I have an application that sometimes will utilize a large amount of data. The user has the option to load in a number of files which are used in a graphical display. If the user selects more data than the OS can handle, the application crashes pretty hard. On my test system, that number is about the 2 gigs of physical RAM.
What is a good way to handle this situation? I get the "bad alloc" thrown from new and tried trapping that but I still run into a crash. I feel as if I'm treading in nasty waters loading this much data but it is a requirement of this application to handle this sort of large data load.
Edit: I'm testing under a 32 bit Windows system for now but the application will run on various flavors of Windows, Sun and Linux, mostly 64 bit but some 32.
The error handling is not strong: It simply wraps the main instantiation code with a try catch block, the catch looking for any exception per another peer's complaint of not being able to trap the bad_alloc everytime.
I think you guys are right, I need a memory management system that doesn't load all of this data into the RAM, it just seems like it.
Edit2: Luther said it best. Thanks guy. For now, I just need a way to prevent a crash which with proper exception handling should be possible. But down the road I'll be implementing that acception solution.
There is the STXXL library which offers STL like containers for large Datasets.
http://stxxl.sourceforge.net/
Change "large" into "huge". It is designed and optimized for multicore processing of data sets that fit on terabyte-disks only. This might suffice for your problem, or the implementation could be a good starting point to tailor your own solution.
It is hard to say anything about your application crashing, because there are numerous hiccups involved when it comes to tight memory conditions: You could hit a hard address space limit (for example by default 32-bit Windows only has 2GB address space per user process, this can be changed, http://www.fmepedia.com/index.php/Category:Windows_3GB_Switch_FAQ ), or be eaten alive by the OOM killer ( Not a mythical beast:, see http://lwn.net/Articles/104179/ ).
What I'd suggest in any case to think about a way to keep the data on disk and treat the main memory as a kind of Level-4 cache for the data. For example if you have, say, blobs of data, then wrap these in a class which can transparently load the blobs from disk when they are needed and registers to some kind of memory manager which can ask some of the blob-holders to free up their memory before the memory conditions become unbearable. A buffer cache thus.
The user has the option to load in a number of files which are used in a graphical display.
Usual trick is not to load the data into memory directly, but rather use the memory mapping mechanism to make the files look like memory.
You need to make sure that the memory mapping is done in read-only mode to allow the OS to evict it from RAM if it is needed for something else.
If the user selects more data than the OS can handle, the application crashes pretty hard.
Depending on OS it is either: application is missing some memory allocation error handling or you really getting to the limit of available virtual memory.
Some OSs also have an administrative limit on how large the heap of application can grow.
On my test system, that number is about the 2 gigs of physical RAM.
It sounds like:
your application is 32-bits and
your OS uses the 2GB/2GB virtual memory split.
To avoid hitting the limit, your need to:
upgrade your app and OS to 64-bit or
tell OS (IIRC patch for Windows; most Linuxes already have it) to use 3GB/1GB virtual memory split. Some 32-bit OSs are using 2GB/2GB memory split: 2GB of virtual memory for kernel and 2 for the user application. 3/1 split means 1GB of VM for kernel, 3 for the user application.
How about maintaining a header table instead of loading the entire data. Load the actual page when the user requests the data.
Also use some data compression algorithms (like 7zip, znet etc.) which reduce the file size. (In my project they reduced the size from 200MB to 2MB)
I mention this because it was only briefly mentioned above, but it seems a "file paging system" could be a solution. These systems read large data sets in "chunks" by breaking the files into pieces. Once written, they generally "just work" and you hopefully won't have to tinker with them anymore.
Reading Large Files
Variable Length Data in File--Paging
New Link below with very good answer.
Handling Files greater than 2 GB
Search term: "file paging lang:C++" add large or above 2GB for more. HTH
Not sure if you are hitting it or not, but if you are using Linux, malloc will typically not fail, and operator new will typically not throw bad_alloc. This is because Linux will overcommit, and instead kill your process when it decides the system doesn't have enough memory, possibly at a page fault.
See: Google search for "oom killer".
You can disable this behavior with:
echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory
Upgrade to a 64-bit CPU, 64-bit OS and 64-bit compiler, and make sure you have plenty of RAM.
A 32-bit app is restricted to 2GB of memory (regardless of how much physical RAM you have). This is because a 32-bit pointer can address 2^32 bytes == 4GB of virtual memory. 20 years ago this seemed like a huge amount of memory, so the original OS designers allocated 2GB to the running application and reserved 2GB for use by the OS. There are various tricks you can do to access more than 2GB, but they're complex. It's probably easier to upgrade to 64-bit.
