I'm creating an Java application using a REST front-end, hence must be responsive, and once in a while (X minutes) another service is polling the internet. For this some hundreds of threads are spawned.
Needless to say when hundreds of threads are running the server is slowing down (ie irresponsive). I found an option to supply a setPriority argument to Thread. But also found some flaws, meaning the front-end is pretty much irresponsive, although appears to be better without Java nicing.
So I'm checking my options: 1) nicing threads; 2) nicing a War (found no such option) 3) spawn another tomcat and nice that one, is possible but I would be losing precious resourced. Maybe assign thread pools to a subselection of cores?
My question mainly is some pointers in a helpful directions, preferably for option 1, then 2 etc. Or, of course, something I haven't mentioned, resulting in some dedicated cpu time for other threads.
I was able to nice the processes by editing the
/etc/systemd/system/tomcat.service
Just add a Nice=10 or whatever niceness level you want. All the processes should inherit the priority of the parent.
Related
I have a program which spins up thousands of threads. I am currently using one host for all the threads which takes a lot of time. If I want to use multiple hosts (say 10 hosts, each running 100 different threads), how should I proceed ?
Having thousands of threads on a single JVM sounds like a bad idea - you may spend most time context-switching instead of doing the actual work.
To split your work across multiple host, you cannot use threads managed by a single JVM. You'll need to have each host exposing an API that can receive part of work and return the result of the work done.
One approach would be to use Java RMI (remote method invocation) to complete this task, but really, your question lacks so many details important for the decision of what architecture to choose.
Creating 1000 threads in on JVM is very bad design and need to minimise count.
High thread count will not give you multi-threading benefit as context switching will be very frequent and will hit performance.
If you are thinking of dividing in multiple hosts then you need parallel processing system like Hadoop /Spark.
They internally handles task allocation as well as central system for syncing all hosts on which threads/tasks are running.
My application is supposed to have a "realtime with pause" functionality. The user can pause execution, do some things that modify what's going to happen, then unpause and let stuff happen. Stuff happens at regular intervals as specified by the user, can be slow, can be fast.
My goal at using threading here is to improve performance on multicore systems. The amount of data that the application is supposed to crunch at the time intervals is supposed to be arbitrarily large (I expect lots and lots of loops over collections, modifying object properties and generating random numbers, but precious little disk access). I don't want the application to be constrained by the capacity of a single core, if it can use more to run faster.
Will this actually work this way?
I've run some tests (made a program crunch numbers a lot, and looked at CPU usage during its activity), but it's not really conclusive - usage is certainly in the proximity of 100% on my dual core machine, but hardly ever 100%. Does a single-threaded (main only) Java application use all available cores for computation?
Does a single-threaded (main only) Java application use all available cores for computation?
No, it will normally use a single core.
Making a program do computations in parallel with multiple threads may make it faster, but it's not a magical solution for any kind of problem. Whether this is a suitable solution for your program depends on what your program is doing exactly, and if the algorithm can be parallelized. If, for example, you are doing lots of computations where the next computation depends on the result of the previous computation, then making it multi-threaded will not help a lot, because you can't do the computations at the same time - the next one first has to wait for the answer of the previous one. So, you first have to think about what computations in your program could be run in parallel.
Java has a lot of support for multi-threading. You can program with threads directly, or use an executor service, or use the fork/join framework. Whatever is appropriate depends on what exactly you want to do.
Does a single-threaded (main only) Java application use all available cores for computation?
Not usually, but you could make use of some higher level apis in java that is actually using threads for you and youre not even usinfpg threads directly, more obviousiously fork/join and executors, less obvious the new Streams API on collections (ie parallelStream).
In general, though, to make use of all cores, you need to do some kind of concurrency. Further...its really hard to just observe you OS monitor to see what is going on (especially with only 2 cores)...your OS has other things going on (trying to manage itself, running your IDE, running crontab, running a browers to post to stackoverflow ;).
Finally, just implementing (concurrency) itself may not help, you have to do it "right" for your code/algorithm.
a java thread will run in a single cpu. to use multiple CPUs, you should have multiple threads.
Imagine that u have to do various tasks using your hand. You will do it slowly using one hand and more effciently using both your hands. Similarly, in java or in any other language multi threading provides the system with many hands. The good news is that you can have many threads to do different tasks. Running operations in a single thread will make the program sluggish and sometimes unresponsive. A good practice is to do long running tasks in a separate thread. For example loading large chunks of data from a database should be processed in a separate thread. Downloading data from the internet should also be processed in a separate thread. What happens if you do long running operations in the main thread? The program HANGS and will become unresponsive till the task gets completed and the user will think that there is someting wrong. I hope you get it
I am creating a distributed service and i am looking at restricting a set of time consuming operations to a single thread of execution across all JVMs at any given time. (I will have to deal with 3 JVMs max).
