I am creating one Testing Tool which is test the performance of the Web-Services. Now i want to test performance of my tool when 100 user hit this web service.
In Current, I create one thread which heat and show me request-response details in log. But i need to create 100 threads which work parallel and show me request-response of 100 threads.
My question is how to create 100 parallel thread's. Here i try to create 100 thread parallel but when i run this program it will not call run() method.
Here is my code.
public class Main implements Runnable
{
int counter= 0;
public static void main(String args[]) throws Throwable
{
Thread t[]=new Thread[100];
for (int j=0; j<100;j++)
{
t[j]=new Thread();
t[j].start();
}
}
public void run()
{
try {
System.out.println("thread "
+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" step "+counter++);
}
catch (Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Give me some hint or reference. I don't understand where i wrong.
Thanks in Advance.
You are not instantiating your thread class - which happens to be Main.
Your class should be like:
public class Main extends Thread {
int counter= 0;
public static void main(String args[]) throws Throwable {
Main t[] = new Main[100];
for (int j=0; j<100;j++) {
t[j] = new Main();
t[j].start();
}
}
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println("thread " + Thread.currentThread().getName()+" step "+counter++);
}
catch (Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
You probably meant t[j]=new Thread(new Main())
I suggest you use an ExecutorService to manage your threads and you can submit your Runnable as a task to this pool.
I suggest you to use Apache JMeter for webservices testing purpose. It already has parallel threads feature for request/response.
Anyway:
To create new thread use constructor:
Thread(Runnable target)
As you can see, thread implements runnable, another way is just override run method.
public class Thread implements Runnable
Related
I'd like to check to see if a Thread is Interrupted, from some other Thread, without polling this to check - i.e. some kind of monitor.
Specifically, what I am trying to do is force-kill (Stop) a Thread when it is Interrupted. I will include a code example below of a trivial example of what I have done so far - it works, but polling to check if the Thread is interrupted is sub-optimal and I would like to avoid this.
public class ThreadTest
{
public static void main(final String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
final Thread outerThread = new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
// Need to externally monitor the thread to detect and process interrupts (for cancellation)
final Thread thread = Thread.currentThread();
new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch (final InterruptedException e)
{}
if (thread.isInterrupted())
{
// Then kill it
thread.stop();
return;
}
}
}
}.start();
uninterruptibleForever();
}
};
outerThread.start();
// Ensure the thread has time to start up
Thread.sleep(500);
outerThread.interrupt();
// The thread should terminate at this point and not continue.
}
/** Some arbitrary task that runs forever and ignores interrupts */
public static void uninterruptibleForever()
{
while (true)
{
System.out.println(MessageFormat.format("I''m still running at {0}", new Date().toLocaleString()));
}
}
}
I can't recommend strongly enough that you don't use Thread#stop().
It should never have existed, was deprecated very quickly and frankly should have been removed about 20 years ago.
You have no idea what the thread is doing when you stop it and it is very easy to corrupt shared objects and leave external resources (e.g. files) in an invalid state.
Suppose the thread is in the middle of resizing a shared ArrayList<> there's risk the object will be corrupted and your whole program fails intermittently in ways you cannot fix.
Do not use Thread#stop() it is broken and cannot be fixed.
It's a terrible feature of Java that it leads people into invalid techniques regarding threads.
Caveat over - how about just overriding interrupt() in a sub-class?
public void interrupt(){
this.stop();
}
You've decided to sub-class Thread (rather than Runnable) so this will "work". "work" in the sense of what you're doing. Not actually work or anything.
The only valid way to solve this is have the thread you want to terminate co-operate by responding to interrupt() as an instruction to come to a suitable point and then terminate cleanly.
Or you can create another flag indicating the thread should end.
