We have migrated our thread per connection communication model to an async IO based TCP server using boost::asio. The reason for this change is that the old model didn't scale well enough. We have permanently about 2k persistent connections on average with the tendency to keep growing on a monthly basis.
My question is what would be the ideal number of worker threads that will poll the io_service queue for completion handlers - the number of virtual cpu cores?
Choosing a small number can lead to the situations where the server does not consume quickly enough and can't cope with the rate the clients send messages.
Does it make sense to add worker threads dynamically in such situations?
Update:
Probably it is my implementation but i find this statement part of the boost asio docu confusing:
Implementation strategies such as thread-per-connection (which a synchronous-only approach would require) can degrade system
performance, due to increased context switching, synchronisation and
data movement among CPUs. With asynchronous operations it is possible
to avoid the cost of context switching by minimising the number of
operating system threads — typically a limited resource — and only
activating the logical threads of control that have events to
process.
As if you have X threads pumping completion events on a machine that has X cores - 1) you don't have any guarantees that each thread gets a dedicated cpu and 2) if my connections are persistent i don't have any guarantees that the thread that say does an async_read will be the same as the one to execute the completion handler.
void Connection::read {
boost::asio::async_read(socket, boost::asio::buffer(buffer, 18),
boost::bind(&Connection::handleRead, shared_from_this(),
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred));
}
void Connection::handleRead(const boost::system::error_code &error,
std::size_t bytes_transferred) {
// processing of the bytes
...
// keep processing on this socket
read();
}
In an ideal situation with perfectly non-blocking I/O, a working set that fits entirely in L1 cache, and no other processes in the physical system, each thread will use the entire resources of a processor core. In such a situation, the ideal number of threads is one per logical core.
If any part of your I/O is blocking then it makes sense to add more threads than the number of cores so that no cores sit idle. If half the thread time is spent blocked then you should have almost 2 threads per core. If 75% of the thread time is spent blocked then you should have 3 or 4 per core, and so on. Context switching overhead counts as blocking for this purpose.
I've noticed that when Microsoft has to make a blind guess about this, they tend to go for two or four threads per core. Depending on your budget for making this determination I would either go with 2 or 4, or start with one thread per core and work my way up, measuring throughput (requests serviced / second) and latency (min, max, and average response time) until I hit the sweet spot.
Dynamically adjusting this value only makes sense if you are dealing with radically different programs. For a predictable workload there is a sweet spot for your hardware that should not change much even with increasing amounts of work to be done. If you are making a general purpose web server then dynamic adjustment is probably necessary.
I understood that .net know to use multiple threads for multiple requests.
So, if probably our service wont get more request than the number of threads our server can produce (it look like huge number), the only reason I can see to use async is on single request that do multiple blocking operations which can done in parallel.
Am I right?
Another advantage may be that serve multiple requests with same thread is cheaper than use multiple threads. How significant is this difference?
(note: no UI exists in our service (I saw that there is single thread for this, but it isn't relevant))
thanks!
Am I right?
No, doing multiple independent blocking operations, is the job of Concurrent APIs anyway (though sometimes they need Synchronization (like lock, mutex) to maintain the object state and avoid Race condition), but the usage of Async-Await is to schedule the IO Operations, like File Read / Write, call a remote service or Database Read / Write, which doesn't need a thread, as they are queued on a queue in hardware called IO Completion ports.
Benefits of Async-Await:
Doesn't start a IO operation on a separate Thread, since Thread is a costly resource, in terms memory and resource allocation and would do little precious than wait for IO call to come back. Separate thread shall be used for the compute bound operations, no IO bound.
Free up the UI / caller thread to make it completely responsive to carry out other tasks / operations
This is the evolution of Asynchronous programming model (BeginXX, EndXX), which was fairly complex to understand and implement
Another advantage may be that serve multiple requests with same thread is cheaper than use multiple threads. How significant is this difference?
Its a good strategy depending on the kind of request from caller, if they are compute bound better invoke a Parallel API and finish them fast, IO bound there's Async-Await, only issue with multiple threads is Resource allocation and Context switching, which needs to be factored in, but on other end it efficiently utilize the processor cores, which are fairly under utilized in the current day systems, as you would see most of the time processor is lying idle
I wanna know why a context switch is slow compared to asynchronous operations on the same thread.
Why is better to run N threads (with N equals to the number of cores), each one processing M clients assynchronously, instead of running M threads? I've told the reason is the context switch overhead, but I can't find how slow are context switchs.
Just to clarify I will assume that when you say “instead of running M threads” you mean N*M threads (if you run M threads, each one will need to process N clients in order to match the same number of total clients and this will be a similar case).
