I have an application where i have 1000+ small parts of 1 large file.
I have to upload maximum of 16 parts at a time.
I used Thread parallel library of .Net.
I used Parallel.For to divide in multiple parts and assigned 1 method which should be executed for each part and set DegreeOfParallelism to 16.
I need to execute 1 method with checksum values which are generated by different part uploads, so i have to set certain mechanism where i have to wait for all parts upload say 1000 to complete.
In TPL library i am facing 1 issue is it is randomly executing any of the 16 threads from 1000.
I want some mechanism using which i can run first 16 threads initially, if the 1st or 2nd or any of the 16 thread completes its task next 17th part should be started.
How can i achieve this ?
One possible candidate for this can be TPL Dataflow. This is a demonstration which takes in a stream of integers and prints them out to the console. You set the MaxDegreeOfParallelism to whichever many threads you wish to spin in parallel:
void Main()
{
var actionBlock = new ActionBlock<int>(
i => Console.WriteLine(i),
new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions {MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 16});
foreach (var i in Enumerable.Range(0, 200))
{
actionBlock.Post(i);
}
}
This can also scale well if you want to have multiple producer/consumers.
Here is the manual way of doing this.
You need a queue. The queue is sequence of pending tasks. You have to dequeue and put them inside list of working task. When ever the task is done remove it from list of working task and take another from queue. Main thread controls this process. Here is the sample of how to do this.
For the test i used List of integer but it should work for other types because its using generics.
private static void Main()
{
Random r = new Random();
var items = Enumerable.Range(0, 100).Select(x => r.Next(100, 200)).ToList();
ParallelQueue(items, DoWork);
}
private static void ParallelQueue<T>(List<T> items, Action<T> action)
{
Queue pending = new Queue(items);
List<Task> working = new List<Task>();
while (pending.Count + working.Count != 0)
{
if (pending.Count != 0 && working.Count < 16) // Maximum tasks
{
var item = pending.Dequeue(); // get item from queue
working.Add(Task.Run(() => action((T)item))); // run task
}
else
{
Task.WaitAny(working.ToArray());
working.RemoveAll(x => x.IsCompleted); // remove finished tasks
}
}
}
private static void DoWork(int i) // do your work here.
{
// this is just an example
Task.Delay(i).Wait();
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
Please let me know if you encounter problem of how to implement DoWork for your self. because if you change method signature you may need to do some changes.
Update
You can also do this with async await without blocking the main thread.
private static void Main()
{
Random r = new Random();
var items = Enumerable.Range(0, 100).Select(x => r.Next(100, 200)).ToList();
Task t = ParallelQueue(items, DoWork);
// able to do other things.
t.Wait();
}
private static async Task ParallelQueue<T>(List<T> items, Func<T, Task> func)
{
Queue pending = new Queue(items);
List<Task> working = new List<Task>();
while (pending.Count + working.Count != 0)
{
if (working.Count < 16 && pending.Count != 0)
{
var item = pending.Dequeue();
working.Add(Task.Run(async () => await func((T)item)));
}
else
{
await Task.WhenAny(working);
working.RemoveAll(x => x.IsCompleted);
}
}
}
private static async Task DoWork(int i)
{
await Task.Delay(i);
}
var workitems = ... /*e.g. Enumerable.Range(0, 1000000)*/;
SingleItemPartitioner.Create(workitems)
.AsParallel()
.AsOrdered()
.WithDegreeOfParallelism(16)
.WithMergeOptions(ParallelMergeOptions.NotBuffered)
.ForAll(i => { Thread.Slee(1000); Console.WriteLine(i); });
This should be all you need. I forgot how the methods are named exactly... Look at the documentation.
Test this by printing to the console after sleeping for 1sec (which this sample code does).
Another option would be to use a BlockingCollection<T> as a queue between your file reader thread and your 16 uploader threads. Each uploader thread would just loop around consuming the blocking collection until it is complete.