I don't know why you need to monitor the thread externally. But here is a small sample how you could do it if you really need it:
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
public abstract class MonitoredCallable implements Runnable {
private final List<InterruptedHandler> interruptedHandlers = new LinkedList<>();
protected abstract void runInternal() throws Exception;
#Override
public final void run() {
try {
runInternal();
} catch(Exception ex) {
}
for (InterruptedHandler interruptedHandler : interruptedHandlers) {
interruptedHandler.threadInterrupted(this);
}
}
public void addInterruptedHandler(InterruptedHandler interruptedHandler) {
this.interruptedHandlers.add(interruptedHandler);
}
public static interface InterruptedHandler {
void threadInterrupted(Thread t);
}
}
Now just use it like this:
MonitoredThread mt = new MonitoredThread() {
#Override
protected void runInternal() throws Exception {
//dosomething
}
};
mt.addInterruptedHandler(t->t.stop());
In my run() method of my Thread class, I am calling a never ending function.
I need the thread to run only for a specific duration.
Am not able to control the thread once its started, Is their any way to destroy it?
I have tried yield(), sleep(), etc...
PS - I cannot change the never ending function
From oracle Java Docs:
public void run(){
for (int i = 0; i < inputs.length; i++) {
heavyCrunch(inputs[i]);
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
// We've been interrupted: no more crunching.
return;
}
}
}
Your thread should check interrupted condition after each loop to see if it was interrupted. If you are calling a method that just does while(true){} then I am afraid there is no way interrupting it and stop() MUST never be called on a thread.
It is the programmers responsibility to make a long running method responsive to interrupts.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html answers all your questions.. particularly section What should I use instead of Thread.stop?
Hope it helps
This could be too much, but this is how I would solve it, if you do not want to mess with Interrupt.
public class ThreadTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ThreadTest test = new ThreadTest();
test.go();
}
void go() throws InterruptedException{
ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
service.execute(new LongRunnable());
if(!service.awaitTermination(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)){
System.out.println("Not finished within interval");
service.shutdownNow();
}
}
}
class LongRunnable implements Runnable {
public void run(){
try{
//Simultate some work
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Basically you are wrapping your runnable in a ExecutorServie and if it's not finished within the interval, you basically kill it - send the interruption to it.
I am a beginner here and started learning java programming.
I wrote a program to try threading. In one class i wrote a program to display numbers from one to 100 and in another class to display number from 999 to 100. Now in the the main i have created an object reference for both the class(r1,r2)) and created a object for thread and passed(r1,r2-object reference of my class) them as a parameter. Now the output i get is not as expected in some way i feel my second thread is not getting executed. I am not sure if there is anything wrong with my logic or the program. Any help/advice would be appreciated. My code below for reference.
Class 1:
public class Run implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Run.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, "...", ex);
}
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
Class 2:
public class Run2 extends Thread {
public void run2() {
for(int i=999;i>0;i--){
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Run2.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, "....", ex);
}
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
Main class:
public class Threading {
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
Run r= new Run();
Thread t1=new Thread(r);
t1.start();
Run2 r2=new Run2();
Thread t2=new Thread(r2);
t2.start();
}
}
Rename Run2's method run2 to run. You're subclassing Thread, so you get a run method that doesn't do anything (actually it checks to see if it was passed in a target runnable, in which case it calls run on the target, but since the target is null it does nothing), and that's what's getting run.
Make a habit of implementing Runnable instead of extending Thread, and use the #Override annotation to catch mistakes where you think you're overriding something but you're not.
Your class Run2's method should be named run and not run2.
How do we implement efficient exception handling when using threads.
I have a main program which creates 3 threads. How do we handle the exceptions for the exceptions thrown during the execution of thread?
Can we use the try/catch block or uncaughtexception. If so, can you please share some samples.
public class MyThreadTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread newThread = new Thread(new ThreadWithException());
// Add the handler to the thread object
newThread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler(new Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler(){
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable e) {
System.out.println("ERROR! An exception occurred in " + t.getName() + ". Cause: " + e.getMessage());
}
});
newThread.start();
}
}
/**
* This thread throws a custom exception in its run method.
*/
class ThreadWithException implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
throw new RuntimeException("Application Specific Exception!!");
}
}
Either you can use:
Thread#setUncaughtExceptionHandler to specify some code that is run when an exception is thrown (outside of normal program flow), or:
ExecutorService#invokeAll to run all of your blocks, and inspect the returned list for Future#get()'s throwing of ExecutionException. Another option is CompletionService, but this is slightly harder to use for such a simple case.
