I am attempting to generate a large workbook based report with 3 supporting worksheets of 100,12000 and 12000 rows and a final output sheet all formula based that ends up representing about 120 entities at 100 rows a piece. I generate a template range and copy and paste it replacing the entity ID cell after pasting each new range. It is working fine but I noticed that memory usage in the IIS Express process is approx 500mb and it is taking 100% processor usage as well.
Are there any guidelines for generating workbooks in this manner?
At least in terms of memory utilization, it would help to have some comparison, maybe against Excel, in how much memory is utilized to simply have the resultant workbook opened. For instance, if you were to open the final report in both Excel and the "SpreadsheetGear 2012 for Windows" application (available in the SpreadsheetGear folder under the Start menu), what does the Task Manager measure for each of these applications in terms of memory consumption? This may provide some insight as to whether the memory utilization you are seeing in the actual report-building process is unusually high (is there a lot of extra overhead for your routine?), or just typical given the size of the workbook you are generating.
In terms of CPU utilization, this one is a bit more difficult to pinpoint and is certainly dependent on your hardware as well as implementation details in your code. Running a VS Profiler against your routine certainly would be interesting to look into, if you have this tool available to you. Generally speaking, the CPU time could potentially be broken up into a couple broad categories—CPU cycles used to "build" your workbook and CPU cycles to "calculate" it. It could be helpful to better determine which of these is dominating the CPU. One way to do this might be to, if possible, ensure that calculations don't occur until you are finished actually generating the workbook. In fact, avoiding any unnecessary calculations could potentially speed things up...it depends on the workbook, though. You could avoid calculations by setting IWorkbookSet.Calculation to Manual mode and not calling any of the IWorkbook’s "Calculate" methods (Calculate/CalculateFull/CalculateFullRebuild) until you are fished up with this process. If you don't have access to a Profiler too, maybe set some timers, Console.WriteLines and monitor the Task Manager to see how your CPU fluctuates during different parts of your routine. With any luck you might be able to better isolate what part of the routine is taking the most amount of time.
Related
I currently do CPU sampling of an ASP.NET Core application where I send huge number of requests(> 500K) to it. I see that the peak working set of the application is around ~300 MB which in my opinion is not huge considering the number of requests being made to the application. But what I have been observing is huge drop in requests per second when I enable certain pieces of functionality in my application.
Question:
Should I do memory profiling too? I ask this because even though the peak working set is ~300MB, there could be large number of short lived objects that could be created & collected by GC and since work by GC also counts as CPU, should I do memory profiling too to see if I allocate too much?
I will answer this question myself based on new information that I found out.
This is based on the tool PerfView, which provides information about GC and allocations.
When you open the GCStats view navigate the links to the process you care and you should see information like below:
Notice that view has the information has the % CPU Time spent Garbage Collecting. If you see this to be > 5% then it should be a cause of concern and you should start memory profiling.
I am inserting a set of files (pdfs, of each 2 MB) in my database.
Inserting 100 files at once takes +- 15 seconds, while inserting 250 files at once takes 80 seconds.
I am not quite sure why this big difference is happening, but I assume it is because the amount of free memory is full between this amount. Could this be the problem?
If there is any more detail I can provide, please let me know.
Not exactly sure of what is happening on your side but it really looks like what is described here in the neo4j performance guide.
It could be:
Memory issues
If you are experiencing poor write performance after writing some data
(initially fast, then massive slowdown) it may be the operating system
that is writing out dirty pages from the memory mapped regions of the
store files. These regions do not need to be written out to maintain
consistency so to achieve highest possible write speed that type of
behavior should be avoided.
Transaction size
Are you using multiple transactions to upload your files ?
Many small transactions result in a lot of I/O writes to disc and
should be avoided. Too big transactions can result in OutOfMemory
errors, since the uncommitted transaction data is held on the Java
Heap in memory.
If you are on linux, they also suggest some tuning to improve performance. See here.
You can look up the details on the page.
Also, if you are on linux, you can check memory usage by yourself during import by using this command:
$ free -m
I hope this helps!
