Still pretty new to threads so I'm sure it is one of those little gotchas and a repeat question, but I have been unable to find the answer browsing the threads.
I have a port scanner app in C#.
I'm using threadpools to spin up a new TcpClient for each port and probe if it's open.
After suffering through the concepts of closures and thread synchronization, I am having an issue where when multiple threads try to save their results to different indexes in the Orchestrator.hosts (List).
I have multiple threads trying to update a single List results object. My understanding is this is fine as long as I lock the object on write, however I'm finding that on some updates, multiple entries are getting the same update.
IE, Thread #1 supposed to update Hosts[0].Ports[0].Status to "Open",
What happens:
Thread #1 updates multiple host with the port result despite passing a specific index for Hosts.
Hosts[0].Ports[0].Status to "Open",
Hosts[1].Ports[0].Status to "Open",
Hosts[2].Ports[0].Status to "Open",
Not sure where my problem is. The Static method I'm calling to perform a probe of a given port
public static void ScanTCPPorts()
{
// Create a list of portsToScan objects to send to thread workers
//List<ScanPortRequest> portsToScan = new List<ScanPortRequest>();
using (ManualResetEvent resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false))
{
int toProcess = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < hostCount; i++) // Starting at Begining
{
int currentHostId = i;
// To hold our current hosts ID (Assign outside of threaded function to avoid race-condition)
if (hosts[i].IsAlive || scanDefinition.isForced())
{
int portCount = hosts[i].Ports.Count;
for (int p = 0; p < portCount; p++)
{
// Thread-safe Increment our workQueue counter
Interlocked.Increment(ref toProcess);
int currentPortPosition = p;
// We need to send the arrayIndex in to the thread function
PortScanRequestResponse portRequestResponse = new PortScanRequestResponse(hosts[currentHostId], currentHostId, hosts[currentHostId].Ports[currentPortPosition], currentPortPosition);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
new WaitCallback(threadedRequestResponseInstance => {
PortScanRequestResponse portToScan = threadedRequestResponseInstance as PortScanRequestResponse;
PortScanRequestResponse threadResult = PortScanner.scanTCPPort(portToScan);
// Lock so Thread-safe update to result
lock (Orchestrator.hosts[portToScan.hostResultIndex])
{
if (threadResult.port.status == PortStatus.Open)
{
// Update result
Orchestrator.hosts[portToScan.hostResultIndex].Ports[portToScan.portResultIndex].status = PortStatus.Open;
//Logger.Log(hosts[currentHostId].IPAddress + " " + hosts[currentHostId].Ports[currentPortPosition].type + " " + hosts[currentHostId].Ports[currentPortPosition].portNumber + " is open");
}
else
{
Orchestrator.hosts[portToScan.hostResultIndex].Ports[portToScan.portResultIndex].status = PortStatus.Closed;
}
// Check if this was the last scan for the given host
if (Orchestrator.hosts[portToScan.hostResultIndex].PortScanComplete != true)
{
if (Orchestrator.hosts[portToScan.hostResultIndex].isCompleted())
{
Orchestrator.hosts[portToScan.hostResultIndex].PortScanComplete = true;
// Logger.Log(hosts[currentHostId].IPAddress + " has completed a port scan");
Orchestrator.hosts[portToScan.hostResultIndex].PrintPortSummery();
}
}
}
// Safely decrement the counter
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref toProcess) == 0)
resetEvent.Set();
}), portRequestResponse); // Pass in our Port to scan
}
}
}
resetEvent.WaitOne();
}
}
Here is the worker process in a separate public static class.
public static PortScanRequestResponse scanTCPPort(object portScanRequest) {
PortScanRequestResponse portScanResponse = portScanRequest as PortScanRequestResponse;
HostDefinition host = portScanResponse.host;
ScanPort port = portScanResponse.port;
try
{
using (TcpClient threadedClient = new TcpClient())
{
try
{
IAsyncResult result = threadedClient.BeginConnect(host.IPAddress, port.portNumber, null, null);
Boolean success = result.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(Orchestrator.scanDefinition.GetPortTimeout(), false);
if (threadedClient.Client != null)
{
if (success)
{
threadedClient.EndConnect(result);
threadedClient.Close();
portScanResponse.port.status = PortStatus.Open;
return portScanResponse;
}
}
} catch { }
}
}
catch
{ }
portScanResponse.port.status = PortStatus.Closed;
return portScanResponse;
}
Originally I was pulling the host index from a free variable, thinking this was the problem moved it to inside the delegate.
I tried locking the Hosts object everywhere there was a write.
I have tried different thread sync techniques (CountdownEvent and ManualResetEvent).
I think there is just some fundamental threading principal I have not been introduced to yet, or I have made a very simple logic mistake.
I have multiple threads trying to update a single List results object. My understanding is this is fine as long as I lock the object on write.
