I have a .lua file as follows:
timeout = 3000
index = 15
function Test()
A(index, timeout)
B()
end
Test()
A and B fuctions are implemented in the c++. It will be excuted with a 'luaL_dofile(L, "test.lua");' in c++.But the timeout and the index will change at different times.
The question is how to modify the params in real time?
I'm going to write two c++ programs.First one is to sent .lua string to the sencond one. The second c++ program implemets the A and B and will dofile the lua script. But the timeout and the index will changes very often. How to do that? My solution is to parse the index and timeout string ,then write the current value to the file in the first c++ program.Any better solution?
Instead of modifying a lua script over and over to call A with different arguments, you should probably just list all arugments in a single script.
local listOfIndices = {1,5,23,124,25,}
local timeout = 3000
for _,index in ipairs(listOfIndices) do
A(index, timeout)
B()
end
Otherwise having 10000 different indices will result in 10000 file write and read operations.
If you're on Windows you might want to give this a read https://learn.microsoft.com/de-de/windows/win32/ipc/interprocess-communications?redirectedfrom=MSDN
I can think of better ways to have two programs communicate, than sending Lua scripts through files.
Also I'm not sure why you need two applications here, why not add whatever applicaton 2 does to application 1 as a library?
Related
UPDATE: I had each node write to a separate file, and when the separate files were concatenated together the result was correct. I also updated the code to attempt a channel flush and file sync after each write of a single record, but there are still issues between nodes 0 and 1, now. If I make Node 0 sleep for a few seconds before it starts its iteration of the coforall loop, the records come out correct. If not, the last few hundred bytes of Node 0's records seem to be reliably overwritten with NULL bytes, up to the start of Node 1's records. The issues between Node 1 and Node 2, and Node 2 and Node 3, seem to not show up anymore.
Additionally, if I suppress either Node 0 or Node 1 from writing, I see the fully-formed records from the un-suppressed node written correctly to the file. In the case that Node 1 is suppressed, I see 9,997 100B records (or 999,700) correct bytes followed by NULL bytes in the file where Node 1's suppressed records would go. In the case that Node 0 is suppressed, I see exactly 999,700 NULL bytes in the file, after which Node 1's records begin.
Original Post:
I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue with parallel writes from different nodes to a shared NFS-backed file on disk. At the moment, I suspect that something is wrong with the way writes to the disk happen on the NFS server.
I'm working on adapting MPI+C code that uses pwrite to write to coordinated chunks of a file. If I try to have the equivalent locales in Chapel write to the file inside of a coforall loop, I end up with the bits of the file around the node boundaries messed up - usually the final few hundred bytes of each node's data are garbled. However, if I have just one locale iterate through the data on all locales and write it, the data comes out correctly. That is, I use the same data structures to calculate the offsets, but only Locale 0 seeks to that offset and performs the writes.
I've verified that the offsets into the file that each locale runs do not overlap, and I'm using a single channel per task, defined from within the on loc do block, so that tasks don't share a single channel.
Are there known issues with writing to a file from different locales? A lot of the documentation makes it seem like this is known to be safe, but an unsubstantiated guess seems to indicate that there are issues with caching of file contents; when examining the incorrect data, the bits that are incorrect seem to be the original data from the file in that location at the beginning of the program.
I've included the relevant routine below, in case you easily spot something I missed. To make this serial, I convert the coforall loc in Locales and on loc do block into a for j in 0..numLocales-1 loop, and replace here.id with j. Please let me know what else would help get to the bottom of this. Thanks!
