Develop Reference

How many tasks are too many?

I'm currently working on an application that relies on many different web services to get data. Since I want to modularize each service and have a bit of dependency in there (service1 must run before service 2 and 3 etc), I'm running each service in its own task.
The tasks themselves are either
running actively, meaning they're sending their request to the web service and are waiting for a response or processing the response
waiting (via monitor and timeout) - once a task finishes all waiting tasks wake up and check if their dependencies have finished
Now, the system is running with what I would call good performance (especially since the performance is rather negligible) - however, the application generates quite a number of tasks.
So, to my question: are ~200 tasks in this scenario too many? Do they generate that much overhead so that a basically non-threaded approach would be better?

The general answer is "Measure, Measure, Measure" :) if you're not experiencing any problems with performance, you shouldn't start optimizing.
I'd say 200 tasks are fine though. The beauty of tasks compared to threads is their low overhead compared to "real" threads and even the thread pool. The TaskScheduler is making sure all the hardware threads are utilized as much as possible with the least amount of thread switching. it does this by various tricks such as running child tasks serially, stealing work from queues on other threads and so on.
You can also give the TaskScheduler some hints about what a specific task is going to do via the TaskCreationOptions
If you want some numbers, check out this post, as you can see, Tpl is pretty cheap in terms of overhead:
.NET 4.0 - Performance of Task Parallel Library (TPL), by Daniel Palme
This is another interesting article on the subject:
CLR Inside Out: Using concurrency for scalability, by Joe Duffy

When to use Multithread?

When do you use threads in a application? For example, in simple CRUD operations, use of smtp, calling webservices that may take a few time if the server is facing bandwith issues, etc.
To be honest, i don't know how to determine if i need to use a thread (i know that it must be when we're excepting that a operation will take a few time to be done).
This may be a "noob" question but it'll be great if you share with me your experience in threads.
Thanks

I added C# and .NET tags to your question because you mention C# in your title. If that is not accurate, feel free to remove the tags.
There are different styles of multithreading. For example, there are asynchronous operations with callback functions. .NET 4 introduces the parallel Linq library. The style of multithreading you would use, or whether to use any at all, depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
Parallel execution, such as what parallel Linq would generally be trying to do, takes advantage of multiple processor cores executing instructions that do not need to wait for data from each other. There are many sources for such algorithms outside Linq, such as this. However, it is possible that parallel execution may be unable to you or that it does not suit your application.
More traditional multithreading takes advantage of threading within the .NET library (in this case) as provided by System.Thread. Remember that there is some overhead in starting processes on threads, so only use threads when the advantages of doing so outweigh this overhead. Generally speaking, you would only want to use this type of single-processor multithreading when the task running under the thread will have long gaps in which the processor could be doing something else. For example, I/O from hard disk (and, consequently, from a database system that uses one) is many orders of magnitude slower than memory access. Network access can also be slow, as another example. Multithreading could allow another process to be running while waiting for these slow (compared to the processor) operations to complete.
Another example when I have used traditional multithreading is to cache some values the first time a particular ASP.NET page is accessed within a session. I kick off a thread so that the user does not have to wait for the caching to complete before interacting with the page. I also regulate the behavior when the caching does not complete before the user requests another page so that, if the caching does not complete, it is not a problem. It simply makes some further requests faster that were previously too slow.
Consider also the cost that multithreading has to the maintainability of your application. Threaded applications can be harder to debug, for example.
I hope this answers your question at least somewhat.

Joseph Albahari summarized it very well here:
Maintaining a responsive user interface
Making efficient use of an otherwise blocked CPU
Parallel programming
Speculative execution
Allowing requests to be processed simultaneously

One reason to use threads is to split large, CPU-bound tasks across a number of CPUs/cores, to finish faster. Another is to let an extended task execute asynchronously, so the foreground can remain responsive while it runs.
Your examples seem to be concentrating on the second of these. While it can be a good reason, if you can use asynchronous I/O instead, that's usually preferable (e.g., almost anything using sockets can/will be better off using the socket(s) asynchronously). Asynchronous I/O is easier to cancel, and it'll usually have lower CPU overhead as well.

