I need to store large amounts of data on-disk in approximately 1k blocks. I will be accessing these objects in a way that is hard to predict, but where patterns probably exist.
Is there an algorithm or heuristic I can use that will rearrange the objects on disk based on my access patterns to try to maximize sequential access, and thus minimize disk seek time?
On modern OSes (Windows, Linux, etc) there is absolutely nothing you can do to optimise seek times! Here's why:
You are in a pre-emptive multitasking system. Your application and all it's data can be flushed to disk at any time - user switches task, screen saver kicks in, battery runs out of charge, etc.
You cannot guarantee that the file is contiguous on disk. Doing Aaron's first bullet point will not ensure an unfragmented file. When you start writing the file, the OS doesn't know how big the file is going to be so it could put it in a small space, fragmenting it as you write more data to it.
Memory mapping the file only works as long as the file size is less than the available address range in your application. On Win32, the amount of address space available is about 2Gb - memory used by application. Mapping larger files usually involves un-mapping and re-mapping portions of the file, which won't be the best of things to do.
Putting data in the centre of the file is no help as, for all you know, the central portion of the file could be the most fragmented bit.
To paraphrase Raymond Chen, if you have to ask about OS limits, you're probably doing something wrong. Treat your filesystem as an immutable black box, it just is what it is (I know, you can use RAID and so on to help).
The first step you must take (and must be taken whenever you're optimising) is to measure what you've currently got. Never assume anything. Verify everything with hard data.
From your post, it sounds like you haven't actually written any code yet, or, if you have, there is no performance problem at the moment.
The only real solution is to look at the bigger picture and develop methods to get data off the disk without stalling the application. This would usually be through asynchronous access and speculative loading. If your application is always accessing the disk and doing work with small subsets of the data, you may want to consider reorganising the data to put all the useful stuff in one place and the other data elsewhere. Without knowing the full problem domain it's not possible to to be really helpful.
Depending on what you mean by "hard to predict", I can think of a few options:
If you always seek based on the same block field/property, store the records on disk sorted by that field. This lets you use binary search for O(log n) efficiency.
If you seek on different block fields, consider storing an external index for each field. A b-tree gives you O(log n) efficiency. When you seek, grab the appropriate index, search it for your block's data file address and jump to it.
Better yet, if your blocks are homogeneous, consider breaking them down into database records. A database gives you optimized storage, indexing, and the ability to perform advanced queries for free.
Use memory-mapped file access rather than the usual open-seek-read/write pattern. This technique works on Windows and Unix platforms.
In this way the operating system's virtual memory system will handle the caching for you. Accesses of blocks that are already in memory will result in no disk seek or read time. Writes from memory back to disk are handled automatically and efficiently and without blocking your application.
Aaron's notes are good too as they will affect initial-load time for a chunk that's not in memory. Combine that with the memory-mapped technique -- after all it's easier to reorder chunks using memcpy() than by reading/writing from disk and attempting swapouts etc.
The most simple way to solve this is to use an OS which solves that for you under the hood, like Linux. Give it enough RAM to hold 10% of the objects in RAM and it will try to keep as many of them in the cache as possible reducing the load time to 0. The recent server versions of Windows might work, too (some of them didn't for me, that's why I'm mentioning this).
If this is a no go, try this algorithm:
Create a very big file on the harddisk. It is very important that you write this in one go so the OS will allocate a continuous space on disk.
Write all your objects into that file. Make sure that each object is the same size (or give each the same space in the file and note the length in the first few bytes of of each chunk). Use an empty harddisk or a disk which has just been defragmented.
In a data structure, keep the offsets of each data chunk and how often it is accessed. When it is accessed very often, swap its position in the file with a chunk that is closer to the start of the file and which has a lesser access count.
[EDIT] Access this file with the memory-mapped API of your OS to allow the OS to effectively cache the most used parts to get best performance until you can optimize the file layout next time.
Over time, heavily accessed chunks will bubble to the top. Note that you can collect the access patterns over some time, analyze them and do the reorder over night when there is little load on your machine. Or you can do the reorder on a completely different machine and swap the file (and the offset table) when that's done.
That said, you should really rely on a modern OS where a lot of clever people have thought long and hard to solve these issues for you.
