the storage devices start failing because software assumed hardware is permanently perfect).
My customer complain that our window desktop application slow down sometimes. I don't see any strange in the my application log file. So I think that the CPU may be used by another application. So, is there any way (or tool) to track high CPU usage on client machine?
Thanks,
you can use the tool Performance monitor for the windows server.
You can track various processes CPU utilization (Processor time etc). This way you could track on your processes particularly and can get CPU utilization for your processes.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749115.aspx
I'd like to launch CPU and GPU intensive process on some machines, but these processes must not interfere with user's tasks. So I need to limit or at least detect GPU usage by my processes. These processes are closed-source, so I can't watch GPU usage from inside.
The answer to your subject line question is: yes (On Windows Vista and up), use Process Explorer from Microsoft to monitor per process GPU usage. nvidia's parallel nsight can do this also. Now, the body of your question sounds like you want to do this remotely. Unfortunately I'm not aware of a way to do this remotely. Still, hopefully this will be of some use to you.
edit to add: If you fire up Process Explorer I don't think it shows the GPU stats by default, to get them right click on the list of columns and add them.
The GPU is a resource that can only be used by one program at a time. If another process is using the GPU, then you can't get access to it.
A program may run multiple GPU kernels at the same time, but it's up to that program how those get run. There's no real concept of scheduling like there is with the OS and CPU processes.
Some vendors may have a way for you to check on the status of the device, like # cores in use, heat, fan speed, etc, but that won't let you change what's happening on it, and it will be specific to each vendor/device.
A couple of times recently I have noticed that 'something' is causing the Windows System Process to sit at 50+% and it will not quit until the PC is rebooted. Happening on Win2k and Win XP so far.
This is particularly troublesome because it currently appears to be triggered by MSVC 2005/Incredibuild and rebooting the build servers is not a nice thing.
At the same time the 'System Idle Process' process is holding the rest of the CPU and the build steps themselves seem to be starved. ie. a module that normally takes <5 minutes to compile is currently taking 20+.
I'd take a few guesses at maybe being virus checker or tortoise svn but would desperatly like some other suggestions.
Edit:
I've been experiencing this as something that is triggered, and the culprit may not be ongoing. Thats not to say that some other ongoing process hasn't done something 'stupid' and is managing an active lock up of System while appearing to be idle itself.
System (100% of 1 core), and System Idle Process are sharing 98-100% of the total CPU.
Occasionaly mt.exe, link.exe, buildservice would get a look in at 1-2%.
I'm running VNC to view the machine, so it's getting a look in on occasion.
Edit 2:
When left the previous evening the build process seemed to be progressing all be it slowly, but after waiting another 13 hours the 1 hour build process hasn't completed. System is still hogging the 1 core.
My understanding is that the "System" process is the time spent in the kernel (so performing disk I/O, network I/O (you did mention Incredibuild) and the like) -- I'd check for disk fragmentation, virus checkers and possibly look at these on other machines in your Incredibuild cluster.
As the System Idle process runs at "Low" priority, it's a red herring that it'd be "taking up CPU time" -- if anything it's just showing that there is available CPU time available. The fact the processing is stuck to a single processor shows that the process is doing something that is not multi-core aware, or someone has set it's thread affinity to 1.
I've noticed the virus checking software that I use can radically slow down compilation but it does not extend beyond the end of the build. Turning off advanced and heuristic checking improves this to the extent that I do not have to disable the scanner entirely. I have changed my scanning strategy such that I use scheduled full scans now more than advanced on the fly scanning, as it hurts the perfromance of a number of apps. (n.b. I am using the latest cut of Kaspersky). I'm also using an automated backup tool (AJCBackup) that also needs to be restrained when compiling.
You may also want to consider disableing the Windows Indexing service on drives that are be used to create a lot of temporary and object files, as it doesn't provide much value in this context for the amount of performance it draws.
Edit: Have checked which processes are actually hogging the CPU core and traced them back to a given app?
We've encountered issues with Kaspersky and Incredibuild in our offices - compiles and sometimes links will just hang and never finish.