You can use threads when you need different execution paths. This leads(when done correctly) to more responsive and/or faster applications but also leads to more complex code and debugging.
In a simple CRUD scenario maybe is not that useful, but maybe your UI is consuming a slow web service. If you your code is tied to your UI thread you will have unresponsive UI between the service calls.
In that case, using System.Threading.Threads maybe be overkill because you don't need so much control. Using a BackgrounWorker maybe a better choice.
Threading is something difficult to master, but the benefits when used correctly are huge, performance is the most common.

Somehow you have answered your question by yourself. Using threads whenever you execute time consuming operations is right choice. Also you should it in situations when you want to make things faster. For example you want to process some amount of files - each file can be processed by different thread.
By using threads you can better utilize power of multi-core/processor machines.
Monitoring some data in background of your application.
There are dozens of such scenarios.

Realising my comment might suffice as an answer ...
I like to view multi-threading scenarios from a resource perspective. In other words, UI (graphics), networking, disk IO, CPU (cores), RAM etc. I find that helps when deciding where to use multi-threading in the general sense at least.
The reasoning behind this is simply that I can take advantage of one resource on a specific thread (eg. Disk IO) while at the same time using another thread to accomplish something else using a different resource.

Are Socket.*Async methods threaded?

I'm currently trying to figure what is the best way to minimize the amount of threads I use in a TCP master server, in order to maximize performance.
As I've been reading a lot recently with the new async features of C# 5.0, asynchronous does not necessarily mean multithreaded. It could mean separated in smaller chunks of finite state objects, then processed alongside other operations, by alternating. However, I don't see how this could be done in networking, since I'm basically "waiting" for input (from the client).
Therefore, I wouldn't use ReceiveAsync() for all my sockets, it would just be creating and ending threads continuously (assuming it does create threads).
Consequently, my question is more or less: what architecture can a master server take without having one "thread" per connection?
Side question for bonus coolness points: Why is having multiple threads bad, considering that having an amount of threads that is over your amount of processing cores simply makes the machine "fake" multithreading, just like any other asynchronous method would?

No, you would not necessarily be creating threads. There are two possible ways you can do async without setting up and tearing down threads all the time:
You can have a "small" number of long-lived threads, and have them sleep when there's no work to do (this means that the OS will never schedule them for execution, so the resource drain is minimal). Then, when work arrives (i.e. Async method called), wake one of them up and tell it what needs to be done. Pleased to meet you, managed thread pool.
In Windows, the most efficient mechanism for async is I/O completion ports which synchronizes access to I/O operations and allows a small number of threads to manage massive workloads.
Regarding multiple threads:
Having multiple threads is not bad for performance, if
the number of threads is not excessive
the threads do not oversaturate the CPU
If the number of threads is excessive then obviously we are taxing the OS with having to keep track of and schedule all these threads, which uses up global resources and slows it down.
If the threads are CPU-bound, then the OS will need to perform much more frequent context switches in order to maintain fairness, and context switches kill performance. In fact, with user-mode threads (which all highly scalable systems use -- think RDBMS) we make our lives harder just so we can avoid context switches.
Update:
I just found this question, which lends support to the position that you can't say how many threads are too much beforehand -- there are just too many unknown variables.

Seems like the *Async methods use IOCP (by looking at the code with Reflector).

Jon's answer is great. As for the 'side question'... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law. Amdel's law says that serial code quickly diminishes the gains to be had from parallel code. We also know that thread coordination (scheduling, context switching, etc) is serial - so at some point more threads means there are so many serial steps that parallelization benefits are lost and you have a net negative performance. This is tricky stuff. That's why there is so much effort going into letting .NET manage threads while we define 'tasks' for the framework to decide what thread to run on. The framework can switch between tasks much more efficiently than the OS can switch between threads because the OS has a lot of extra things it needs to worry about when doing so.

Asynchronous work can be done without one-thread-per-connection or a thread pool with OS support for select or poll (and Windows supports this and it is exposed via Socket.Select). I am not sure of the performance on windows, but this is a very common idiom elsewhere.
One thread is the "pump" that manages the IO connections and monitors changes to the streams and then dispatches messages to/from other threads (conceivably 0 ... n depending upon model). Approaches with 0 or 1 additional threads may fall into the "Event Machine" category like twisted (Python) or POE (Perl). With >1 threads the callers form an "implicit thread pool" (themselves) and basically just offload the blocking IO.
There are also approaches like Actors, Continuations or Fibres exposed in the underlying models of some languages which alter how the basic problem is approached -- don't wait, react.
Happy coding.