Related
I'm writing a program that generates thumbnails for every page in a large document. For performance reasons I would like to keep the thumbnails in memory for as long as possible, but I would like the OS to be able to reclaim that memory if it decides there is another more important use for it (e.g. the user has started running a different application.)
I can always regenerate the thumbnail later if the memory has gone away.
Is there any cross-platform method for flagging memory as can-be-removed-if-needed? The program is written in C++.
EDIT: Just to clarify, rather than being notified when memory is low or regularly monitoring the system's amount of memory, I'm thinking more along the lines of allocating memory and then "unlocking" it when it's not in use. The OS can then steal unlocked memory if needed (even for disk buffers if it thinks that would be a better use of the memory) and all I have to do as a programmer is just "lock" the memory again before I intend to use it. If the lock fails I know the memory has been reused for something else so I need to regenerate the thumbnail again, and if the lock succeeds I can just keep using the data from before.
The reason is I might be displaying maybe 20 pages of a document on the screen, but I may as well keep thumbnails of the other 200 or so pages in case the user scrolls around a bit. But if they go do something else for a while, that memory might be better used as a disk cache or for storing web pages or something, so I'd like to be able to tell the OS that it can reuse some of my memory if it wants to.
Having to monitor the amount of free system-wide memory may not achieve the goal (my memory will never be reclaimed to improve disk caching), and getting low-memory notifications will only help in emergencies. I was hoping that by having a lock/unlock method, this could be achieved in more of a lightweight way and benefit the performance of the system in a non-emergency situation.
Is there any cross-platform method for flagging memory as can-be-removed-if-needed? The program is written in C++
For Windows, at least, you can register for a memory resource notification.
HANDLE WINAPI CreateMemoryResourceNotification(
_In_ MEMORY_RESOURCE_NOTIFICATION_TYPE NotificationType
);
NotificationType
LowMemoryResourceNotification Available physical memory is running low.
HighMemoryResourceNotification Available physical memory is high.
Just be careful responding to both events. You might create a feedback loop (memory is low, release the thumbnails! and then memory is high, make all the thumbnails!).
In AIX, there is a signal SIGDANGER that is send to applications when available memory is low. You may handle this signal and free some memory.
There is a discussion among Linux people to implement this feature into Linux. But AFAIK it is not yet implemented in Linux. Maybe they think that application should not care about low level memory management, and it could be transparently handled in OS via swapping.
In posix standard there is a function posix_madvise might be used to mark an area of memory as less important. There is an advice POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED specifies that the application expects that it will not access the specified range in the near future.
But unfortunately, current Linux implementation will immediately free the memory range when posix_madvise is called with this advice.
So there's no portable solution to your question.
However, on almost every OS you are able to read the current available memory via some OS interface. So you can routinely read such value and manually free memory when available memory in OS is low.
There's nothing special you need to do. The OS will remove things from memory if they haven't been used recently automatically. Some OSes have platform-specific ways to improve this, but generally, nothing special is needed.
This question is very similar and has answers that cover things not covered here.
Allocating "temporary" memory (in Linux)
This shouldn't be too hard to do because this is exactly what the page cache does, using unused memory to cache the hard disk. In theory, someone could write a filesystem such that when you read from a certain file, it calculated something, and the page cache would cache it automatically.
All the basics of automatically freed cache space are already there in any OS with a disk cache, and It's hard to imagine there not being an API for something that would make a huge difference especially in things like mobile web browsers.
My C++ application occasionally runs out of memory due to large amounts of data being retrieved from a database. It has to run on 32bit WinXP machines.
Is it possible to transparently (for most of the existing code) swap out the data objects to disk and read them into memory only on demand, so I'm not limited to the 2GB that 32bit Windows gives to the process?
I've looked at VirtualAlloc and Address Window Extensions but I'm not sure it's what I want.
I also found this SO question where the questioner creates a file mapping and wants to create objects in there. One answer suggests using placement new which sounds like it would be pretty transparent to the rest of the code.
Will this prevent my application to run out of physical memory? I'm not entirely sure of it because after all there is still the 32bit address space limit. Or is this a different kind of problem that will occur when trying to create a lot of objects?
So long as you are using a 32-bit operating system there is nothing you can do about this. There is no way to have more than 3GB (2GB in the case of Windows) of data in virtual memory, whether or not it's actually swapped out to disk.