Only seems to affect some machines though which is wierd, and only Windows XP (Vista seems immune from what I've seen).
Only solution I've found so far is to turn Kaspersky off entirely - so if you find a solution then let me know!
RE: smacl, work from the Windows Search/Indexing Service (WSearch) won't be attributed to the System process's CPU time, it should come from the SearchIndexer.exe/SearchFilterHost.exe services (Vista+).
The majority of activity from System you will see will be in disk activity from the lazy writer and other disk accesses. CPU activity from System will be because of kernel activity such as drivers (ISRs/DPCs) and other kernel-level filters (which could include AV file and process filters).
Process Explorer (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) can aid in viewing CPU usage across processes, including System. You can use the public Microsoft Symbol Server and this resource to get you started.
If you can take a trace with Xperf (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/performance/cc825801.aspx), I can help you analyze where the CPU time is being spent in the System (kernel) context. Xperf isn't officially supported on XP, but you can take a trace on XP and analyze it on other systems.
Xperf and Process Explorer should be able to shine a spotlight on exactly the module(s) that are causing the runaway CPU usage. Symbols may not even be necessary to diagnose the problem; simply the module name can often point to the component in question that is slowing down your system. For example, high CPU usage from ndis.sys can point to network interrupts, or activity from modules such as aavmker4.sys can point to AV software (Avast! in this case).
And as always, check if there are any updated drivers and AV software for your system.
In my office, a conflict between Incredibuild and Spyware Doctor's Immunize feature caused similar issues. Turning off Immunize solved it for us.
What anti-virus/malware do you use?
I'm having same hangs when compiling using IncrediBuild in VS2003, on clean Windows 7 without any anti-virus. It worked fine on same box in XP and Vista.
I'd like to ask a question then follow it up with my own answer, but also see what answers other people have.
We have two large files which we'd like to read from two separate threads concurrently. One thread will sequentially read fileA while the other thread will sequentially read fileB. There is no locking or communication between the threads, both are sequentially reading as fast as they can, and both are immediately discarding the data they read.
Our experience with this setup on Windows is very poor. The combined throughput of the two threads is in the order of 2-3 MiB/sec. The drive seems to be spending most of its time seeking backwards and forwards between the two files, presumably reading very little after each seek.
If we disable one of the threads and temporarily look at the performance of a single thread then we get much better bandwidth (~45 MiB/sec for this machine). So clearly the bad two-thread performance is an artefact of the OS disk scheduler.
Is there anything we can do to improve the concurrent thread read performance? Perhaps by using different APIs or by tweaking the OS disk scheduler parameters in some way.
Some details:
The files are in the order of 2 GiB each on a machine with 2GiB of RAM. For the purpose of this question we consider them not to be cached and perfectly defragmented. We have used defrag tools and rebooted to ensure this is the case.
We are using no special APIs to read these files. The behaviour is repeatable across various bog-standard APIs such as Win32's CreateFile, C's fopen, C++'s std::ifstream, Java's FileInputStream, etc.
Each thread spins in a loop making calls to the read function. We have varied the number of bytes requested from the API each iteration from values between 1KiB up to 128MiB. Varying this has had no effect, so clearly the amount the OS is physically reading after each disk seek is not dictated by this number. This is exactly what should be expected.
The dramatic difference between one-thread and two-thread performance is repeatable across Windows 2000, Windows XP (32-bit and 64-bit), Windows Server 2003, and also with and without hardware RAID5.
The problem seems to be in Windows I/O scheduling policy. According to what I found here there are many ways for an O.S. to schedule disk requests. While Linux and others can choose between different policies, before Vista Windows was locked in a single policy: a FIFO queue, where all requests where splitted in 64 KB blocks. I believe that this policy is the cause for the problem you are experiencing: the scheduler will mix requests from the two threads, causing continuous seek between different areas of the disk.
Now, the good news is that according to here and here, Vista introduced a smarter disk scheduler, where you can set the priority of your requests and also allocate a minimum badwidth for your process.
The bad news is that I found no way to change disk policy or buffers size in previous versions of Windows. Also, even if raising disk I/O priority of your process will boost the performance against the other processes, you still have the problems of your threads competing against each other.