My initial investigations point me towards java.util.concurrent.Executors , java.util.concurrent.Semaphore. Using singleton pattern and Executors or Semaphore does not guarantee me a single thread of execution across Multiple JVMs.
I am looking for a java core API (or at least a Pattern) that i can use to accomplish my task.
P.S: I have access to ActiveMQ within my existing project which i was planning to use in order to achieve single thread of execution across multiple JVM Machines only if i dont have another choice.
There is no simple solution for this with a core java API. If the 3 JVMs have access to a shared file system you could use it to track state across JVMs.
So basically you do something like create a lock file when you start the expensive operation and delete it at the conclusion. And then have each JVM check for the existence of this lock file before starting the operation. However there are some issues with this approach like what if the JVM dies in the middle of the expensive operation and the file isn't deleted.
ZooKeeper is a nice solution for problems like this and any other cross process synchronization issue. Check it out if that is a possibility for you. I think it's a much more natural way to solve a problem like than a JMS queue.
I am working on an application in which I want multiple tasks to be executed simultaneously.
I also want to be able to keep track of the number of such tasks being run in parallel, and sometimes add yet another task to be processed in parallel, in addition to the current set of tasks already being processed.
One more thing- I want to do the above, not only in a desktop app, but also in a cloud app, in which I initialise another virtual machine running Tomcat, and then repeat all of the above in that instance.
What is the best way to do this? If you can point me to the correct theory/guides on this subject, that would be great, although code samples are also welcome.
Concurrency is a huge topic in Java, please take your time for it
Lesson: Concurrency
Concurrency in a Java program is accomplished by starting your own Threads. Multiple processes can only be realized with multiple JVMs. When you are done with the basics, you want to take a look at Executors. They will help to implement your application in a structured way since they abstract from Threads to Tasks.
I don't know how much time you have planned for this, but if you are really at the start, get Java Concurrency in Practice, read it and write a kick-ass concurrent Java application.
Raising the whole thing to a distributed level is a whole other story. You cannot tackle that all at once.
Wow... What a series of steps. Start by extending Runnable, then using Thread to run and manage your Jobs. After that, you can get into Tomcat.
For what reasons would one choose several processes over several threads to implement an application in Java?
I'm refactoring an older java application which is currently divided into several smaller applications (processes) running on the same multi-core machine, communicating which each other via sockets.
I personally think this should be done using threads rather than processes, but what arguments would defend the original design?
I (and others, see attributions below) can think of a couple of reasons:
Historical Reasons
The design is from the days when only green threads were available and the original author/designer figured they wouldn't work for him.
Robustness and Fault Tolerance
You use components which are not thread safe, so you cannot parallelize withough resorting to multiple processes.
Some components are buggy and you don't want them to be able to affect more than one process. Say, if a component has a memory or resource leak which eventually could force a process restart, then only the process using the component is affected.
Correct multithreading is still hard to do. Depending on your design harder than multiprocessing. The later, however, is arguably also not too easy.
You can have a model where you have a watchdog process that can actively monitor (and eventually restart) crashed worker processes. This may also include suspend/resume of processes, which is not safe with threads (thanks to #Jayan for pointing out).
OS Resource Limits & Governance
If the process, using a single thread, is already using all of the available address space (e.g. for 32bit apps on Windows 2GB), you might need to distribute work amongst processes.
Limiting the use of resources (CPU, memory, etc.) is typically only possible on a per process basis (for example on Windows you could create "job" objects, which require a separate process).
Security Considerations
You can run different processes using different accounts (i.e. "users"), thus providing better isolation between them.
Compatibility Issues
Support multiple/different Java versions: Using differnt processes you can use different Java versions for your application parts (if required by 3rd party libraries).
Location Transparency
You could (potentially) distribute your application over multiple physical machines, thus further increasing scalability and/or robustness of the application (see #Qwe's answer for more Details / the original idea).
If you decide to go with threads you will restrict your app to be run on a single machine. This solution doesn't scale (or scales to some extent) - there are always hardware limits.
And different processes communicating via sockets can be distributed between machines, so that you could add virtually unlimited number or them. This scales better at the cost of slow communication between processes.
Deciding which approach is more suitable is itself a very interesting task. And once you make the decision there's no guarantee that it will look stupid to your successors in a couple of years when requirements change or new hardware becomes available.