proc write_share_of_data(data_filename: string, ref record_blocks) throws {
coforall loc in Locales {
on loc do {
var data_file: file = open(data_filename, iomode.cwr);
var data_writer = data_file.writer(kind=ionative, locking=false);
var line: [1..100] uint(8);
const indices = record_blocks[here.id].D;
var local_record_offset = + reduce record_blocks[0..here.id-1].D.size;
writeln("Loc ", here.id, ": record offset is ", local_record_offset);
var local_bytes_offset = terarec.terarec_width_disk * local_record_offset;
data_writer.seek(start=local_bytes_offset);
for i in indices {
var write_rec: terarec_t = record_blocks[here.id].records[i];
line[1..10] = write_rec.key;
line[11..98] = write_rec.value;
line[99] = 13; // \r
line[100] = 10; // \n
data_writer.write(line);
lines_written += 1;
}
data_file.fsync();
data_writer.close();
data_file.close();
}
}
return;
}
Adding an answer here that solved my particular problem, though it doesn't explain the behavior seen. I ended up changing the outer loop from coforall loc in Locales to for loc in Locales. This isn't too big of an issue since it's all writing to one file anyway - I doubt that multiple locales can actually make much headway in all attempting to write concurrently to a single file on an NFS server. As a result, the change still allows nodes to write the data they have locally to NFS, rather than forcing Node 0 to collect and then write the data on behalf of all locales. This amounts to only adding idle time to the write operation commensurate with the time it takes Locale 0 to start the remote task on other nodes when the previous node has finished writing, which for the application at hand is not a concern.
Have you tried specifying start/end in file.writer instead of using seek? Does that change anything? What about specifying the end offset for the channel.seek call? Does it matter if the file is created and has the appropriate size before you start?
Other than that, I wonder if this issue would appear for both NFS and Lustre. If it appears for both it might well be a Chapel bug. It sounds from your description that the C program was using this pattern, which points to it being a bug. But, have you run C code doing this on your setup? If it being a Chapel bug seems most likely after further investigation, we would appreciate a bug report issue with a reproducer.
I know that NFS does not always do what one would like, in terms of data consistency. It's my understanding that it has "close to open" semantics but it's unclear to me what that means in the context of opening a file and writing to a particular region within it, in parallel from different locales.
From Why NFS Sucks by Olaf Kirch:
An NFS client is permitted to cache changes locally and send them to
the server whenever it sees fit. This sort of lazy write-back greatly
helps write performance, but the flip side is that everyone else will
be blissfully unaware of these change before they hit the server. To
make things just a little harder, there is also no requirement for a
client to transmit its cached write in any particular fashion, so
dirty pages can (and often will be) written out in random order.
I read two implications from this paragraph that are relevant to your situation here:
The writes you do on different locales can be observed by the NFS server in an arbitrary order. (However as I understand it, the data should be sent to the server by the time your fsync call returns).
These writes are done at an OS page granularity (usually 4k). (Note that this is more a hypothesis I am making than it is a fact. It should be tested or further investigated).
It would be interesting to check if 2. is a plausible explanation for the behavior you are seeing. For example, you could explore having each locale operate on a multiple of 4096 records (or potentially try writing records of 4096 bytes each) and see if that changes the behavior. If 2 is indeed the explanation, it should be possible to create a C program that demonstrates the behavior as well.
Currently I have the following part code in my Sync:
...
int index = file.find(remoteDir);
if(index >= 0){
file.erase(index, remoteDir.size());
file.insert(index, localDir);
}
...
// Uses PUT command on the file
Now I want to do the following instead:
If a file is the same as before, except for a rename, don't use the PUT command, but use the Rename command instead
TL;DR: Is there a way to check whether a file is the same as before except for a rename that occurred? So a way to compare both files (with different names) to see if they are the same?
check the md5sum, if it is different then the file is modified.
md5 check sum of a renamed file will remain same. Any change in content of file will give a different value.
I first tried to use Renjith method with md5, but I couldn't get it working (maybe it's because my C++ is for windows instead of Linux, I dunno.)
So instead I wrote my own function that does the following:
First check if the file is the exact same size (if this isn't the case we can just return false for the function instead of continuing).
If the sizes do match, continue checking the file-buffer per BUFFER_SIZE (in my case this is 1024). If the entire buffer of the file matches, return true.
PS: Make sure to close any open streams before returning.. My mistake here was that I had the code to close one stream after the return-statement (so it was never called), and therefore I had errno 13 when trying to rename the file.
I have a problem related to passing arguments to a C++ compiled executable. The program emulate the behaviour of a particular inference engine: the setup of the engine is load at runtime from an XML file, and then I want to call it from command line with different input values.
The characteristic of the input are:
Every time that I call the program, the input structure is different, because the system itself is different.