Most available desktop (cheap) x86 platforms now still nave no ECC memory support (Error Checking & Correction). But the rate of memory bit-flip errors is still growing (not the best SO thread, Large scale CERN 2007 study "Data integrity": "Bit Error Rate of 10-12 for their memory modules ... observed error rate is 4 orders of magnitude lower than expected"; 2009 Google's "DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study"). For current hardware with data-intensive load (8 GB/s of reading) this means that single bit flip may occur every minute (10-12 vendors BER from CERN07) or once in two days (10-16 BER from CERN07). Google09 says that there can be up to 25000-75000 one-bit FIT per Mbit (failures in time per billion hours), which is equal to 1 - 5 bit errors per hour for 8GB of RAM ("mean correctable error rates of 2000–6000 per GB per year").
So, I want to know, is it possible to add some kind of software error detection in system-wide manner (check both user and kernel memory). For example, create a patch for Linux kernel and/or to system compiler to add some checksumming of every memory page, and try to detect silent memory corruptions (bit-flips) by regular recomputing of checksums?
For example, can we see all writes to memory (both from user and kernel space), to distinguish between intended memory changes from in-memory bit flips? Or can we somehow instrument all codes with some helper?
I understand that any kind of software memory ECC may cost a lot of performance and will not catch all errors, but I think it can be useful to detect at least some memory bit-flips early, before they will be reused in later computations or stored to hard drive.
I also understand that better way of data protection from memory bitflips is to switch to ECC hardware, but most PC there are still non-ECC.
The thing is, ECC is dirt cheap compared to "software ECC countermeasures". You can easily detect if they have ECC modules and complain (or print a warning) when they don't.
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/ecc-memory-modules/
For example, can we see all writes to memory (both from user and kernel space), to distinguish between intended memory changes from in-memory bit flips? Or can we somehow instrument all codes with some helper?
Er, you you will never "see" the bit-flips on the bus. They are literally caused by a particle hitting RAM, flipping a bit. Only much later can you notice that you read out something different than your wrote in. To detect this only via the bus, you would need a duplicate copy of all your RAM (i.e. create a shadow copy of what is in your real RAM, so you can verify every read returns what was written to that location.)
try to detect silent memory corruptions (bit-flips) by regular recomputing of checksums?
The Redis guy has a nice write-up on an algorithm for testing RAM for problems. http://antirez.com/news/43 But this is really looking for RAM errors, not random bit-flips.
If "recompute checksums" only works when you are NOT writing to the memory. That might be "good enough" but you'll need to figure out which pages are not being written to.
To catch 100% of the errors, every write must be pre-ceeded by computing the checksum of that block of memory, then comparing it to the recorded checksum (to make sure that block hasn't degraded in RAM). Only then is it safe to do the write and then update the checksum. As you can imagine, the performance of this will be horrible (at least 100x slower) performance.
I understand that any kind of software memory ECC may cost a lot of performance and will not catch all errors, but I think it can be useful to detect at least some memory bit-flips early, before they will be reused in later computations or stored to hard drive.
Well, there is a simple method to detect 100% of the errors, at a cost of 50% performance: Just run the computation on 2 boxes at once (or on one box at two different times, maybe with a RAM test in between if you are paranoid.) If the results differ, you have detected an error.
See also:
https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/how-to-detect-ecc-memory-errors-under-linux-886011/
The answer to the question is yes, and a proof for that is the software SoftECC posted in the comments!
Just a note that SoftECC is a kernel level solution. If a user-land app is used, it will be a third stage of redundancy, that seems not necessary.
I'm trying to put together a model of a computer and run some simulations on it (part of a school assignment). It's a very simple model - a CPU, a disk and a process generator that generates user processes that take turns in using the CPU and accessing the disk (I've decided to omit the various system processes, because according to Process Explorer they use next to no CPU time - I'm basing this on the Microsoft Process Explorer tool, running on Windows 7). And this is where I've stopped at.
I have no idea how to get relevant data on how often do various processes read/write to disk and how much data at once, and how much time they spend using the CPU. Let's say I want to get some statistics for some typical operations on a PC - playing music/movies, browsing the internet, playing games, working with Office, video editing and so on...is there even a way to gather such data?
I'm simulating preemptive multitasking using RR with a time quantum of 15ms for switching processes, and this is how it looks:
->Process gets to CPU
->Process does its work in 0-15ms, gives up the CPU or is cut off
And now, two options arise:
a)process just sits and waits before it gets the CPU again or before it gets some user input if there is nothing to do
b)process requested data from disk, and does not rejoin the queue until said data is available
And i would like the decision between a) and b) in the model be done based on a probability, for example 90% for a) and 10% for b). But I do not know how to get those percentages to be at least a bit realistic for a certain type of process. Also, how much data can and does a process typically access at once?