I haven't studied your code, but the above statement alone is incorrect. When a List<T>, or any other non-thread-safe object , is used in a multithreaded environment, all interactions with the object must be synchronized. Only one thread at a time should be allowed to interact with the object. Both writes and reads must be enclosed in lock statements, using the same locker object. Even reading the Count must be synchronized. Otherwise the usage is erroneous, and the behavior of the program is undefined.
I was hyper-focused on it being a thread issue because this was my firsts threaded project. Turned out to be that I didn't realize copies of a List<> objects are references to their original object (reference type). I assumed my threads were accessing my save structure in an unpredictable way, but my arrays of ports were all referencing the same object.
This was a "reference type" vs "value type" issue on my List<> of ports.
Related
I recently solved an issue where my program was crashing while using a BackgroundWorker.
I do not fully understand why there was a problem in the first place. When the thread has it's apartment state set to STA the Process memory increases until the program throws the exception "Unable to allocate environment handle", at first I thought it was an issue with the Database not being able to process the queries quickly enough. The bottom chart on the picture below shows the program running with the thread set to STA. You can see a steady increase in usage until it drops off almost completely. That is when the exception is thrown.
When the thread is running with the ApartmentState set to MTA, the top chart shows it behaving as expected, there is a increase in usage, then it starts a pattern of using and free the memory.
TLDR:
Why does a thread using the Apartment state STA have an issue.
Below I have included some relevant code.
BackgroundWorker myWorkerBee;
List<Customers> AllCustomers
private void btnStartConversion_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
myWorkerBee = new Thread(myWorkerBee_DoWork);
myWorkerBee.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
myWorkerBee.Start();
{
private void myWorkerBee_DoWork()
{
GetOldData(); //Creates Customer object and fills AllCustomers list
AddCustomers();
}
There is no issue with the program if it doesn't use the AddNewCustomerConvert(); Method.
private void AddCustomers()
{
for (int i = 0; i < AllCustomers.Count; i++)
{
AllCustomers[i].AddNewCustomerConvert();
}
}
This method exclusively calls the RawQuery(); Method, or methods that only call the RawQuery(); method
//REFERENCED PROGRAM
AddNewCustomerConvert()
{
//40 or so insert statements.
databaseConnection.RawQuery("//INSERT STATEMENT");
}
Sends Queries to the database
//REFERENCE DLL
public OdbcDataReader RawQuery(string query_to_perform)
{
// This method executes a query in the specific database that you
// are connected to.
System.Data.Odbc.OdbcCommand command = null;
// holds the query sent to the database
System.Data.Odbc.OdbcDataReader result_reader = null;
// The query is put into an OdbcCommand object and sent to the database. The
// return result will then be given back to the caller.
try
{
if (loggingEnabled)
{
myLog = File.AppendText(loggingFileName);
myLog.WriteLine(query_to_perform);
myLog.Close();
myLog.Dispose();
}
command = new System.Data.Odbc.OdbcCommand(query_to_perform, this.database_connection);
result_reader = command.ExecuteReader();
this.successful_query = true;
this.error_message = "";
}
catch (System.Data.Odbc.OdbcException ex)
{
this.successful_query = false;
this.error_message = ex.Message;
//destroy the connection on a failure
database_connection = new OdbcConnection();
throw;
}
return result_reader;
}
Have an app which sort large txt file by some conditions.
I need to start for example 5 threads but i read line by line from file with foreach loop.
And if I start 5 threads with my code, all threads will take same lines.
Here is my code where i start 1 thread:
Thread[] thr;
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
button1.Enabled = false;
button4.Enabled = true;
decimal value = 1;
int i = 0;
int j = (int)(value);
thr = new Thread[j];
for (; i < j; i++)
{
thr[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(go));
thr[i].IsBackground = true;
thr[i].Start();
}
}
private static IEnumerable<string> ReadLineFromFile(TextReader fileReader)
{
using (fileReader)
{
string currentLine;
while ((currentLine = fileReader.ReadLine()) != null)
{
yield return currentLine;
}
}
}
public void go()
{
while (true)
{
TextReader readFile = new StreamReader(file_path, System.Text.Encoding.UTF8, true);
foreach (string line in ReadLineFromFile(readFile))
{
if (line.Split(':')[0].Contains("#"))
{
string out_line = line.Split(':')[0].Replace("+", "") + ":" + line.Split(':')[1];
lock (locker)
{
mail_count++;
log_mail(mail_count);
mail.Add(out_line.Trim().Replace(";", ":"));
}
}
else
{
string out_line = line.Split(':')[0].Replace("+", "") + ":" + line.Split(':')[1];
lock (locker)
{
rubbish_count++;
log_rubbish(rubbish_count);
rubbish.Add(out_line.Trim());
}
}
}
MessageBox.Show("Ready");
BeginInvoke(
new MethodInvoker(() =>
{
button1.Enabled = true;
button4.Enabled = false;
}));
break;
}
}
It's no use for all threads to read the same file and reading from a shared file is difficult and inefficient.