How do I pick the best number of threads for hyptherthreading/multicore?

I have some embarrassingly-parallelizable work in a .NET 3.5 console app and I want to take advantage of hyperthreading and multi-core processors. How do I pick the best number of worker threads to utilize either of these the best on an arbitrary system? For example, if it's a dual core I will want 2 threads; quad core I will want 4 threads. What I'm ultimately after is determining the processor characteristics so I can know how many threads to create.
I'm not asking how to split up the work nor how to do threading, I'm asking how do I determine the "optimal" number of the threads on an arbitrary machine this console app will run on.

I'd suggest that you don't try to determine it yourself. Use the ThreadPool and let .NET manage the threads for you.

You can use Environment.ProcessorCount if that's the only thing you're after. But usually using a ThreadPool is indeed the better option.
The .NET thread pool also has provisions for sometimes allocating more threads than you have cores to maximise throughput in certain scenarios where many threads are waiting for I/O to finish.

The correct number is obviously 42.
Now on the serious note. Just use the thread pool, always.
1) If you have a lengthy processing task (ie. CPU intensive) that can be partitioned into multiple work piece meals then you should partition your task and then submit all individual work items to the ThreadPool. The thread pool will pick up work items and start churning on them in a dynamic fashion as it has self monitoring capabilities that include starting new threads as needed and can be configured at deployment by administrators according to the deployment site requirements, as opposed to pre-compute the numbers at development time. While is true that the proper partitioning size of your processing task can take into account the number of CPUs available, the right answer depends so much on the nature of the task and the data that is not even worth talking about at this stage (and besides the primary concerns should be your NUMA nodes, memory locality and interlocked cache contention, and only after that the number of cores).
2) If you're doing I/O (including DB calls) then you should use Asynchronous I/O and complete the calls in ThreadPool called completion routines.
These two are the the only valid reasons why you should have multiple threads, and they're both best handled by using the ThreadPool. Anything else, including starting a thread per 'request' or 'connection' are in fact anti patterns on the Win32 API world (fork is a valid pattern in *nix, but definitely not on Windows).
For a more specialized and way, way more detailed discussion of the topic I can only recommend the Rick Vicik papers on the subject:
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-1.aspx
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-ii.aspx
designing-applications-for-high-performance-part-iii.aspx

The optimal number would just be the processor count. Optimally you would always have one thread running on a CPU (logical or physical) to minimise context switches and the overhead that has with it.
Whether that is the right number depends (very much as everyone has said) on what you are doing. The threadpool (if I understand it correctly) pretty much tries to use as few threads as possible but spins up another one each time a thread blocks.
The blocking is never optimal but if you are doing any form of blocking then the answer would change dramatically.
The simplest and easiest way to get good (not necessarily optimal) behaviour is to use the threadpool. In my opinion its really hard to do any better than the threadpool so thats simply the best place to start and only ever think about something else if you can demonstrate why that is not good enough.

A good rule of the thumb, given that you're completely CPU-bound, is processorCount+1.
That's +1 because you will always get some tasks started/stopped/interrupted and n tasks will almost never completely fill up n processors.

The only way is a combination of data and code analysis based on performance data.
Different CPU families and speeds vs. memory speed vs other activities on the system are all going to make the tuning different.
Potentially some self-tuning is possible, but this will mean having some form of live performance tuning and self adjustment.

Or even better than the ThreadPool, use .NET 4.0 Task instances from the TPL. The Task Parallel Library is built on a foundation in the .NET 4.0 framework that will actually determine the optimal number of threads to perform the tasks as efficiently as possible for you.

I read something on this recently (see the accepted answer to this question for example).
The simple answer is that you let the operating system decide. It can do a far better job of deciding what's optimal than you can.
There are a number of questions on a similar theme - search for "optimal number threads" (without the quotes) gives you a couple of pages of results.

I would say it also depends on what you are doing, if your making a server application then using all you can out of the CPU`s via either Environment.ProcessorCount or a thread pool is a good idea.
But if this is running on a desktop or a machine that not dedicated to this task, you might want to leave some CPU idle so the machine "functions" for the user.