Historically databases have always handled this problem by using read, write and seek. So rather than accessing data directly from memory, they use a fake (64-bit) pointer. Data is split into blocks (normally around 4kb), and a number of these blocks are allocated in memory. When they want to access data from a fake pointer address they check if the block is loaded into memory and if it is they access it from there. If it is not then they find an empty slot and copy it in, then return the address. If there are no slots free then a piece of data will be written back out to disk (if it's been modified) and that slot will be reused.
The real beauty of this is that if your system has enough RAM then the operating system will cache much more than 2GB of this data in RAM at any point in time, and when you feel like you are actually reading and writing from disk the operating system will probably just be copying data around in memory. This, of course, requires a 32-bit operating system that support more than 3GB of physical memory, such as Linux or Windows Server with PAE.
SQLite has a nice self-contained implementation of this, which you could probably make use of with little effort.
If you do not wish to do this then your only alternatives are to either use a 64-bit operating system or to work with less data at any given point in time.
I have an application where the entire database is implemented in memory using a stl-map for each table in the database.
Each item in the stl-map is a complex object with references to other items in the other stl-maps.
The application works with a large amount of data, so it uses more than 500 MByte RAM. Clients are able to contact the application and get a filtered version of the entire database. This is done by running through the entire database, and finding items relevant for the client.
When the application have been running for an hour or so, then Windows 2003 SP2 starts to page out parts of the RAM for the application (Eventhough there is 16 GByte RAM on the machine).
After the application have been partly paged out then a client logon takes a long time (10 mins) because it now generates a page fault for each pointer lookup in the stl-map. If running the client logon a second time right after then it is fast (few secs) because all the memory is now back in RAM.
I can see it is possible to tell Windows to lock memory in RAM, but this is generally only recommended for device drivers, and only for "small" amounts of memory.
I guess a poor mans solution could be to loop through the entire memory database, and thus tell Windows we are still interested in keeping the datamodel in RAM.
I guess another poor mans solution could be to disable the pagefile completely on Windows.
I guess the expensive solution would be a SQL database, and then rewrite the entire application to use a database layer. Then hopefully the database system will have implemented means to for fast access.
Are there other more elegant solutions ?
This sounds like either a memory leak, or a serious fragmentation problem. It seems to me that the first step would be to figure out what's causing 500 Mb of data to use up 16 Gb of RAM and still want more.
Edit: Windows has a working set trimmer that actively attempts to page out idle data. The basic idea is that it goes through and marks pages as being available, but leaves the data in them (and the virtual memory manager knows what data is in them). If, however, you attempt to access that memory before it's allocated to other purposes, it'll be marked as being in use again, which will normally prevent it from being paged out.
If you really think this is the source of your problem, you can indirectly control the working set trimmer by calling SetProcessWorkingSetSize. At least in my experience, this is only rarely of much use, but you may be in one of those unusual situations where it's really helpful.
As #Jerry Coffin said, it really sounds like your actual problem is a memory leak. Fix that.
But for the record, none of your "poor mans solutions" would work. At all.
Windows pages out some of your data because there's not room for it in RAM.
Looping through the entire memory database would load in every byte of the data model, yes... which would cause other parts of it to be paged out. In the end, you'd generate a lot of page faults, and the only difference in the end would be which parts of the data structure are paged out.
Disabling the page file? Yes, if you think a hard crash is better than low performance. Windows doesn't page data out because it's fun. It does that to handle situations where it would otherwise run out of memory. If you disable the pagefile, the app will just crash when it would otherwise page out data.
If your dataset really is so big it doesn't fit in memory, then I don't see why an SQL database would be especially "expensive". Unlike your current solution, databases are optimized for this purpose. They're meant to handle datasets too large to fit in memory, and to do this efficiently.
It sounds like you have a memory leak. Fixing that would be the elegant, efficient and correct solution.
If you can't do that, then either
throw more RAM at the problem (the app ends up using 16GB? Throw 32 or 64GB at it then), or
switch to a format that's optimized for efficient disk access (A SQL database probably)
We have a similar problem and the solution we choose was to allocate everything in a shared memory block. AFAIK, Windows doesn't page this out. However, using stl-map here is not for faint of heart either and was beyond what we required.
We are using Boost Shared Memory to implement this for us and it works well. Follow examples closely and you will be up and running quickly. Boost also has Boost.MultiIndex that will do a lot of what you want.
For a no cost sql solution have you looked at Sqlite? They have an option to run as an in memory database.
Good luck, sounds like an interesting application.
I have an application where the entire
database is implemented in memory
using a stl-map for each table in the
database.