In your main function, you would need something like:
Parallel.ForEach(System.IO.File.ReadLines(file_path, System.Text.Encoding.UTF8),
line => ProcessOneLine(line)
);
and then ProcessOneLine would do the .Split(':') etc.
Why not going with usual producer-consumer pattern? Make one thread read file, put lines in some shared collection, and other threads just pick data from the collection and process it.
More - you can read from file and for each line create Task that will take care of processing this line and put the result in output collection.
This seems better than 5 threads trying to read the same file and not reading the same line multiple times.
I would like to confirm and expand on what Pako said. The other threads should use data from a shared collection containing the data and process it.
Having multiple threads access a text file sounds like a potential for race conditions to occur. Essentially unpredictable outcomes can occur if a thread is changing a file whilst another thread is reading from it.
I've also experienced BSODs in the past when using multiple threads which access the same text file and can recommend against it. If you are insistent on doing this, however, I'd recommend you take a look at the "lock" keyword and the singleton design pattern. This will allow you to make sure that only a single thread is accessing the file at a time.
Related links:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/c5kehkcz(v=vs.80).aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-checked_locking
I am seeing some dead-instance weirdness running parallelized nested-loop web stress tests using Selenium WebDriver, simple example being, say, hit 300 unique pages with 100 impressions each.
I'm "successfully" getting 4 - 8 WebDriver instances going using a ThreadLocal<FirefoxWebDriver> to isolate them per task thread, and MaxDegreeOfParallelism on a ParallelOptions instance to limit the threads. I'm partitioning and parallelizing the outer loop only (the collection of pages), and checking .IsValueCreated on the ThreadLocal<> container inside the beginning of each partition's "long running task" method. To facilitate cleanup later, I add each new instance to a ConcurrentDictionary keyed by thread id.
No matter what parallelizing or partitioning strategy I use, the WebDriver instances will occasionally do one of the following:
Launch but never show a URL or run an impression
Launch, run any number of impressions fine, then just sit idle at some point
When either of these happen, the parallel loop eventually seems to notice that a thread isn't doing anything, and it spawns a new partition. If n is the number of threads allowed, this results in having n productive threads only about 50-60% of the time.
Cleanup still works fine at the end; there may be 2n open browsers or more, but the productive and unproductive ones alike get cleaned up.
Is there a way to monitor for these useless WebDriver instances and a) scavenge them right away, plus b) get the parallel loop to replace the task segment immediately, instead of lagging behind for several minutes as it often does now?
I was having a similar problem. It turns out that WebDriver doesn't have the best method for finding open ports. As described here it gets a system wide lock on ports, finds an open port, and then starts the instance. This can starve the other instances that you're trying to start of ports.
I got around this by specifying a random port number directly in the delegate for the ThreadLocal<IWebDriver> like this:
var ports = new List<int>();
var rand = new Random((int)DateTime.Now.Ticks & 0x0000FFFF);
var driver = new ThreadLocal<IWebDriver>(() =>
{
var profile = new FirefoxProfile();
var port = rand.Next(50) + 7050;
while(ports.Contains(port) && ports.Count != 50) port = rand.Next(50) + 7050;
profile.Port = port;
ports.Add(port);
return new FirefoxDriver(profile);
});
This works pretty consistently for me, although there's the issue if you end up using all 50 in the list that is unresolved.
Since there is no OnReady event nor an IsReady property, I worked around it by sleeping the thread for several seconds after creating each instance. Doing that seems to give me 100% durable, functioning WebDriver instances.
Thanks to your suggestion, I've implemented IsReady functionality in my open-source project Webinator. Use that if you want, or use the code outlined below.
I tried instantiating 25 instances, and all of them were functional, so I'm pretty confident in the algorithm at this point (I leverage HtmlAgilityPack to see if elements exist, but I'll skip it for the sake of simplicity here):
public void WaitForReady(IWebDriver driver)
{
var js = #"{ var temp=document.createElement('div'); temp.id='browserReady';" +
#"b=document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]; b.appendChild(temp); }";
((IJavaScriptExecutor)driver).ExecuteScript(js);
WaitForSuccess(() =>
{
IWebElement element = null;
try
{
element = driver.FindElement(By.Id("browserReady"));
}
catch
{
// element not found
}
return element != null;
},
timeoutInMilliseconds: 10000);
js = #"{var temp=document.getElementById('browserReady');" +
#" temp.parentNode.removeChild(temp);}";
((IJavaScriptExecutor)driver).ExecuteScript(js);
}
private bool WaitForSuccess(Func<bool> action, int timeoutInMilliseconds)
{
if (action == null) return false;
bool success;
const int PollRate = 250;
var maxTries = timeoutInMilliseconds / PollRate;
int tries = 0;
do
{
success = action();
tries++;
if (!success && tries <= maxTries)
{
Thread.Sleep(PollRate);
}
}
while (!success && tries < maxTries);
return success;
}
The assumption is if the browser is responding to javascript functions and is finding elements, then it's probably a reliable instance and ready to be used.