So the difference between N threads running in N cores, each one processing M clients, and N*M threads running in the same number of cores it is that in the first case you won’t have to create new threads and, as you said, you won’t have context switching. This is an advantage because the work needed to create OS threads is heavy; it needs to create a different process space, a new stack, etc. Besides, if you have more threads the OS scheduler will be stopping and activating the running processes, which it is also time-consuming. Every time the scheduler change the process assigned to a core it will probably also need to cache the context of this process, adding a lot of cache-misses and consequently more time.
On the other hand, if you have a fixed number of thread, equals to the number of cores (sometimes even N-1 is suggested) you can manage the “tasks” or clients in a user-level scheduler which may incur in a few more computations of your program but avoid a lot of OS processes and memory management, making the overall execution faster. Some current parallel APIs such as .Net Task Parallel Library (TPL), OpenMP, Intel’s Threading Building Blocks, or Cilk embody this model of parallelism called dynamic multithreading.
I've always been under the impression that using the ThreadPool for (let's say non-critical) short-lived background tasks was considered best practice, even in ASP.NET, but then I came across this article that seems to suggest otherwise - the argument being that you should leave the ThreadPool to deal with ASP.NET related requests.
So here's how I've been doing small asynchronous tasks so far:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(s => PostLog(logEvent))
And the article is suggesting instead to create a thread explicitly, similar to:
new Thread(() => PostLog(logEvent)){ IsBackground = true }.Start()
The first method has the advantage of being managed and bounded, but there's the potential (if the article is correct) that the background tasks are then vying for threads with ASP.NET request-handlers. The second method frees up the ThreadPool, but at the cost of being unbounded and thus potentially using up too many resources.
So my question is, is the advice in the article correct?
If your site was getting so much traffic that your ThreadPool was getting full, then is it better to go out-of-band, or would a full ThreadPool imply that you're getting to the limit of your resources anyway, in which case you shouldn't be trying to start your own threads?
Clarification: I'm just asking in the scope of small non-critical asynchronous tasks (eg, remote logging), not expensive work items that would require a separate process (in these cases I agree you'll need a more robust solution).
Other answers here seem to be leaving out the most important point:
Unless you are trying to parallelize a CPU-intensive operation in order to get it done faster on a low-load site, there is no point in using a worker thread at all.
That goes for both free threads, created by new Thread(...), and worker threads in the ThreadPool that respond to QueueUserWorkItem requests.
Yes, it's true, you can starve the ThreadPool in an ASP.NET process by queuing too many work items. It will prevent ASP.NET from processing further requests. The information in the article is accurate in that respect; the same thread pool used for QueueUserWorkItem is also used to serve requests.
But if you are actually queuing enough work items to cause this starvation, then you should be starving the thread pool! If you are running literally hundreds of CPU-intensive operations at the same time, what good would it do to have another worker thread to serve an ASP.NET request, when the machine is already overloaded? If you're running into this situation, you need to redesign completely!
Most of the time I see or hear about multi-threaded code being inappropriately used in ASP.NET, it's not for queuing CPU-intensive work. It's for queuing I/O-bound work. And if you want to do I/O work, then you should be using an I/O thread (I/O Completion Port).
Specifically, you should be using the async callbacks supported by whatever library class you're using. These methods are always very clearly labeled; they start with the words Begin and End. As in Stream.BeginRead, Socket.BeginConnect, WebRequest.BeginGetResponse, and so on.
These methods do use the ThreadPool, but they use IOCPs, which do not interfere with ASP.NET requests. They are a special kind of lightweight thread that can be "woken up" by an interrupt signal from the I/O system. And in an ASP.NET application, you normally have one I/O thread for each worker thread, so every single request can have one async operation queued up. That's literally hundreds of async operations without any significant performance degradation (assuming the I/O subsystem can keep up). It's way more than you'll ever need.
Just keep in mind that async delegates do not work this way - they'll end up using a worker thread, just like ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem. It's only the built-in async methods of the .NET Framework library classes that are capable of doing this. You can do it yourself, but it's complicated and a little bit dangerous and probably beyond the scope of this discussion.
The best answer to this question, in my opinion, is don't use the ThreadPool or a background Thread instance in ASP.NET. It's not at all like spinning up a thread in a Windows Forms application, where you do it to keep the UI responsive and don't care about how efficient it is. In ASP.NET, your concern is throughput, and all that context switching on all those worker threads is absolutely going to kill your throughput whether you use the ThreadPool or not.
Please, if you find yourself writing threading code in ASP.NET - consider whether or not it could be rewritten to use pre-existing asynchronous methods, and if it can't, then please consider whether or not you really, truly need the code to run in a background thread at all. In the majority of cases, you will probably be adding complexity for no net benefit.
