Copy large data file using parallel I/O - c++

I have a fairly big data set, about 141M lines with .csv formatted. I want to use MPI commands with C++ to copy and manipulate a few columns, but I'm a newbie on both C++ and MPI.
So far my code looks like this
#include <stdio.h>
#include "mpi.h"
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int i, rank, nprocs, size, offset, nints, bufsize, N=4;
MPI_File fp, fpwrite; // File pointer
MPI_Status status;
MPI_Offset filesize;
MPI_Init(&argc, &argv);
MPI_Comm_rank(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &rank);
MPI_Comm_size(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &nprocs);
MPI_File_get_size(fp, &filesize);
int buf[N];
for (i = 0; i<N; i++)
buf[i] = i;
offset = rank * (N/size)*sizeof(int);
MPI_File_open(MPI_COMM_WORLD, "new.csv", MPI_MODE_RDONLY, MPI_INFO_NULL, &fp);
MPI_File_open(MPI_COMM_WORLD, "Ntest.csv", MPI_MODE_CREATE|MPI_MODE_WRONLY, MPI_INFO_NULL, &fpwrite);
MPI_File_read(fp, buf, N, MPI_INT, &status);
// printf("\nrank: %d, buf[%d]: %d\n", rank, rank*bufsize, buf[0]);
printf("My rank is: %d\n", rank);
MPI_File_write_at(fpwrite, offset, buf, (N/size), MPI_INT, &status);
/* // repeat the process again
MPI_Barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD);
printf("2/ My rank is: %d\n", rank); */
MPI_File_close(&fp);
MPI_File_close(&fpwrite);
MPI_Finalize();
}
I'm not sure where to start, and I've seen a few examples with lustre stripes. I would like to go that direction if possible. Additional options include HDF5 and T3PIO.

You are way too early to worry about lustre stripes, aside from the fact that lustre stripes are by default something ridiculously small for a "parallel file system". Increase the stripe size of the directory where you will write and read these files with lfs setstripe
Your first challenge will be how to decompose this CSV file. What does a typical row look like? If the rows are of variable length, you're going to have a bit of a headache. Here's why:
consider a CSV file with 3 rows and 3 MPI processes.
One row is aa,b,c (8 bytes).
row is aaaaaaa,bbbbbbb,ccccccc (24 bytes).
third row is ,,c (4 bytes) .
(darnit, markdown, how do I make this list start at zero?)
Rank 0 can read from the beginning of the file, but where will rank 1 and 2 start? If you simply divide total size (8+24+4=36) by 3, then the decomposistion is
0 ends up reading aa,b,c\naaaaaa,
1 reads a,bbbbbbb,ccc, and
reads cccc\n,,c\n
The two approaches to unstructured text input are as follows. One option is to index your file, either after the fact or as the file is being generated. This index would store the beginning offset of every row. Rank 0 reads the offset then broadcasts to everyone else.
The second option is to do this initial decomposition by file size, then fix up the splits. In the above simple example, rank 0 would send everything after the newline to rank 1. Rank 1 would receive the new data and glue it to the beginning of its row and send everything after its own newline to rank 2. This is extremely fiddly and I would not suggest it for someone just starting MPI-IO.
HDF5 is a good option here! Instead of trying to write your own parallel CSV parser, have your CSV creator generate an HDF5 dataset. HDF5, among other features, will keep that index i mentioned for you, so you can set up hyperslabs and do parallel reading and writing.