It can be argued that the real way to pick the best number of threads is for the application to profile itself and adaptively change its threading behavior based on what gives the best performance.

I wrote a simple number crunching app that used multiple threads, and found that on my Quad-core system, it completed the most work in a fixed period using 6 threads.
I think the only real way to determine is through trialling or profiling.

In addition to processor count, you may want to take into account the process's processor affinity by counting bits in the affinity mask returned by the GetProcessAffinityMask function.

If there is no excessive i/o processing or system calls when the threads are running, then the number of thread (except the main thread) is in general equal to the number of processors/cores in your system, otherwise you can try to increase the number of threads by testing.

When should I not use the ThreadPool in .Net? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
When should I not use the ThreadPool in .Net?
It looks like the best option is to use a ThreadPool, in which case, why is it not the only option?
What are your experiences around this?

#Eric, I'm going to have to agree with Dean. Threads are expensive. You can't assume that your program is the only one running. When everyone is greedy with resources, the problem multiplies.
I prefer to create my threads manually and control them myself. It keeps the code very easy to understand.
That's fine when it's appropriate. If you need a bunch of worker threads, though, all you've done is make your code more complicated. Now you have to write code to manage them. If you just used a thread pool, you'd get all the thread management for free. And the thread pool provided by the language is very likely to be more robust, more efficient, and less buggy than whatever you roll for yourself.
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(DoSomething));
t.Start();
t.Join();
I hope that you would normally have some additional code in between Start() and Join(). Otherwise, the extra thread is useless, and you're wasting resources for no reason.
People are way too afraid of the resources used by threads. I've never seen creating and starting a thread to take more than a millisecond. There is no hard limit on the number of threads you can create. RAM usage is minimal. Once you have a few hundred threads, CPU becomes an issue because of context switches, so at that point you might want to get fancy with your design.
A millisecond is a long time on modern hardware. That's 3 million cycles on a 3GHz machine. And again, you aren't the only one creating threads. Your threads compete for the CPU along with every other program's threads. If you use not-quite-too-many threads, and so does another program, then together you've used too many threads.
Seriously, don't make life more complex than it needs to be. Don't use the thread pool unless you need something very specific that it offers.
Indeed. Don't make life more complex. If your program needs multiple worker threads, don't reinvent the wheel. Use the thread pool. That's why it's there. Would you roll your own string class?

The only reason why I wouldn't use the ThreadPool for cheap multithreading is if I need to…
interract with the method running (e.g., to kill it)
run code on a STA thread (this happened to me)
keep the thread alive after my application has died (ThreadPool threads are background threads)
in case I need to change the priority of the Thread. We can not change priority of threads in ThreadPool which is by default Normal.
P.S.: The MSDN article "The Managed Thread Pool" contains a section titled, "When Not to Use Thread Pool Threads", with a very similar but slightly more complete list of possible reasons for not using the thread pool.
There are lots of reasons why you would need to skip the ThreadPool, but if you don't know them then the ThreadPool should be good enough for you.
Alternatively, look at the new Parallel Extensions Framework, which has some neat stuff in there that may suit your needs without having to use the ThreadPool.

To quarrelsome's answer, I would add that it's best not to use a ThreadPool thread if you need to guarantee that your thread will begin work immediately. The maximum number of running thread-pooled threads is limited per appdomain, so your piece of work may have to wait if they're all busy. It's called "queue user work item", after all.
Two caveats, of course:
You can change the maximum number of thread-pooled threads in code, at runtime, so there's nothing to stop you checking the current vs maximum number and upping the maximum if required.
Spinning up a new thread comes with its own time penalty - whether it's worthwhile for you to take the hit depends on your circumstances.

Thread pools make sense whenever you have the concept of worker threads. Any time you can easily partition processing into smaller jobs, each of which can be processed independently, worker threads (and therefore a thread pool) make sense.
Thread pools do not make sense when you need thread which perform entirely dissimilar and unrelated actions, which cannot be considered "jobs"; e.g., One thread for GUI event handling, another for backend processing. Thread pools also don't make sense when processing forms a pipeline.
Basically, if you have threads which start, process a job, and quit, a thread pool is probably the way to go. Otherwise, the thread pool isn't really going to help.