What I can suggest is to modify your software by introducing a self-made disk access policy.
For example, you could use a policy like this in your thread B (similar for Thread A):
if THREAD A is reading from disk then wait for THREAD A to stop reading or wait for X ms
Read for X ms (or Y MB)
Stop reading and check status of thread A again
You could use semaphores for status checking or you could use perfmon counters to get the status of the actual disk queue.
The values of X and/or Y could also be auto-tuned by checking the actual trasfer rates and slowly modify them, thus maximizing the throughtput when the application runs on different machines and/or O.S. You could find that cache, memory or RAID levels affect them in a way or the other, but with auto-tuning you will always get the best performance in every scenario.
I'd like to add some further notes in my response. All other non-Microsoft operating systems we have tested do not suffer from this problem. Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS X (this final one on different hardware) all degrade much more gracefully in terms of aggregate bandwidth when moving from one thread to two. Linux for example degraded from ~45 MiB/sec to ~42 MiB/sec. These other operating systems must be reading larger chunks of the file between each seek, and therefor not spending nearly all their time waiting on the disk to seek.
Our solution for Windows is to pass the FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING flag to CreateFile and use large (~16MiB) reads in each call to ReadFile. This is suboptimal for several reasons:
Files don't get cached when read like this, so there are none of the advantages that caching normally gives.
The constraints when working with this flag are much more complicated than normal reading (alignment of read buffers to page boundaries, etc).
(As a final remark. Does this explain why swapping under Windows is so hellish? Ie, Windows is incapable of doing IO to multiple files concurrently with any efficiency, so while swapping all other IO operations are forced to be disproportionately slow.)
Edit to add some further details for Will Dean:
Of course across these different hardware configurations the raw figures did change (sometimes substantially). The problem however is the consistent degradation in performance that only Windows suffers when moving from one thread to two. Here is a summary of the machines tested:
Several Dell workstations (Intel Xeon) of various ages running Windows 2000, Windows XP (32-bit), and Windows XP (64-bit) with single drive.
A Dell 1U server (Intel Xeon) running Windows Server 2003 (64-bit) with RAID 1+0.
An HP workstation (AMD Opteron) with Windows XP (64-bit), and Windows Server 2003, and hardware RAID 5.
My home unbranded PC (AMD Athlon64) running Windows XP (32-bit), FreeBSD (64-bit), and Linux (64-bit) with single drive.
My home MacBook (Intel Core1) running Mac OS X, single SATA drive.
My home Koolu PC running Linux. Vastly underpowered compared to the other systems but I demonstrated that even this machine can outperform a Windows server with RAID5 when doing multi-threaded disk reads.
CPU usage on all of these systems was very low during the tests and anti-virus was disabled.
I forgot to mention before but we also tried the normal Win32 CreateFile API with the FILE_FLAG_SEQUENTIAL_SCAN flag set. This flag didn't fix the problem.
It does seem a little strange that you see no difference across quite a wide range of windows versions and nothing between a single drive and hardware raid-5.
It's only 'gut feel', but that does make me doubtful that this is really a simple seeking problem. Other than the OS X and the Raid5, was all this tried on the same machine - have you tried another machine? Is your CPU usage basically zero during this test?
What's the shortest app you can write which demonstrates this problem? - I would be interested to try it here.
I would create some kind of in memory thread safe lock. Each thread could wait on the lock until it was free. When the lock becomes free, take the lock and read the file for a defined length of time or a defined amount of data, then release the lock for any other waiting threads.
Do you use IOCompletionPorts under Windows? Windows via C++ has an in-depth chapter on this subject and as luck would have it, it is also available on MSDN.
Paul - saw the update. Very interesting.
It would be interesting to try it on Vista or Win2008, as people seem to be reporting some considerable I/O improvements on these in some circumstances.
My only suggestion about a different API would be to try memory mapping the files - have you tried that? Unfortunately at 2GB per file, you're not going to be able to map multiple whole files on a 32-bit machine, which means this isn't quite as trivial as it might be.