Related

fwrite prints random characters in file

I am working on a project that requires quick file input and output so I decided to use fread/fwrite. Fread works as intended but fwrite prints extra, random characters and I am not sure what the problem is.
for (int i = 0; i < vector.size(); ++i)
{
fwrite(&vector[i], vector.size(), sizeof(int), outfile);
fwrite("\n", 1, sizeof(char), outfile);
}
vector is of type int and in the first test case the output is expected to be from top-bottom: 3 2 1
The file does print it that way but it adds extra characters and thus it looks like so:
û° 3 ÌÌÌÌÌÌ
àý° 2 ÌÌÌÌÌÌ
xû° 1 ÌÌÌÌÌÌ
Any idea what might be wrong with the file output?
To start, your arguments are in the incorrect order. See the documentation for fwrite. Also, fwrite may not necessarily be what you want. I'd refer to that documentation for more info. That being said...
size_t fwrite ( const void * ptr, size_t size, size_t count, FILE * stream );
Given this signature, your first line there should read:
fwrite(&vector[i], sizeof(int), 1, outfile);
So you aren't writing sizeof(int) (likely 4 or 8) ints every time, versus 1.
To explain a bit more, the way you wrote it would be writing 3-byte-wide entries X sizeof(int) times from the given address every single time, which would be going out of bounds and causing undefined behavior.

Weird characters in MPI_File_write

I copied the following example from Using MPI-2: Advanced Features of the Message-Passing Interface but the output file is just weired characters. I tried to change the data types from int to char but the output is still the same. I tried to open the open the outputfile with different programs like Notepadqq and gedit. I tried also to open the file with different file formats and adding null pointer to the end of the file through process zero but the results are still weired characters.
/* example of parallel MPI write into a single file */
#include <stdio.h>
#include "mpi.h"
#define BUFSIZE 100
int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
int i, MyRank, NumProcs, buf[BUFSIZE];
MPI_File TheFile;
MPI_Status status;
MPI_Init(&argc, &argv);
MPI_Comm_rank(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &MyRank);
MPI_Comm_size(MPI_COMM_WORLD,&NumProcs);
for (i=0; i<BUFSIZE; i++)
buf[i]=MyRank*BUFSIZE+i;
MPI_File_open(MPI_COMM_WORLD, "testfile",MPI_MODE_CREATE|MPI_MODE_WRONLY,MPI_INFO_NULL, &TheFile);
MPI_File_set_view(TheFile,MyRank*BUFSIZE*sizeof(int),MPI_INT,MPI_INT,"native",MPI_INFO_NULL);
MPI_File_write(TheFile,buf,BUFSIZE,MPI_INT,MPI_STATUS_IGNORE);
// THis is my trial
if(MyRank == 0){
char nullChar = '\0';
MPI_File_write(TheFile, & nullChar , 1 , MPI_CHAR ,MPI_STATUS_IGNORE );
}
MPI_File_close(&TheFile);
MPI_Finalize();
return 0;
}
Because you are opening a binary file and you expect to see meaningful characters (not gonna happen). Look here for the difference between binary and text files. You can always read the data with MPI_File_read().