And, if you want to limit memory consumption in the queue you can set an upper limit on the blocking collection such that the file-reader thread will pause when the buffer has reached capacity. This is particularly useful in a server environment where you may need to limit memory used per user/API call.
// Create a buffer of 4 chunks between the file reader and the senders
BlockingCollection<Chunk> queue = new BlockingCollection<Chunk>(4);
// Create a cancellation token source so you can stop this gracefully
CancellationTokenSource cts = ...
File reader thread
...
queue.Add(chunk, cts.Token);
...
queue.CompleteAdding();
Sending threads
for(int i = 0; i < 16; i++)
{
Task.Run(() => {
foreach (var chunk in queue.GetConsumingEnumerable(cts.Token))
{
.. do the upload
}
});
}
Related
I am using the HTTPClient in System.Net.Http to make requests against an API. The API is limited to 10 requests per second.
My code is roughly like so:
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
items..Select(i => tasks.Add(ProcessItem(i));
try
{
await Task.WhenAll(taskList.ToArray());
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
The ProcessItem method does a few things but always calls the API using the following:
await SendRequestAsync(..blah). Which looks like:
private async Task<Response> SendRequestAsync(HttpRequestMessage request, CancellationToken token)
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
var response = await HttpClient
.SendAsync(request: request, cancellationToken: token).ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
return await Response.BuildResponse(response);
}
Originally the code worked fine but when I started using Task.WhenAll I started getting 'Rate Limit Exceeded' messages from the API. How can I limit the rate at which requests are made?
Its worth noting that ProcessItem can make between 1-4 API calls depending on the item.
The API is limited to 10 requests per second.
Then just have your code do a batch of 10 requests, ensuring they take at least one second:
Items[] items = ...;
int index = 0;
while (index < items.Length)
{
var timer = Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.2)); // ".2" to make sure
var tasks = items.Skip(index).Take(10).Select(i => ProcessItemsAsync(i));
var tasksAndTimer = tasks.Concat(new[] { timer });
await Task.WhenAll(tasksAndTimer);
index += 10;
}
Update
My ProcessItems method makes 1-4 API calls depending on the item.
In this case, batching is not an appropriate solution. You need to limit an asynchronous method to a certain number, which implies a SemaphoreSlim. The tricky part is that you want to allow more calls over time.
I haven't tried this code, but the general idea I would go with is to have a periodic function that releases the semaphore up to 10 times. So, something like this:
private readonly SemaphoreSlim _semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(10);
private async Task<Response> ThrottledSendRequestAsync(HttpRequestMessage request, CancellationToken token)
{
await _semaphore.WaitAsync(token);
return await SendRequestAsync(request, token);
}
private async Task PeriodicallyReleaseAsync(Task stop)
{
while (true)
{
var timer = Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.2));
if (await Task.WhenAny(timer, stop) == stop)
return;
// Release the semaphore at most 10 times.
for (int i = 0; i != 10; ++i)
{
try
{
_semaphore.Release();
}
catch (SemaphoreFullException)
{
break;
}
}
}
}
Usage:
// Start the periodic task, with a signal that we can use to stop it.
var stop = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
var periodicTask = PeriodicallyReleaseAsync(stop.Task);
// Wait for all item processing.
await Task.WhenAll(taskList);
// Stop the periodic task.
stop.SetResult(null);
await periodicTask;
The answer is similar to this one.
Instead of using a list of tasks and WhenAll, use Parallel.ForEach and use ParallelOptions to limit the number of concurrent tasks to 10, and make sure each one takes at least 1 second:
Parallel.ForEach(
items,
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 10 },
async item => {
ProcessItems(item);
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
);
Or if you want to make sure each item takes as close to 1 second as possible:
Parallel.ForEach(
searches,
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 10 },
async item => {
var watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
ProcessItems(item);
watch.Stop();
if (watch.ElapsedMilliseconds < 1000) await Task.Delay((int)(1000 - watch.ElapsedMilliseconds));
}
);
Or:
Parallel.ForEach(
searches,
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 10 },
async item => {
await Task.WhenAll(
Task.Delay(1000),
Task.Run(() => { ProcessItems(item); })
);
}
);
UPDATED ANSWER
My ProcessItems method makes 1-4 API calls depending on the item. So with a batch size of 10 I still exceed the rate limit.