Any hints, sources, utilities available for this?
I think I found an answer myself, albeit an unreliable one.
The Process Explorer utility for Windows measures disk I/O - by volume and by occurences. So there's a rough way to get the answer:
say a process performs 3 000 reads in 30 minutes, whilst using 2% of CPU during that time (assuming a single core CPU). So the process has used 36000ms of CPU time, divided into ~5200 blocks (this is the unreliable part - the process in all proabbility does not use the whole of the time slot, so I'll just divide by half the time slot). 3000/5200 gives a 57% chance of reading data after using the CPU.
I hope I did not misunderstand the "reads" statistic in Process Explorer.
I have an application that has multiple threads processing work from a todo queue. I have no influence over what gets into the queue and in what order (it is fed externally by the user). A single work item from the queue may take anywhere between a couple of seconds to several hours of runtime and should not be interrupted while processing. Also, a single work item may consume between a couple of megabytes to around 2GBs of memory. The memory consumption is my problem. I'm running as a 64bit process on a 8GB machine with 8 parallel threads. If each of them hits a worst case work item at the same time I run out of memory. I'm wondering about the best way to work around this.
plan conservatively and run 4 threads only. The worst case shouldn't be a problem anymore, but we waste a lot of parallelism, making the average case a lot slower.
make each thread check available memory (or rather total allocated memory by all threads) before starting with a new item. Only start when more than 2GB memory are left. Recheck periodically, hoping that other threads will finish their memory hogs and we may start eventually.
try to predict how much memory items from the queue will need (hard) and plan accordingly. We could reorder the queue (overriding user choice) or simply adjust the number of running worker threads.
more ideas?
I'm currently tending towards number 2 because it seems simple to implement and solve most cases. However, I'm still wondering what standard ways of handling situations like this exist? The operating system must do something very similar on a process level after all...
regards,
Sören
So your current worst-case memory usage is 16GB. With only 8GB of RAM, you'd be lucky to have 6 or 7GB left after the OS and system processes take their share. So on average you're already going to be thrashing memory on a moderately loaded system. How many cores does the machine have? Do you have 8 worker threads because it is an 8-core machine?
Basically you can either reduce memory consumption, or increase available memory. Your option 1, running only 4 threads, under-utilitises the CPU resources, which could halve your throughput - definitely sub-optimal.
Option 2 is possible, but risky. Memory management is very complex, and querying for available memory is no guarantee that you will be able to go ahead and allocate that amount (without causing paging). A burst of disk I/O could cause the system to increase the cache size, a background process could start up and swap in its working set, and any number of other factors. For these reasons, the smaller the available memory, the less you can rely on it. Also, over time memory fragmentation can cause problems too.
Option 3 is interesting, but could easily lead to under-loading the CPU. If you have a run of jobs that have high memory requirements, you could end up running only a few threads, and be in the same situation as option 1, where you are under-loading the cores.
So taking the "reduce consumption" strategy, do you actually need to have the entire data set in memory at once? Depending on the algorithm and the data access pattern (eg. random versus sequential) you could progressively load the data. More esoteric approaches might involve compression, depending on your data and the algorithm (but really, it's probably a waste of effort).
Then there's "increase available memory". In terms of price/performance, you should seriously consider simply purchasing more RAM. Sometimes, investing in more hardware is cheaper than the development time to achieve the same end result. For example, you could put in 32GB of RAM for a few hundred dollars, and this would immediately improve performance without adding any complexity to the solution. With the performance pressure off, you could profile the application to see just where you can make the software more efficient.
I have continued the discussion on Herb Sutter's blog and provoced some very helpful reader comments. Head over to Sutter's Mill if you are interested.
Thanks for all the suggestions so far!
Sören
Difficult to propose solutions without knowing exactly what you're doing, but how about considering:
See if your processing algorithm can access the data in smaller sections without loading the whole work item into memory.
Consider developing a service-based solution so that the work is carried out by another process (possibly a web service). This way you could scale the solution to run over multiple servers, perhaps using a load balancer to distribute the work.
Are you persisting the incoming work items to disk before processing them? If not, they probably should be anyway, particularly if it may be some time before the processor gets to them.
Is the memory usage proportional to the size of the incoming work item, or otherwise easy to calculate? Knowing this would help to decide how to schedule processing.
Hope that helps?!