Espeak Functionality

i am trying to do some functionality with espeak but missing some parameters
(i don`t know it) and working on code blocks on Linux
the next code runs well and reads Arabic Text
`#include<string.h>
#include<malloc.h>
#include</usr/local/include/espeak/speak_lib.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[] )
{
char text[] = {"الله لطيف "};
espeak_Initialize(AUDIO_OUTPUT_PLAYBACK, 0, NULL, 0 );
espeak_SetVoiceByName("ar");
unsigned int size = 0;
while(text[size]!='\0') size++;
unsigned int flags=espeakCHARS_AUTO | espeakENDPAUSE;
espeak_Synth( text, size+1, 0,POS_CHARACTER,0, flags, NULL, NULL );
espeak_Synchronize( );
return 0;
}`
now could you help us finding these parameters from Espeak
1.Fuction which return the generated wave to store it in a variable
2.Frequency
3.number of channels
4.sample size
5.a buffer in which we store samples
6.number of samples
If you can't find a suitable example, you will have to read the documentation in the header file. Haven't used it, but it looks pretty comprehensible:
http://espeak.sourceforge.net/speak_lib.h
When you called espeak_Initialize you passed in AUDIO_OUTPUT_PLAYBACK. You will need to pass in AUDIO_OUTPUT_RETRIEVAL instead, and then it looks like you must call espeak_SetSynthCallback with a function of your own creation to accept the samples.
Your adapted code would look something like this (UNTESTED):
#include <string.h>
#include <vector>
#include </usr/local/include/espeak/speak_lib.h>
int samplerate; // determined by espeak, will be in Hertz (Hz)
const int buflength = 200; // passed to espeak, in milliseconds (ms)
std::vector<short> sounddata;
int SynthCallback(short *wav, int numsamples, espeak_EVENT *events) {
if (wav == NULL)
return 1; // NULL means done.
/* process your samples here, let's just gather them */
sounddata.insert(sounddata.end(), wav, wav + numsamples);
return 0; // 0 continues synthesis, 1 aborts
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[] ) {
char text[] = {"الله لطيف "};
samplerate = espeak_Initialize(AUDIO_OUTPUT_RETRIEVAL, buflength, NULL, 0);
espeak_SetSynthCallback(&SynthCallback);
espeak_SetVoiceByName("ar");
unsigned int flags=espeakCHARS_AUTO | espeakENDPAUSE;
size_t size = strlen(text);
espeak_Synth(text, size + 1, 0, POS_CHARACTER, 0, flags, NULL, NULL);
espeak_Synchronize();
/* in theory sounddata holds your samples now... */
return 0;
}
So for your questions:
Function which return the generated wave to store it in a variable - You write a callback function, and that function gets little buflength-long bits of the wav to process. If you are going to accumulate the data into a larger buffer, I've shown how you could do that yourself.
Frequency - Through this API it doesn't look like you pick it, espeak does. It's in Hz and returned as samplerate above.
Number of Channels - There's no mention of it, and voice synthesis is generally mono, one would think. (Vocals are mixed center by default in most stereo mixes...so you'd take the mono data you got back and play the same synthesized data on left and right channels.)
Sample Size - You get shorts. Those are signed integers, 2 bytes, range of -32,768 to 32,767. Probably it uses the entire range, doesn't seem to be configurable, but you could test and see what you get out.
A Buffer In Which We Store Samples - The synthesis buffer appears to belong to espeak, which handles the allocation and freeing of it. I've shown an example of using a std::vector to gather chunks from multiple calls.
Number of Samples - Each call to your SynthCallback will get a potentially different number of samples. You might get 0 for that number and it might not mean it's at the end.

How can I read multiple files faster?