You need to implement a rolling window in SendRequestAsync. A queue containing timestamps of each request is a suitable data structure. You dequeue entries with a timestamp older than 10 seconds. As it so happens, there is an implementation as an answer to a similar question on SO.
ORIGINAL ANSWER
May still be useful to others
One straightforward way to handle this is to batch your requests in groups of 10, run those concurrently, and then wait until a total of 10 seconds has elapsed (if it hasn't already). This will bring you in right at the rate limit if the batch of requests can complete in 10 seconds, but is less than optimal if the batch of requests takes longer. Have a look at the .Batch() extension method in MoreLinq. Code would look approximately like
foreach (var taskList in tasks.Batch(10))
{
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); // From System.Diagnostics
await Task.WhenAll(taskList.ToArray());
if (sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds < 10.0)
{
// Calculate how long you still have to wait and sleep that long
// You might want to wait 10.5 or 11 seconds just in case the rate
// limiting on the other side isn't perfectly implemented
}
}
https://github.com/thomhurst/EnumerableAsyncProcessor
I've written a library to help with this sort of logic.
Usage would be:
var responses = await AsyncProcessorBuilder.WithItems(items) // Or Extension Method: items.ToAsyncProcessorBuilder()
.SelectAsync(item => ProcessItem(item), CancellationToken.None)
.ProcessInParallel(levelOfParallelism: 10, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
I currently have a function that perform a set of 10 tasks in parallel. After the 10 tasks completes i move on to the next 10 until my queue is empty. I am looking forward to increase the efficiency of that algorithm as right now if 9 of my tasks have completed in 1 min and my 10th task is taking another 10 min i need to wait for all the 10 task to complete even though i have 9 spot free for 9 other task to start using.
Is there a way that when a task is completed, i immediately send another task for processing within that same level(for each loop). I saw that concurrent Dictionary can be use. Can you please guide and provide some sample code.
public async Task Test()
{
List<task> listoftasks =new List<Task>();
foreach(level in levels)
{
Queue<Model1> queue=new Queue<Model1>(Store);
while(queue.Count>0)
{
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
if(!queue.TryDequeue(out Model1 item))
{
break;
}
listoftasks.Add(Task.Run(()=>Dosomething(sql)))
}
await Task.WhenAll(listoftasks);
listoftasks .Clear();
}
}
}
You can just use LimitedConcurrencyLevelTaskScheduler to achieve desired behavour (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.threading.tasks.taskscheduler?view=net-5.0). In this case you can just push all tasks at one moment and they will be executed with desired level of concurrency (not more then 10 tasks at the parallel in your case).
You can get each Task to dequeue an item. Use a ConcurrentQueue to ensure thread-safety.
It's kind of a poor-man's scheduler, but it's very lightweight.
ConcurrentQueue<Model1> queue;
void Dequeue()
{
while(queue.TryDequeue(out var item))
DoSomething(item);
}
public async Task Test()
{
queue = new ConcurrentQueue<Model1>(Store);
var listoftasks = new List<Task>();
for (var i = 0; i < Environment.ProcessorCount; i++)
listoftasks.Add(Task.Run(() => Dequeue()));
await Task.WhenAll(listoftasks);
}
Note: this does not handle exceptions, so all exceptions must be handled or swallowed
Personally I'd use an ActionBlock (out of the TPL Dataflow library). It has
built in MaxDegreeOfParallelism
Can easily deal with async IO Bound workloads, or non async CPU Bound workloads
Has cancelation support (if needed)
Can be built into larger pipelines
Can run as perpetual consumer in a multi-producer environment
Given
private ActionBlock<Model> _processor;
Setup
_processor = new ActionBlock<Model>(
DoSomething,
new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions()
{
CancellationToken = SomeCancelationTokenIfNeeded,
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 10,
SingleProducerConstrained = true
});
Some Method
public static void DoSomething(Model item)
{ ... }
Usage
await _processor.SendAsync(someItem);
I have an array of filepath in List<string> with thousands of files. I want to process them in a function parallel with 8 threads.