I'm not speaking as someone with only
theoretical knowledge here. I write
and maintain high volume applications
that make heavy use of multithreading,
and I generally don't find the thread
pool to be the correct answer.
Ah, argument from authority - but always be on the look out for people who might be on the Windows kernel team.
Neither of us were arguing with the fact that if you have some specific requirements then the .NET ThreadPool might not be the right thing. What we're objecting to is the trivialisation of the costs to the machine of creating a thread.
The significant expense of creating a thread at the raison d'etre for the ThreadPool in the first place. I don't want my machines to be filled with code written by people who have been misinformed about the expense of creating a thread, and don't, for example, know that it causes a method to be called in every single DLL which is attached to the process (some of which will be created by 3rd parties), and which may well hot-up a load of code which need not be in RAM at all and almost certainly didn't need to be in L1.
The shape of the memory hierarchy in a modern machine means that 'distracting' a CPU is about the worst thing you can possibly do, and everybody who cares about their craft should work hard to avoid it.

When you're going to perform an operation that is going to take a long time, or perhaps a continuous background thread.
I guess you could always push the amount of threads available in the pool up but there would be little point in incurring the management costs of a thread that is never going to be given back to the pool.

Threadpool threads are appropriate for tasks that meet both of the following criteria:
The task will not have to spend any significant time waiting for something to happen
Anything that's waiting for the task to finish will likely be waiting for many tasks to finish, so its scheduling priority isn't apt to affect things much.
Using a threadpool thread instead of creating a new one will save a significant but bounded amount of time. If that time is significant compared with the time it will take to perform a task, a threadpool task is likely appropriate. The longer the time required to perform a task, however, the smaller the benefit of using the threadpool and the greater the likelihood of the task impeding threadpool efficiency.

MSDN has a list some reasons here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0ka9477y.aspx
There are several scenarios in which it is appropriate to create and
manage your own threads instead of using thread pool threads:
You require a foreground thread.
You require a thread to have a particular priority.
You have tasks that cause the thread to block for long periods of time. The thread pool has a maximum number of threads, so a large
number of blocked thread pool threads might prevent tasks from
starting.
You need to place threads into a single-threaded apartment. All ThreadPool threads are in the multithreaded apartment.
You need to have a stable identity associated with the thread, or to dedicate a thread to a task.

#Eric
#Derek, I don't exactly agree with the scenario you use as an example. If you don't know exactly what's running on your machine and exactly how many total threads, handles, CPU time, RAM, etc, that your app will use under a certain amount of load, you are in trouble.
Are you the only target customer for the programs you write? If not, you can't be certain about most of that. You generally have no idea when you write a program whether it will execute effectively solo, or if it will run on a webserver being hammered by a DDOS attack. You can't know how much CPU time you are going to have.
Assuming your program's behavior changes based on input, it's rare to even know exactly how much memory or CPU time your program will consume. Sure, you should have a pretty good idea about how your program is going to behave, but most programs are never analyzed to determine exactly how much memory, how many handles, etc. will be used, because a full analysis is expensive. If you aren't writing real-time software, the payoff isn't worth the effort.
In general, claiming to know exactly how your program will behave is far-fetched, and claiming to know everything about the machine approaches ludicrous.
And to be honest, if you don't know exactly what method you should use: manual threads, thread pool, delegates, and how to implement it to do just what your application needs, you are in trouble.
I don't fully disagree, but I don't really see how that's relevant. This site is here specifically because programmers don't always have all the answers.
If your application is complex enough to require throttling the number of threads that you use, aren't you almost always going to want more control than what the framework gives you?
No. If I need a thread pool, I will use the one that's provided, unless and until I find that it is not sufficient. I will not simply assume that the provided thread pool is insufficient for my needs without confirming that to be the case.
I'm not speaking as someone with only theoretical knowledge here. I write and maintain high volume applications that make heavy use of multithreading, and I generally don't find the thread pool to be the correct answer.
Most of my professional experience has been with multithreading and multiprocessing programs. I have often needed to roll my own solution as well. That doesn't mean that the thread pool isn't useful, or appropriate in many cases. The thread pool is built to handle worker threads. In cases where multiple worker threads are appropriate, the provided thread pool should should generally be the first approach.