in my program I want to read several text files (more than ~800 files), each with 256 lines and their filenames starting from 1.txt to n.txt, and store them into a database after several processing steps. My problem is the data's reading speed. I could speed the program up to about twice the speed it had before by using OpenMP multithreading for the reading loop. Is there a way to speed it up a bit more? My actual code is
std::string CCD_Folder = CCDFolder; //CCDFolder is a pointer to a char array
int b = 0;
int PosCounter = 0;
int WAVENUMBER, WAVELUT;
std::vector<std::string> tempstr;
std::string inputline;
//Input
omp_set_num_threads(YValue);
#pragma omp parallel for private(WAVENUMBER) private(WAVELUT) private(PosCounter) private(tempstr) private(inputline)
for(int i = 1; i < (CCD_Filenumbers+1); i++)
{
//std::cout << omp_get_thread_num() << ' ' << i << '\n';
//Umwandlung und Erstellung des Dateinamens, Öffnen des Lesekanals
std::string CCD_Filenumber = boost::lexical_cast<string>(i);
std::string CCD_Filename = CCD_Folder + '\\' + CCD_Filenumber + ".txt";
std::ifstream datain(CCD_Filename, std::ifstream::in);
while(!datain.eof())
{
std::getline(datain, inputline);
//Processing
};
};
All variables which are not defined here are defined somewhere else in my code, and it is working. So is there a possibility to speed this code a bit more up?
Thank you very much!
Some experiment:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <Windows.h>
void generateFiles(int n) {
char fileName[32];
char fileStr[1032];
for (int i=0;i<n;i++) {
sprintf( fileName, "c:\\t\\%i.txt", i );
FILE * f = fopen( fileName, "w" );
for (int j=0;j<256;j++) {
int lineLen = rand() % 1024;
memset(fileStr, 'X', lineLen );
fileStr[lineLen] = 0x0D;
fileStr[lineLen+1] = 0x0A;
fileStr[lineLen+2] = 0x00;
fwrite( fileStr, 1, lineLen+2, f );
}
fclose(f);
}
}
void readFiles(int n) {
char fileName[32];
for (int i=0;i<n;i++) {
sprintf( fileName, "c:\\t\\%i.txt", i );
FILE * f = fopen( fileName, "r" );
fseek(f, 0L, SEEK_END);
int size = ftell(f);
fseek(f, 0L, SEEK_SET);
char * data = (char*)malloc(size);
fread(data, size, 1, f);
free(data);
fclose(f);
}
}
DWORD WINAPI readInThread( LPVOID lpParam )
{
int * number = (int *)lpParam;
char fileName[32];
sprintf( fileName, "c:\\t\\%i.txt", *number );
FILE * f = fopen( fileName, "r" );
fseek(f, 0L, SEEK_END);
int size = ftell(f);
fseek(f, 0L, SEEK_SET);
char * data = (char*)malloc(size);
fread(data, size, 1, f);
free(data);
fclose(f);
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char ** argv) {
long t1 = GetTickCount();
generateFiles(256);
printf("Write: %li ms\n", GetTickCount() - t1 );
t1 = GetTickCount();
readFiles(256);
printf("Read: %li ms\n", GetTickCount() - t1 );
t1 = GetTickCount();
const int MAX_THREADS = 256;
int pDataArray[MAX_THREADS];
DWORD dwThreadIdArray[MAX_THREADS];
HANDLE hThreadArray[MAX_THREADS];
for( int i=0; i<MAX_THREADS; i++ )
{
pDataArray[i] = (int) HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY,
sizeof(int));
pDataArray[i] = i;
hThreadArray[i] = CreateThread(
NULL,
0,
readInThread,
&pDataArray[i],
0,
&dwThreadIdArray[i]);
}
WaitForMultipleObjects(MAX_THREADS, hThreadArray, TRUE, INFINITE);
printf("Read (threaded): %li ms\n", GetTickCount() - t1 );
}
first function just ugly thing to make a test dataset ( I know it can be done much better, but I honestly have no time )
1st experiment - sequential read
2nd experiment - read all in parallel
results:
256 files:
Write: 250 ms
Read: 140 ms
Read (threaded): 78 ms
1024 files:
Write: 1250 ms
Read: 547 ms
Read (threaded): 843 ms
I think second attempt clearly shows that on a long run 'dumb' thread creation just makes things even worse. Of course it needs improvements in a sense of preallocated workers, some thread pool etc, but I think with such fast operation as reading 100-200k from disk there is no really benefit of moving this functionality into thread. I have no time to write more 'clever' solution, but I have my doubts that it will be much faster because you will have to add system calls for mutexes etc...
going extreme you could think of preallocating memory pools etc.. but as being mentioned before code your posted just wrong.. it's a matter of milliseconds, but for sure not seconds