That's an interesting challenge. Unfortunately, I don't know how to solve this out of the box, either. Corbin's approach sounds reasonable to me.
Here's a little optimization suggestion, at least: Place the most-accessed items at the center of your disk (or unfragmented file), not at the start of end. That way, seeking to lesser-used data will be closer by average. Err, that's pretty obvious, though.
Please let us know if you figure out a solution yourself.
Related
I have a large data set (200GB uncompressed, 9GB compressed in bz2 -9 ) of stock tick data.
I want to run some basic time series analysis on them.
My machine has 16GB of RAM.
I would prefer to:
keep all data, compressed, in memory
decompress that data on the fly, and stream it [so nothing ever hits disk]
do all analysis in memory
Now, I think there's nice interactions here with Clojure's laziness, and future objects (i.e. I can define objects s.t. when I try to access them, I'll decompress them on the fly.)
Question: what are the things I should keep in mind when doing high performance time series analysis in Clojure?
I'm particular interested in tricks involving:
efficiently storing tick data in memory
efficiently doing computation
weird convolutions to reduce # of passes over the data
Books / articles / research paper suggestions welcome. (I'm a CS PhD student).
Thanks.
Some ideas:
In terms of storing the compressed data, I don't think you will be able to do much better than your OS's own file system caching. Just make sure it s configured to use 11GB+ of RAM for file system caching and it should pull your whole compressed data set into memory as it is read the first time.
You should then be able to define your Clojure code to pull into the data lazily via a ZipInputStream, which will perform the decompression for you.
If you need to perform a second pass on the data, just create a new ZipInputStream on the same file. OS level caching should ensure that you don't hit the disk again.
I have heard of systems like that implemented in Java. It is possible. You'll certainly want to understand how to create your own lazy sequences in order to accomplish this. I also wouldn't hesitate to drop down into Java if you need to make sure that you're dealing with the primitive types that you want to deal with. e.g. Clojure won't generate code to do math on 32-bit ints, it will only generate code to work with longs, and if you don't want that it could be a pain.
It would also be worth some effort to make your in-memory format compatible with a disk format. That would give you the option of memory mapping files, or (at the very least) make your startup easy if your program were to crash. e.g. It could just read the files on disk to recover its previous state.
I wonder what kind of reliability guarantees NTFS provides about the data stored on it? For example, suppose I'm opening a file, appending to the end, then closing it, and the power goes out at a random time during this operation. Could I find the file completely corrupted?
I'm asking because I just had a system lock-up and found two of the files that were being appended to completely zeroed out. That is, of the right size, but made entirely of the zero byte. I thought this isn't supposed to happen on NTFS, even when things fail.
NTFS is a transactional file system, so it guarantees integrity - but only for the metadata (MFT), not the (file) content.
The short answer is that NTFS does metadata journaling, which assures valid metadata.
Other modifications (to the body of a file) are not journaled, so they're not guaranteed.
There are file systems that do journaling of all writes (e.g., AIX has one, if memory serves), but with them, you tend to get a tradeoff between disk utilization and write speed. IOW, you need a lot of "free" space to get decent performance -- they basically just do all writes to free space, and link that new data into the right spots in the file. Then they go through and clean out the garbage (i.e., free up parts that have since been overwritten, and usually coalesce the pieces of a file together as well). This can get slow if they have to do it very often though.
I'm interested in an efficient way to read a large number of files on the disk. I want to know if I sort files by device and then by inode I'll got some speed improvement against natural file reading.
There are vast speed improvements to be had from reading files in physical order from rotating storage. Operating system I/O scheduling mechanisms only do any real work if there are several processes or threads contending for I/O, because they have no information about what files you plan to read in the future. Hence, other than simple read-ahead, they usually don't help you at all.
Furthermore, Linux worsens your access patterns during directory scans by returning directory entries to user space in hash table order rather than physical order. Luckily, Linux also provides system calls to determine the physical location of a file, and whether or not a file is stored on a rotational device, so you can recover some of the losses. See for example this patch I submitted to dpkg a few years ago:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2009/11/msg00002.html
This patch does not incorporate a test for rotational devices, because this feature was not added to Linux until 2012:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ef00f59c95fe6e002e7c6e3663cdea65e253f4cc
I also used to run a patched version of mutt that would scan Maildirs in physical order, usually giving a 5x-10x speed improvement.