That's the start of the end: STL's std::map is extremely memory inefficient. Same applies to std::list. Every element would be allocated separately causing rather serious memory waste. I often use std::vector + sort() + find() instead of std::map in applications where it is possible (more searches than modifications) and I know in advance memory usage might become an issue.
When the application have been running
for an hour or so, then Windows 2003
SP2 starts to page out parts of the
RAM for the application (Eventhough
there is 16 GByte RAM on the machine).
Hard to tell without knowing how your application is written. Windows has the feature to unload from RAM whatever memory of idle applications can be unloaded. But that normally affects memory mapped files and alike.
Otherwise, I would strongly suggest to read up the Windows memory management documentation . It is not very easy to understand, yet Windows has all sorts and types of memory available to applications. I never had luck with it, but probably in your application using custom std::allocator would work.
I can believe it is the fault of flawed pagefile behaviour -i've run my laptops mostly with pagefile turned off since nt4.0. In my experience, at least up to XP Pro, Windows intrusively swaps pages out just to provide the dubious benefit of having a really-really-slow extension to the maximum working set space.
Ask what benefit swapping to harddisk is achieving with 16 Gigabityes of real RAM available? If your working set it so big as to need more virtual memory than +10 Gigs, then once swapping is actualy required processes will take anything from a bit longer, to thousands of times longer to complete. On Windows the untameable file system cache seems to antagonise the relationships.
Now when I (very) occasionaly run out of working set on my XP laptops, there is no traffic jam, the guilty app just crashes. A utility to suspend memory glugging processes before that time and make an alert would be nice, but there is no such thing just a violation, a crash, and sometimes explorer.exe goes down too.
Pagefiles - who needs em'
---- Edit
Given snakefoot explanation, the problem is swapping out memory that is not used for a longer period of time and due to this not having the data in memory when needed. This is the same as this:
Can I tell Windows not to swap out a particular processes’ memory?
and VirtualLock function should do its job:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366895(VS.85).aspx
---- Previous answer
First of all you need to distinguish between memory leak and memory need problems.
If you have a memory leak then it would be bigger effort to convert entire application to SQL than to debug the application.
SQL cannot be faster then a well designed, domain specific in-memory database and if you have bugs, chances are you will have different ones in an SQL version as well.
If this is a memory need problem, then you will need to switch to SQL anyway and this sounds like a good moment.
In order to find more easily buffer overflows I am changing our custom memory allocator so that it allocates a full 4KB page instead of only the wanted number of bytes. Then I change the page protection and size so that if the caller writes before or after its allocated piece of memory, the application immediately crashes.
Problem is that although I have enough memory, the application never starts up completely because it runs out of memory. This has two causes:
since every allocation needs 4 KB, we probably reach the 2 GB limit very soon. This problem could be solved if I would make a 64-bit executable (didn't try it yet).
even when I only need a few hundreds of megabytes, the allocations fail at a certain moment.
The second problem is the biggest one, and I think it's related to the maximum number of PTE's (page table entries, which store information on how Virtual Memory is mapped to physical memory, and whether pages should be read-only or not) you can have in a process.
My questions (or a cry-for-tips):
Where can I find information about the maximum number of PTE's in a process?
Is this different (higher) for 64-bit systems/applications or not?
Can the number of PTE's be configured in the application or in Windows?
Thanks,
Patrick
PS. note for those who will try to argument that you shouldn't write your own memory manager:
My application is rather specific so I really want full control over memory management (can't give any more details)
Last week we had a memory overwrite which we couldn't find using the standard C++ allocator and the debugging functionality of the C/C++ run time (it only said "block corrupt" minutes after the actual corruption")
We also tried standard Windows utilities (like GFLAGS, ...) but they slowed down the application by a factor of 100, and couldn't find the exact position of the overwrite either
We also tried the "Full Page Heap" functionality of Application Verifier, but then the application doesn't start up either (probably also running out of PTE's)
There is what i thought was a great series of blog posts by Mark Russinovich on technet called "Pushing the limits of Windows..."
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
It has a few articles on virtual memory, paged nonpaged memory, physical memory and others.
He mentions little utilities he uses to take measurements about a systems resources.
Hopefully you will find your answers there.
A shotgun approach is to allocate those isolated 4KB entries at random. This means that you will need to rerun the same tests, with the same input repeatedly. Sometimes it will catch the error, if you're lucky.
A slightly smarter approach is to use another algorithm than just random - e.g. make it dependent on the call stack whether an allocation is isolated. Do you trust std::string users, for instance, and suspect raw malloc use?