800 files (20 chars per line, 256 lines)
Write: 250 ms
Read: 63 ms
Read (threaded): 500 ms
Conclusion:
ANSWER IS:
Your reading code is wrong, you reading files so slow that there is a significant increase in speed then you make tasks runs in parallel. In the code above reading is actually faster then an expenses to spawn a thread
Your primary bottleneck is physically reading from the hard disk.
Unless you have the files on separate drives, the drive can only read data from one file at a time. Your best bet is to read each file as a whole rather read a portion of one file, tell the drive to locate to another file, read from there, and repeat. Repositioning the drive head to other locations, especially other files, is usually more expensive than letting the drive finish reading the single file.
The next bottle neck is the data channel between the processor and the hard drive. If your hard drives share any kind of communications channel, you will see a bottleneck, as data from each drive must come through the communications channel to your processor. Your processor will be sending commands to the drive(s) through this communications channel (PATA, SATA, USB, etc.).
The objective of the next steps is to reduce the overhead of the "middle men" between your program's memory and the hard drive communications interface. The most efficient is to access the controller directly; lesser efficient are using the OS functions; the "C" functions (fread and familiy) and least is the C++ streams. With increased efficiency comes tighter coupling with the platform and reduced safety (and simplicity).
I suggest the following:
Create multiple buffers in memory, large enough to save time, small
enough to prevent the OS from paging the memory to the hard drive.
Create a thread that reads the files into memory, as necessary.
Search the web for "double buffering". As long as there is space in
the buffer, this thread will read data.
Create multiple "outgoing" buffers.
Create a second thread that removes data from memory and "processes"
it, and inserts into the "outgoing" buffers.
Create a third thread that takes the data in the "outgoing" buffers
and sends to the databases.
Adjust the size of the buffers for the best efficiency within the
limitations of memory.
If you can access the DMA channels, use them to read from the hard drive into the "read buffers".
Next, you can optimize your code to efficiently use the data cache of the processor. For example, set up your "processing" so the data structures to not exceed a data line in the cache. Also, optimize your code to use registers (either specify the register keyword or use statement blocks so that the compiler knows when variables can be reused).
Other optimizations that may help:
Align data to the processors native word size, pad if necessary. For
example, prefer using 32 bytes instead of 13 or 24.
Fetch data in quantities of the processor's word size. For example,
access 4 octets (bytes) at a time on a 32-bit processor rather than 4
accesses of 1 byte.
Unroll loops - more instructions inside the loop, as branch
instructions slow down processing.
You are probably hitting the read limit of your disks, which means your options are somewhat limited. If this is a constant problem you could consider a different RAID structure, which will give you greater read throughput because more than one read head can access data at the same time.
To see if disk access really is the bottleneck, run your program with the time command:
>> /usr/bin/time -v <my program>
In the output you'll see how much CPU time you were utilizing compared to the amount of time required for things like disk access.
I would try going with C code for reading the file. I suspect that it'll be faster.
FILE* f = ::fopen( CCD_Filename.c_str(), "rb" );
if( f == NULL )
{
return;
}
::fseek( f, 0, SEEK_END );
const long lFileBytes = ::ftell( f );
::fseek( f, 0, SEEK_SET );
char* fileContents = new char[lFileBytes + 1];
const size_t numObjectsRead = ::fread( fileContents, lFileBytes, 1, f );
::fclose( f );
if( numObjectsRead < 1 )
{
delete [] fileContents;
return;
}
fileContents[lFileBytes] = '\0';
// assign char buffer of file contents here
delete [] fileContents;