ParallelOptions opt= new ParallelOptions();
opt.TaskScheduler = null;
opt.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 8;
Parallel.ForEach(fileList, opt, item => DoSomething(item));
This code works fine for me but it guarantees to run max 8 threads and I want to run 8 threads always. CLR decides the number of threads to be use as per CPU load.
Please suggest a way in threading that always 8 threads are used in computing with minimum overhead.
Use a producer / consumer model. Create one producer and 8 consumers. For example:
BlockingCollection<string> _filesToProcess = new BlockingCollection<string>();
// start 8 tasks to do the processing
List<Task> _consumers = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < 8; ++i)
{
var t = Task.Factory.StartNew(ProcessFiles, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
_consumers.Add(t);
}
// Populate the queue
foreach (var filename in filelist)
{
_filesToProcess.Add(filename);
}
// Mark the collection as complete for adding
_filesToProcess.CompleteAdding();
// wait for consumers to finish
Task.WaitAll(_consumers.ToArray(), Timeout.Infinite);
Your processing method removes things from the BlockingCollection and processes them:
void ProcessFiles()
{
foreach (var filename in _filesToProcess.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
// do something with the file name
}
}
That will keep 8 threads running until the collection is empty. Assuming, of course, you have 8 cores on which to run the threads. If you have fewer available cores, then there will be a lot of context switching, which will cost you.
See BlockingCollection for more information.
Within a static counter, you might be able to get the number of current threads.
Every time you call start a task there is the possibility to use the Task.ContinueWith (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd270696.aspx) to notify that it's over and you can start another one.
This way there is going to be always 8 tasks running.
OrderablePartitioner<Tuple<int, int>> chunkPart = Partitioner.Create(0, fileList.Count, 1);//Partition the list in chunk of 1 entry
ParallelOptions opt= new ParallelOptions();
opt.TaskScheduler = null;
opt.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 8;
Parallel.ForEach(chunkPart, opt, chunkRange =>
{
for (int i = chunkRange.Item1; i < chunkRange.Item2; i++)
{
DoSomething(fileList[i].FullName);
}
});
I'm using C# Parallel.ForEach to process more than thousand subsets of data. One set takes 5-30 minutes to process, depending on size of the set. In my computer with option
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = Environment.ProcessorCount
I'll get 8 parallel processes. As I understood, processes are divided equally between parallel tasks (e.g. the first task gets jobs number 1,9,17 etc, the second gets 2,10,18 etc.); therefore, one task can finish own jobs sooner than others. Because those sets of data took less time than others.
The problem is that four parallel tasks finish their jobs within 24 hours, but the last one finish in 48 hours. It there some chance to organize parallelism so that all parallel tasks are finishing equally? It means all parallel tasks continue working until all jobs are done?
Since the jobs are not equal, you can't split the number of jobs between processors and have them finish at about the same time. I think what you need here is 8 worker threads that retrieve the next job in line. You will have to use a lock on the function to get the next job.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but off the top of my head... a worker thread could be given a function like this:
public void ProcessJob()
{
for (Job myJob = GetNextJob(); myJob != null; myJob = GetNextJob())
{
// process job
}
}
And the function to get the next job would look like:
private List<Job> jobs;
private int currentJob = 0;
private Job GetNextJob()
{
lock (jobs)
{
Job job = null;
if (currentJob < jobs.Count)
{
job = jobs[currentJob];
currentJob++;
}
return job;
}
}
It seems that there is no ready-to-use solution and it has to be created.