Note that inodes are small, heavily prefetched and cached, so opening files to get their physical location before reading is well worth the cost. It's true that common tools like tar, rsync, cp and PostgreSQL do not use these techniques, and the simple truth is that this makes them unnecessarily slow.
Back in the 1970s I proposed to our computer center that reading/writing from/to disk would be faster overall if they organized the queue of disk reads and/or writes in such a way as to minimize the seek time and I was told by the computer center that their experiments and information from IBM that many studies had been made of several techniques and that the overall throughput of JOBS (not just a single job) was most optimal if disk reads/writes were done in first come first serve order. This was an IBM batch system.
In general, optimisation techniques for file access are too tied to the architecture of your storage subsystem for them to be something as simple as a sorting algorithm.
1) You can effectively multiply the read data rate if your files are spread into multiple physical drives (not just partitions) and you read two or more files in parallel from different drives. This one is probably the only method that is easy to implement.
2) Sorting the files by name or inode number does not really change anything in the general case. What you'd want is to sort the files by the physical location of their blocks on the disk, so that they can be read with minimal seeking. There are quite a few obstacles however:
Most filesystems do not provide such information to userspace applications, unless it's for debugging reasons.
The blocks themselves of each file can be spread all over the disk, especially on a mostly full filesystem. There is no way to read multiple files sequentially without seeking back and forth.
You are assuming that your process is the only one accessing the storage subsystem. Once there is at least someone else doing the same, every optimisation you come up with goes out of the window.
You are trying to be smarter than the operating system and its own caching and I/O scheduling mechanisms. It's very likely that by trying to second-guess the kernel, i.e. the only one that really knows your system and your usage patterns, you will make things worse.
Don't you think e.g. PostreSQL pr Oracle would have used a similar technique if they could? When the DB is installed on a proper filesystem they let the kernel do its thing and don't try to second-guess its decisions. Only when the DB is on a raw device do the specialised optimisation algorithms that take physical blocks into account come into play.
You should also take the specific properties of your storage devices into account. Modern SSDs, for example, make traditional seek-time optimisations obsolete.
This is not a pure programming question, however it impacts the performance of programs using fseek(), hence it is important to know how it works. A little disclaimer so that it doesn't get closed.
I am wondering how efficient it is to insert data in the middle of the file. Supposing I have a file with 1MB data and then I insert something at the 512KB offset. How efficient would that be compared to appending my data at the end of the file? Just to make the example complete lets say I want to insert 16KB of data.
I understand the answer varies depending on the filesystem, however I assume that the techniques used in common filesystems are quite similar and I just want to get the right notion of it.
(disclaimer: I want just to add some hints to this interesting discussion)
IMHO there are some things to take into account:
1) fseek is not a primary system service, but a library function. To evaluate its performance we must consider how the file stream library is implemented. In general, the file I/O library adds a layer of buffering in user space, so the performance of fseek may be quite different if the target position is inside or outside the current buffer. Also, the system services that the I/O libary uses may vary a lot. I.e. on some systems the library uses extensively the file memory mapping if possible.
2) As you said, different filesystems may behave in a very different way. In particular, I would expect that a transactional filesystem must do something very smart and perhaps expensive to be prepared to a possible rollback of an aborted write operation in the middle of a file.
3) Modern OS'es have very aggressive caching algorithms. An "fseeked" file is likely to be already present in cache, so operations become much faster. But they may degrade a lot if the overall filesystem activity produced by other processes become important.
Any comments?
fseek(...) is a library call, not an OS system call. It is the run-time library that takes care of the actual overhead involved in making a system call to the OS, technically speaking, fseek is indirectly making a call to the system but really it is not (this brings up a clear distinction between the differences between a library call and a system call). fseek(...) is a standard input-output function regardless of the underlying system...however...and this is a big however...
The OS will more than likely to have cached the file in its kernel memory, that is, the direct offset to the location on the disk on where the 1's and 0's are stored, it is through the OS's kernel layers, more than likely, a top-most layer within the kernel that would have the snapshot of what the file is composed of, i.e. data irrespectively of what it contains (it does not care either way, as long as the 'pointers' to the disk structure for that offset to the lcoation on the disk is valid!)...