C/C++ best way to send a number of bytes to stdout

Profiling my program and the function print is taking a lot of time to perform. How can I send "raw" byte output directly to stdout instead of using fwrite, and making it faster (need to send all 9bytes in the print() at the same time to the stdout) ?
void print(){
unsigned char temp[9];
temp[0] = matrix[0][0];
temp[1] = matrix[0][1];
temp[2] = matrix[0][2];
temp[3] = matrix[1][0];
temp[4] = matrix[1][1];
temp[5] = matrix[1][2];
temp[6] = matrix[2][0];
temp[7] = matrix[2][1];
temp[8] = matrix[2][2];
fwrite(temp,1,9,stdout);
}
Matrix is defined globally to be a unsigned char matrix[3][3];
IO is not an inexpensive operation. It is, in fact, a blocking operation, meaning that the OS can preempt your process when you call write to allow more CPU-bound processes to run, before the IO device you're writing to completes the operation.
The only lower level function you can use (if you're developing on a *nix machine), is to use the raw write function, but even then your performance will not be that much faster than it is now. Simply put: IO is expensive.
The top rated answer claims that IO is slow.
Here's a quick benchmark with a sufficiently large buffer to take the OS out of the critical performance path, but only if you're willing to receive your output in giant blurps. If latency to first byte is your problem, you need to run in "dribs" mode.
Write 10 million records from a nine byte array
Mint 12 AMD64 on 3GHz CoreDuo under gcc 4.6.1
340ms to /dev/null
710ms to 90MB output file
15254ms to 90MB output file in "dribs" mode
FreeBSD 9 AMD64 on 2.4GHz CoreDuo under clang 3.0
450ms to /dev/null
550ms to 90MB output file on ZFS triple mirror
1150ms to 90MB output file on FFS system drive
22154ms to 90MB output file in "dribs" mode
There's nothing slow about IO if you can afford to buffer properly.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
int dribs = argc > 1 && 0==strcmp (argv[1], "dribs");
int err;
int i;
enum { BigBuf = 4*1024*1024 };
char* outbuf = malloc (BigBuf);
assert (outbuf != NULL);
err = setvbuf (stdout, outbuf, _IOFBF, BigBuf); // full line buffering
assert (err == 0);
enum { ArraySize = 9 };
char temp[ArraySize];
enum { Count = 10*1000*1000 };
for (i = 0; i < Count; ++i) {
fwrite (temp, 1, ArraySize, stdout);
if (dribs) fflush (stdout);
}
fflush (stdout); // seems to be needed after setting own buffer
fclose (stdout);
if (outbuf) { free (outbuf); outbuf = NULL; }
}
The rawest form of output you can do is the probable the write system call, like this
write (1, matrix, 9);
1 is the file descriptor for standard out (0 is standard in, and 2 is standard error). Your standard out will only write as fast as the one reading it at the other end (i.e. the terminal, or the program you're pipeing into) which might be rather slow.
I'm not 100% sure, but you could try setting non-blocking IO on fd 1 (using fcntl) and hope the OS will buffer it for you until it can be consumed by the other end. It's been a while, but I think it works like this
fcntl (1, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
YMMV though. Please correct me if I'm wrong on the syntax, as I said, it's been a while.
Perhaps your problem is not that fwrite() is slow, but that it is buffered.
Try calling fflush(stdout) after the fwrite().
This all really depends on your definition of slow in this context.
All printing is fairly slow, although iostreams are really slow for printing.
Your best bet would be to use printf, something along the lines of:
printf("%c%c%c%c%c%c%c%c%c\n", matrix[0][0], matrix[0][1], matrix[0][2], matrix[1][0],
matrix[1][1], matrix[1][2], matrix[2][0], matrix[2][1], matrix[2][2]);
As everyone has pointed out IO in tight inner loop is expensive. I have normally ended up doing conditional cout of Matrix based on some criteria when required to debug it.
If your app is console app then try redirecting it to a file, it will be lot faster than doing console refreshes. e.g app.exe > matrixDump.txt
What's wrong with:
fwrite(matrix,1,9,stdout);
both the one and the two dimensional arrays take up the same memory.
Try running the program twice. Once with output and once without. You will notice that overall, the one without the io is the fastest. Also, you could fork the process (or create a thread), one writing to a file(stdout), and one doing the operations.
So first, don't print on every entry. Basically what i am saying is do not do like that.
for(int i = 0; i<100; i++){
printf("Your stuff");
}
instead allocate a buffer either on stack or on heap, and store you infomration there and then just throw this bufffer into stdout, just liek that
char *buffer = malloc(sizeof(100));
for(int i = 100; i<100; i++){
char[i] = 1; //your 8 byte value goes here
}
//once you are done print it to a ocnsole with
write(1, buffer, 100);
but in your case, just use write(1, temp, 9);
I am pretty sure you can increase the output performance by increasing the buffer size. So you have less fwrite calls. write might be faster but I am not sure. Just try this:
❯ yes | dd of=/dev/null count=1000000
1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out
512000000 bytes (512 MB, 488 MiB) copied, 2.18338 s, 234 MB/s
vs
> yes | dd of=/dev/null count=100000 bs=50KB iflag=fullblock
100000+0 records in
100000+0 records out
5000000000 bytes (5.0 GB, 4.7 GiB) copied, 2.63986 s, 1.9 GB/s
The same applies to your code. Some tests during the last days show that probably good buffer sizes are around 1 << 12 (=4096) and 1<<16 (=65535) bytes.
You can simply:
std::cout << temp;
printf is more C-Style.
Yet, IO operations are costly, so use them wisely.