My previous code was:
var ListOfSets = (from x in Database
group x by x.SetID into z
select new { ID = z.Key}).ToList();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(ListOfSets, po, SingleSet=>
{
AnalyzeSet(SingleSet.ID);
});
To share work equally between all CPU-s, I still use Parallel to do the work, but instead of ForEach I use For and an idea from Matt. The new code is:
Parallel.For(0, Environment.ProcessorCount, i=>
{
while(ListOfSets.Count() > 0)
{
double SetID = 0;
lock (ListOfSets)
{
SetID = ListOfSets[0].ID;
ListOfSets.RemoveAt(0);
}
AnalyzeSet(SetID);
}
});
So, thank you for your advice.
One option, as suggested by others, is to manage your own producer consumer queue. I'd like to note that using the BlockingCollection makes this very easy to do.
BlockingCollection<JobData> queue = new BlockingCollection<JobData>();
//add data to queue; if it can be done quickly, just do it inline.
//If it's expensive, start a new task/thread just to add items to the queue.
foreach (JobData job in data)
queue.Add(job);
queue.CompleteAdding();
for (int i = 0; i < Environment.ProcessorCount; i++)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
foreach (var job in queue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
ProcessJob(job);
}
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
}
Say I have 10N items(I need to fetch them via http protocol), in the code N Tasks are started to get data, each task takes 10 items in sequence. I put the items in a ConcurrentQueue<Item>. After that, the items are processed in a thread-unsafe method one by one.
async Task<Item> GetItemAsync()
{
//fetch one item from the internet
}
async Task DoWork()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
var items = new ConcurrentQueue<Item>();
var handles = new List<ManualResetEvent>();
for i 1 -> N
{
var handle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
handles.Add(handle);
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(async delegate
{
for j 1 -> 10
{
var item = await GetItemAsync();
items.Enqueue(item);
}
handle.Set();
});
}
//begin to process the items when any handle is set
WaitHandle.WaitAny(handles);
while(true)
{
if (all handles are set && items collection is empty) //***
break;
//in another word: all tasks are really completed
while(items.TryDequeue(out item))
{
AThreadUnsafeMethod(item); //process items one by one
}
}
}
I don't know what if condition can be placed in the statement marked ***. I can't use Task.IsCompleted property here, because I use await in the task, so the task is completed very soon. And a bool[] that indicates whether the task is executed to the end looks really ugly, because I think ManualResetEvent can do the same work. Can anyone give me a suggestion?
Well, you could build this yourself, but I think it's tons easier with TPL Dataflow.
Something like:
static async Task DoWork()
{
// By default, ActionBlock uses MaxDegreeOfParallelism == 1,
// so AThreadUnsafeMethod is not called in parallel.
var block = new ActionBlock<Item>(AThreadUnsafeMethod);
// Start off N tasks, each asynchronously acquiring 10 items.
// Each item is sent to the block as it is received.
var tasks = Enumerable.Range(0, N).Select(Task.Run(
async () =>
{
for (int i = 0; i != 10; ++i)
block.Post(await GetItemAsync());
})).ToArray();
// Complete the block when all tasks have completed.
Task.WhenAll(tasks).ContinueWith(_ => { block.Complete(); });
// Wait for the block to complete.
await block.Completion;
}
You can do a WaitOne with a timeout of zero to check the state. Something like this should work:
if (handles.All(handle => handle.WaitOne(TimeSpan.Zero)) && !items.Any())
break;
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc190477.aspx
Thanks all. At last I found CountDownEvent is very suitable for this scenario. The general implementation looks like this:(for others' information)
for i 1 -> N
{
//start N tasks
//invoke CountDownEvent.Signal() at the end of each task
}
//see if CountDownEvent.IsSet here