You can use try / catch block strategy:
Thread t = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
//..thread code
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
};
It is easy to implement but in case of exception main thread of your application will never know what happened inside of child thread.
Better method would be to spawn threads using ExecutorService (as mentioned by FauxFaux). This will allow you to easily pass information about the error to main thread. Besides that, using ExecutorService allows you to write less code. You won't have to manage threads in your code but leave it for ExecutorService instead.
beacuse , recently, I have write a program with about 3 threads in order to fill a lot data from mysql and mongoDb to ElasticSearch. I share u my code.
I use java.util.concurrent.Executors.
First I have a main class. It calls
public void start() throws Exception {
this.logger.info("Main: Start the worker manually");
schedulerThreadPool = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(this.maxNumberOfThread);
for (int i = 0; i < this.maxNumberOfThread; i++) {
Worker worker = new Worker();
long delay = i * this.sleepBetweenTaskStart;
schedulerThreadPool.scheduleAtFixedRate(worker, delay, this.minTimeBetweenEachTask, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
}
And Worker implements Runnable and get Thread Id by below code.
this.threadId = Thread.currentThread().getId();
And just try catch in each Worker. Everything works normally.
#Override
public void run() {
try {
do...
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
I have a project for my "Operating Systems". I need to write 2 programs with java...
write a program that produce Water with 2 method Oxygen and Hydrogen.
method Oxygen produce one Oxygen and method Hydrogen produce one hydrogen. when 2 Hydrogen and one Oxygen was existed H2O created. I must write this with with Semaphores and threads.
Write the above problem with Monitors and Sychronize.
I've writed some code for this but it gives illegal monitor exeption...
please help me to correct it...
This is my code:
// class for implement Thread for oxygen
public class Thread_O implements Runnable {
public void run() {
thread t = new thread();
try {
t.oxygen();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Thread_O.class.getName());
logger.log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
// class for implement Thread for Hydrogen
public class Thread_H implements Runnable {
public void run() {
thread t = new thread();
try {
t.Hydrogen();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Thread_H.class.getName());
logger.log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
//class for method Oxygen and Hydrogen
public class thread {
Semaphore O = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore H = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore H2O = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore safe = new Semaphore(1, true);
public void oxygen() throws InterruptedException {
safe.wait();
H.wait();
H.wait();
H2O.release();
H2O.release();
Safe.release();
// System.out.println("O2...!");
}
public void Hydrogen() throws InterruptedException {
H.release();
H2O.wait();
// System.out.println("H2...!");
}
}
and in action of Oxygen Button:
Thread th = new Thread(new Thread_O());
th.start();
I'm not going to decode your homework for you, but an IllegalMonitorException is thrown when you're trying to wait() on an object without being synchronized. So to wait for an object called list:
synchronized (list) {
try {
list.wait();
} catch(Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
}
You have to understand how the producer/consumer mechanism work.
Here you'll have one consumer thread and two producers.
First you'll have one thread producing oxygen, and other producing hydrogen.
Then, those molecules should be places "somewhere" ok? That "something" is the thing that has to be monitored and synchronized.
So it should go something like this:
class Water {
char [] waterMolecule = new char[3]; // <-- synchronize access to this
char hydrogen(){
return 'H';
}
char oxygen() {
return 'O';
}
void produce() {
Thread t = new Thread( new Runnable() {
synchronize( waterMolecule ) {
waterMolecule[0] = hydrogen();
}
}):
.... produce the others
}
void consume() {
synchronize watermolecule
if waterMolecule is complete
create water and clean out the molecule.
}
}
That's the basic idea.
Just bear in mind that you won't be able to produce another particle of oxigen until the previous one has been consumed.
Also you must always call wait in a while loop
Here's how that wait/synchronize should be coded.
Here's a number of producer/consumer samples.
Although your homework is already due, I'd like to propose CyclicBarrier as the best solution for this scenario.
It allows some kind of rendezvous for the different threads (here: your molecule producers) and triggers the execution of an additional runnable on completition (here: creation of h20).