Take a look at the implementation of OpenBSD malloc. Much of the same ideas (and more) implemented by very skilled folk.
In order to find more easily buffer
overflows I am changing our custom
memory allocator so that it allocates
a full 4KB page instead of only the
wanted number of bytes.
This has already been done. Application Verifier with PageHeap.
Info on PTEs and the Memory architecture can be found in Windows Internals, 5th Ed. and the Intel Manuals.
Is this different (higher) for 64-bit systems/applications or not?
Of course. 64bit Windows has a much larger address space, so clearly more PTEs are needed to map it.
Where can I find information about the
maximum number of PTE's in a process?
This is not so important as the maximum amount of user address space available in a process. (The number of PTEs is this number divided by the page size.)
This is 2GB on 32 bit Windows and much bigger on x64 Windows. (The actual number varies, but it's "big enough").
Problem is that although I have enough
memory, the application never starts
up completely because it runs out of
memory.
Are you a) leaking memory? b) using horribly inefficient algorithms?
I'm writing a performance critical application where its essential to store as much data as possible in the physical memory before dumping to disc.
I can use ::GlobalMemoryStatusEx(...) and ::GetProcessMemoryInfo(...) to find out what percentage of physical memory is reserved\free and how much memory my current process handles.
Using this data I can make sure to dump when ~90% of the physical memory is in use or ~90 of the maximum of 2GB per application limit is hit.
However, I would like a method for simply recieving how many bytes are actually left before the system will start using the virtual memory, especially as the application will be compiled for both 32bit and 64bit, whereas the 2 GB limit doesnt exist.
How about this function:
int
bytesLeftUntilVMUsed() {
return 0;
}
it should give the correct result in nearly all cases I think ;)
Imagine running Windows 7 in 256Mb of RAM (MS suggest 1GB minimum). That's effectively what you're asking the user to do by wanting to reseve 90% of available RAM.
The real question is: Why do you need so much RAM? What is the 'performance critical' criteria exactly?
Usually, this kind of question implies there's something horribly wrong with your design.
Update:
Using top of the range RAM (DDR3) would give you a theoretical transfer speed of 12GB/s which equates to reading one 32 bit value every clock cycle with some bandwidth to spare. I'm fairly sure that it is not possible to do anything useful with the data coming into the CPU at that speed - instruction processing stalls would interrupt this flow. The extra, unsued bandwidth can be used to page data to/from a hard disk. Using RAID this transfer rate can be quite high (about 1/16th of the RAM bandwidth). So it would be feasible to transfer data to/from the disk and process it without having any degradation of performance - 16 cycles between reads is all it would take (OK, my maths might be a bit wrong here).
But if you throw Windows into the mix, it all goes to pot. Your memory can go away at any moment, your application can be paused arbitrarily and so on. Locking memory to RAM would have adverse affects on the whole system, thus defeating the purpose of locing the memory.
If you explain what you're trying to acheive and the performance critria, there are many people here that will help develop a suitable solution, because if you have to ask about system limits, you really are doing something wrong.
Even if you're able to stop your application from having memory paged out to disk, you'll still run into the problem that the VMM might be paging out other programs to disk and that might potentially affect your performance as well. Not to mention that another application might start up and consume memory that you're currently occupying and thus resulting in some of your applications memory being paged out. How are you planning to deal with that?
There is a way to use non-pageable memory via the non-paged pool but (a) this pool is comparatively small and (b) it's used by device drivers and might only be usable from inside the kernel. It's also not really recommended to use large chunks of it unless you want to make sure your system isn't that stable.
You might want to revisit the design of your application and try to work around the possibility of having memory paged to disk before you either try to write your own VMM or turn a Windows machine into essentially a DOS box with more memory.
The standard solution is to not worry about "virtual" and worry about "dynamic".
The "virtual" part of virtual memory has to be looked at as a hardware function that you can only defeat by writing your own OS.
The dynamic allocation of objects, however, is simply your application program's design.
Statically allocate simple arrays of the objects you'll need. Use those arrays of objects. Increase and decrease the size of those statically allocated arrays until you have performance problems.
Ouch. Non-paged pool (the amount of RAM which cannot be swapped or allocated to processes) is typically 256 MB. That's 12.5% of RAM on a 2GB machine. If another 90% of physical RAM would be allocated to a process, that leaves either -2,5% for all other applications, services, the kernel and drivers. Even if you'd allocate only 85% for your app, that would still leave only 2,5% = 51 MB.