Per Thomas Marquadt of the ASP.NET team at Microsoft, it is safe to use the ASP.NET ThreadPool (QueueUserWorkItem).
From the article:
Q) If my ASP.NET Application uses CLR ThreadPool threads, won’t I starve ASP.NET, which also uses the CLR ThreadPool to execute requests?
..
A) To summarize, don’t worry about
starving ASP.NET of threads, and if
you think there’s a problem here let
me know and we’ll take care of it.
Q) Should I create my own threads
(new Thread)? Won’t this be better
for ASP.NET, since it uses the CLR
ThreadPool.
A) Please don’t. Or to put it a
different way, no!!! If you’re really
smart—much smarter than me—then you
can create your own threads;
otherwise, don’t even think about it.
Here are some reasons why you should
not frequently create new threads:
It is very expensive, compared to
QueueUserWorkItem...By the way, if you can write a better ThreadPool than the CLR’s, I encourage you to apply for a job at Microsoft, because we’re definitely looking for people like you!.
Websites shouldn't go around spawning threads.
You typically move this functionality out into a Windows Service that you then communicate with (I use MSMQ to talk to them).
-- Edit
I described an implementation here: Queue-Based Background Processing in ASP.NET MVC Web Application
-- Edit
To expand why this is even better than just threads:
Using MSMQ, you can communicate to another server. You can write to a queue across machines, so if you determine, for some reason, that your background task is using up the resources of the main server too much, you can just shift it quite trivially.
It also allows you to batch-process whatever task you were trying to do (send emails/whatever).
I definitely think that general practice for quick, low-priority asynchronous work in ASP.NET would be to use the .NET thread pool, particularly for high-traffic scenarios as you want your resources to be bounded.
Also, the implementation of threading is hidden - if you start spawning your own threads, you have to manage them properly as well. Not saying you couldn't do it, but why reinvent that wheel?
If performance becomes an issue, and you can establish that the thread pool is the limiting factor (and not database connections, outgoing network connections, memory, page timeouts etc) then you tweak the thread pool configuration to allow more worker threads, higher queued requests, etc.
If you don't have a performance problem then choosing to spawn new threads to reduce contention with the ASP.NET request queue is classic premature optimization.
Ideally you wouldn't need to use a separate thread to do a logging operation though - just enable the original thread to complete the operation as quickly as possible, which is where MSMQ and a separate consumer thread / process come in to the picture. I agree that this is heavier and more work to implement, but you really need the durability here - the volatility of a shared, in-memory queue will quickly wear out its welcome.
You should use QueueUserWorkItem, and avoid creating new threads like you would avoid the plague. For a visual that explains why you won't starve ASP.NET, since it uses the same ThreadPool, imagine a very skilled juggler using two hands to keep a half dozen bowling pins, swords, or whatever in flight. For a visual of why creating your own threads is bad, imagine what happens in Seattle at rush hour when heavily used entrance ramps to the highway allow vehicles to enter traffic immediately instead of using a light and limiting the number of entrances to one every few seconds. Finally, for a detailed explanation, please see this link:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/2010/04/14/performing-asynchronous-work-or-tasks-in-asp-net-applications.aspx
Thanks,
Thomas
That article is not correct. ASP.NET has it's own pool of threads, managed worker threads, for serving ASP.NET requests. This pool is usually a few hundred threads and is separate from the ThreadPool pool, which is some smaller multiple of processors.
Using ThreadPool in ASP.NET will not interfere with ASP.NET worker threads. Using ThreadPool is fine.
It would also be acceptable to setup a single thread which is just for logging messages and using producer/consumer pattern to pass logs messages to that thread. In that case, since the thread is long-lived, you should create a single new thread to run the logging.
Using a new thread for every message is definitely overkill.
Another alternative, if you're only talking about logging, is to use a library like log4net. It handles logging in a separate thread and takes care of all the context issues that could come up in that scenario.
I'd say the article is wrong. If you're running a large .NET shop you can safely use the pool across multiple apps and multiple websites (using seperate app pools), simply based on one statement in the ThreadPool documentation:
There is one thread pool per process.
The thread pool has a default size of
250 worker threads per available
processor, and 1000 I/O completion
threads. The number of threads in the
thread pool can be changed by using
the SetMaxThreads method. Each thread
uses the default stack size and runs
at the default priority.
I was asked a similar question at work last week and I'll give you the same answer. Why are you multi threading web applications per request? A web server is a fantastic system optimized heavily to provide many requests in a timely fashion (i.e. multi threading). Think of what happens when you request almost any page on the web.
A request is made for some page
Html is served back
The Html tells the client to make further requets (js, css, images, etc..)
Further information is served back
You give the example of remote logging, but that should be a concern of your logger. An asynchronous process should be in place to receive messages in a timely fashion. Sam even points out that your logger (log4net) should already support this.