The input is a set of couple {name, value}, one for each part of the system.
I have to separate the configuration XML from the input.
I call the program from a PHP or Node.js server, since it return a result that I expose to the outside through an API.
Input value are obtained from an HTTP post request.
By now I have tried these solutions:
Pass it from the command line ex: "./mysoftware input1 value1 input2 value2 ...etc". A little unconfortable, since I have up to 200 input.
Create a file with all the couples name,value and then call the program that parse the file and then destroy at the end. This is a bottleneck of performance for my API, because at every call I have to create and destruct a file.
Does anyone know a better way to approach this problem?
3. Pass the values to the program via the standard input stream and read them from std::cin inside your C++ program.
I've got a series of cpp source file and I want to write another program to JUDGE if they can run correctly (give input and compare their output with standart output) . so how to:
call/spawn another program, and give a file to be its standard input
limit the time and memory of the child process (maybe setrlimit thing? is there any examples?)
donot let the process to read/write any file
use a file to be its standard output
compare the output with the standard output.
I think the 2nd and 3rd are the core part of this prob. Is there any way to do this?
ps. system is Linux
To do this right, you probably want to spawn the child program with fork, not system.
This allows you to do a few things. First of all, you can set up some pipes to the parent process so the parent can supply the input to the child, and capture the output from the child to compare to the expected result.
Second, it will let you call seteuid (or one of its close relatives like setreuid) to set the child process to run under a (very) limited user account, to prevent it from writing to files. When fork returns in the parent, you'll want to call setrlimit to limit the child's CPU usage.
Just to be clear: rather than directing the child's output to a file, then comparing that to the expected output, I'd capture the child's output directly via a pipe to the parent. From there the parent can write the data to a file if desired, but can also compare the output directly to what's expected, without going through a file.
std::string command = "/bin/local/app < my_input.txt > my_output_file.txt 2> my_error_file.txt";
int rv = std::system( command.c_str() );
1) The system function from the STL allows you to execute a program (basically as if invoked from a shell). Note that this approach is inherenly insecure, so only use it in a trusted environment.
2) You will need to use threads to be able to achieve this. There are a number of thread libraries available for C++, but I cannot give you recommendation.
[After edit in OP's post]
3) This one is harder. You either have to write a wrapper that monitors read/write access to files or do some Linux/Unix privilege magic to prevent it from accessing files.
4) You can redirect the output of a program (that it thinks goes to the standard output) by adding > outFile.txt after the way you would normally invoke the program (see 1)) -- e.g. otherapp > out.txt
5) You could run diff on the saved file (from 3)) to the "golden standard"/expected output captured in another file. Or use some other method that better fits your need (for example you don't care about certain formatting as long as the "content" is there). -- This part is really dependent on your needs. diff does a basic comparing job well.
I have a C++ program which is mainly used for video processing. Inside the program, I am launching the system command in order to obtain pass the processed videos to some other binaries to postprocess them.
I have a while loop towards infinite and I am launching the system command inside the loop every time. The thing is that at a certain point I am receiving the -1 return code from the system command. What could be the reason for that?
Inside the system command I am just calling a binary file with the adequate parameters from the main project.
The system command which I want to execute is actually a shell file.
In this file I am extracting the main feature from the video and passing them through a SVM model from a 3D party library in order to obtain the the desired classification.
./LiveGestureKernel ./Video ./SvmVideo
./mat4libsvm31 -l SvmVideoLabels < SvmVideo > temp_test_file
./svm-predict temp_test_file svm_model temp_output_file
cat < temp_output_file
rm -f temp_*
After a certain number of iterations through the while loop, it just won't execute the script file and I cannot figure out the reason for this. Thanks!
If you get -1 from the call to system(), you should first examine the contents of errno - that will most likely tell you what your specific problem is.
The one thing to watch out for is that the return value from system is an implementation-defined one in the case where you pass it a non-NULL command, so it's possible that -1 may be coming from your actual executable.
Your best bet in that case is to print out (or otherwise log) the command being executed on failure (and possibly all the time), so that you can check what happens with the same arguments when you execute it directly from a command line or shell.