When fseek(..) occurs, there would be a lot of over-head, indirectly, the kernel delegated the task of reading from the disk, depending on how fragmented the file is, it could be theoretically, "all over the place", that could be a significant over-head in terms of having to, from a user-land perspective, i.e. the C code doing an fseek(...), it could be scattering itself all over the place to gather the data into a "one contiguous view of the data" and henceforth, inserting into the middle of a file, (remember at this stage, the kernel would have to adjust the location/offsets into the actual disk platter for the data) would be deemed slower than appending to the end of the file.
The reason is quite simple, the kernel "knows" what was the last offset was, and simply wipe the EOF marker and insert more data, behind the scenes, the kernel, is having to allocate another block of memory for the disk-buffer with the adjusted offset to the location on the disk following an EOF marker, once the appending of data is completed.
Let us assume the ext2 FS and the Linux OS as an example. I don't think there will be a significant performance difference between a insert and an append. In both cases the files node and offset table must be read, the relevant disk sector mapped into memory, the data updated and at some later point the data written back to disk. What will make a big performance difference in this example is good temporal and spatial locality when accessing parts of the file since this will reduce the number of load/store combos.
As a previous answers says you may be able to speed up both operations if you deal with data writes that exact multiples of the FS block size, in this case you could skip the load stage and just insert the new blocks into the files inode datastrucure. This would not be practical, as you would need low level access to the FS driver, and using it would be very restrictive and not portable.
One observation I have made about fseek on Solaris, is that each call to it resets the read buffer of the FILE. The next read will then always read a full block (8K by default). So if you have a lot of random access with small reads it's a good idea to do it unbuffered (setvbuf with NULL buffer) or even use direct syscalls (lseek+read or even better pread which is only 1 syscall instead of 2). I suppose this behaviour will be similar on other OS.
You can insert data to the middle of file efficiently only if data size is a multiple of FS sector but OSes doesn't provide such functions so you have to use low-level interface to the FS driver.
Inserting data in the middle of the file is less efficient than appending to the end because when inserting you would have to move the data after the insertion point to make room for the data being inserted. Moving these data would involve reading them from disk, writing the data to be inserted and then writing the old data after the inserted data. So you have at least one extra read and write when inserting.
I am working on an analysis tool that reads output from a process and continuously converts this to an internal format. After the "logging phase" is complete, analysis is done on the data. The data is all held in memory.
However, due to the fact that all logged information is held in memory, there is a limit on the duration of the logging. For most use cases this is ok, but it should be possible to run for longer, even if this will hurt performance.
Ideally, the program should be able to start using hard drive space in addition to RAM once the RAM usage reaches a certain limit.
This leads to my question:
Are there any existing solutions for doing this? It has to work on both Unix and Windows.
To use the disk after memory is full, we use Cache technologies such as EhCache. They can be configured with the amount of memory to use, and to overflow to disk.
But they also have smarter algorithms you can configure as needed, such as sending to disk data not used in the last 10 minutes etc... This could be a plus for you.
Without knowing more about your application it is not possible to provide a perfect answer. However it does sound a bit like you are re-inventing the wheel. Have you considered using an in-process database library like sqlite?
If you used that or similar it will take care of moving the data to and from the disk and memory and give you powerful SQL query capabilities at the same time. Even if your logging data is in a custom format if each item has a key or index of some kind a small light database may be a good fit.
This might seem too obvious, but what about memory mapped files? This does what you want and even allows a 32 bit application to use much more than 4GB of memory. The principle is simple, you allocate the memory you need (on disk) and then map just a portion of that into system memory. You could, for example, map something like 75% of the available physical memory size. Then work on it, and when you need another portion of the data, just re-map. The downside to this is that you have to do the mapping manually, but that's not necessarily bad. The good thing is that you can use more data than what fits into physical memory and into the per-process memory limit. It works really great if you actually use only part of the data at any given time.
There may be libraries that do this automatically, like the one KLE suggested (though I do not know that one). Doing it manually means you'll learn a lot about it and have more control, though I'd prefer a library if it does exactly what you want with regard to how and when the disk is being used.
This works similar on both Windows on Unix. For Windows, here is an article by Raymond Chen that shows a simple example.