Sam is also correct in that using the Thread Pool on the CLR will not cause issues with the thread pool in IIS. The thing to be concerned with here though, is that you are not spawning threads from a process, you are spawning new threads off of IIS threadpool threads. There is a difference and the distinction is important.
Threads vs Process
Both threads and processes are methods
of parallelizing an application.
However, processes are independent
execution units that contain their own
state information, use their own
address spaces, and only interact with
each other via interprocess
communication mechanisms (generally
managed by the operating system).
Applications are typically divided
into processes during the design
phase, and a master process explicitly
spawns sub-processes when it makes
sense to logically separate
significant application functionality.
Processes, in other words, are an
architectural construct.
By contrast, a thread is a coding
construct that doesn't affect the
architecture of an application. A
single process might contains multiple
threads; all threads within a process
share the same state and same memory
space, and can communicate with each
other directly, because they share the
same variables.
Source
You can use Parallel.For or Parallel.ForEach and define the limit of possible threads you want to allocate to run smoothly and prevent pool starvation.
However, being run in background you will need to use pure TPL style below in ASP.Net web application.
var ts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = ts.Token;
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = ts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 6; //limit here
Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>
{
Parallel.ForEach(collectionList, po, (collectionItem) =>
{
//Code Here PostLog(logEvent);
}
});
I do not agree with the referenced article(C#feeds.com). It is easy to create a new thread but dangerous. The optimal number of active threads to run on a single core is actually surprisingly low - less than 10. It is way too easy to cause the machine to waste time switching threads if threads are created for minor tasks. Threads are a resource that REQUIRE management. The WorkItem abstraction is there to handle this.
There is a trade off here between reducing the number of threads available for requests and creating too many threads to allow any of them to process efficiently. This is a very dynamic situation but I think one that should be actively managed (in this case by the thread pool) rather than leaving it to the processer to stay ahead of the creation of threads.
Finally the article makes some pretty sweeping statements about the dangers of using the ThreadPool but it really needs something concrete to back them up.
Whether or not IIS uses the same ThreadPool to handle incoming requests seems hard to get a definitive answer to, and also seems to have changed over versions. So it would seem like a good idea not to use ThreadPool threads excessively, so that IIS has a lot of them available. On the other hand, spawning your own thread for every little task seems like a bad idea. Presumably, you have some sort of locking in your logging, so only one thread could progress at a time, and the rest would just take turns getting scheduled and unscheduled (not to mention the overhead of spawning a new thread). Essentially, you run into the exact problems the ThreadPool was designed to avoid.
It seems that a reasonable compromise would be for your app to allocate a single logging thread that you could pass messages to. You would want to be careful that sending messages is as fast as possible so that you don't slow down your app.
I was reading a comment about server architecture.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=520077
In this comment, the person says 3 things:
The event loop, time and again, has been shown to truly shine for a high number of low activity connections.
In comparison, a blocking IO model with threads or processes has been shown, time and again, to cut down latency on a per-request basis compared to an event loop.
On a lightly loaded system the difference is indistinguishable. Under load, most event loops choose to slow down, most blocking models choose to shed load.
Are any of these true?
And also another article here titled "Why Events Are A Bad Idea (for High-concurrency Servers)"
http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos03/tech/vonbehren.html
Typically, if the application is expected to handle million of connections, you can combine multi-threaded paradigm with event-based.
First, spawn as N threads where N == number of cores/processors on your machine. Each thread will have a list of asynchronous sockets that it's supposed to handle.
Then, for each new connection from the acceptor, "load-balance" the new socket to the thread with the fewest socket.
Within each thread, use event-based model for all the sockets, so that each thread can actually handle multiple sockets "simultaneously."
With this approach,
You never spawn a million threads. You just have as many as as your system can handle.
You utilize event-based on multicore as opposed to a single core.
Not sure what you mean by "low activity", but I believe the major factor would be how much you actually need to do to handle each request. Assuming a single-threaded event-loop, no other clients would get their requests handled while you handled the current request. If you need to do a lot of stuff to handle each request ("lots" meaning something that takes significant CPU and/or time), and assuming your machine actually is able to multitask efficiently (that taking time does not mean waiting for a shared resource, like a single CPU machine or similar), you would get better performance by multitasking. Multitasking could be a multithreaded blocking model, but it could also be a single-tasking event loop collecting incoming requests, farming them out to a multithreaded worker factory that would handle those in turn (through multitasking) and sending you a response ASAP.
I don't believe slow connections with the clients matter that much, as I would believe the OS would handle that efficiently outside of your app (assuming you do not block the event-loop for multiple roundtrips with the client that initially initiated the request), but I haven't tested this myself.