EDIT: Ok I had a problem with one of the string concatenation functions, has nothing to do with threads, but knowing that it couldn't be a problem with threading lead me to the answer thank you for answering.
I am making a simple tcp/ip chat program for practicing threads and tcp/ip. I was using asynchronous methods but had a problem with concurrency so I went to threads and blocking methods (not asynchronous). I have two private variables defined in the class, not static:
string amessage = string.Empty;
int MessageLength;
and a Thread
private Thread BeginRead;
Ok so I call a function called Listen ONCE when the client starts:
public virtual void Listen(int byteLength)
{
var state = new StateObject {Buffer = new byte[byteLength]};
BeginRead = new Thread(ReadThread);
BeginRead.Start(state);
}
and finally the function to receive commands and process them, I'm going to shorten it because it is really long:
private void ReadThread(object objectState)
{
var state = (StateObject)objectState;
int byteLength = state.Buffer.Length;
while (true)
{
var buffer = new byte[byteLength];
int len = MySocket.Receive(buffer);
if (len <= 0) return;
string content = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buffer, 0, len);
amessage += cleanMessage.Substring(0, MessageLength);
if (OnRead != null)
{
var e = new CommandEventArgs(amessage);
OnRead(this, e);
}
}
}
Now, as I understand it only one thread at a time will enter BeginRead, I call Receive, it blocks until I get data, and then I process it. The problem: the variable amessage will change it's value between statements that do not touch or alter the variable at all, for example at the bottom of the function at: if (OnRead != null) "amessage" will be equal to 'asdf' and at if (OnRead != null) "amessage" will be equal to qwert. As I understand it this is indicative of another thread changing the value/running asynchronously. I only spawn one thread to do the receiving and the Receive function is blocking, how could there be two threads in this function and if there is only one thread how does amessage's value change between statements that don't affect it's value. As a side note sorry for spamming the site with these questions but I'm just getting a hang of this threading story and it's making me want to sip cyanide.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT:
Here is my code that calls the Listen Method in the client:
public void ConnectClient(string ip,int port)
{
client.Connect(ip,port);
client.Listen(5);
}
and in the server:
private void Accept(IAsyncResult result)
{
var client = new AbstractClient(MySocket.EndAccept(result));
var e = new CommandEventArgs(client, null);
Clients.Add(client);
client.Listen(5);
if (OnClientAdded != null)
{
var target = (Control) OnClientAdded.Target;
if (target != null && target.InvokeRequired)
target.Invoke(OnClientAdded, this, e);
else
OnClientAdded(this, e);
}
client.OnRead += OnRead;
MySocket.BeginAccept(new AsyncCallback(Accept), null);
}
All this code is in a class called AbstractClient. The client inherits the Abstract client and when the server accepts a socket it create's it's own local AbstractClient, in this case both modules access the functions above however they are different instances and I couldn't imagine threads from different instances combining especially as no variable is static.
Well, this makes no sense the way you described it. Which probably means that what you think is going on is not what is really happening. Debugging threaded code is quite difficult, very hard to capture the state of the program at the exact moment it misbehaves.
A generic approach is to add logging to your code. Sprinkle your code with Debug.WriteLine() statements that shows the current value of the variable, along with the thread's ManagedId. You get potentially a lot of output, but somewhere you'll see it going wrong. Or you get enough insight in how thread(s) are interacting to guess the source of the problem.
Just adding the logging can in itself solve the problem because it alters the timing of code. Sucks when that happens.
I assume OnRead is firing an event dispatched on a thread pool thread. If any registered event handler is writing to amessage, its value could change any time you're in the reading loop.
Still not very clear where you are gettingthe value assigned to amessage in the loop. Should cleanmessage read content?
I am trying to build a c# console app that will monitor about 3000 urls (Just need to know that HEAD request returned 200, not necessarily content, etc.)
My attempt here was to build a routine the checks the web URLS, looping and creating threads each executing the routine. What's happening is if i run with <20 threads, it executes ok most of the time, but if i use >20 threads, some of the url's time out. I tried increasing the Timeout to 30 seconds, same occurs. The network I am running this on is more than capable of executing 50 HTTP HEAD requests (10MBIT connection at ISP), and both the CPU and network run very low when executing the routine.
When a timeout occurs, i test the same IP on a browser and it works fine, I tested this repeatedly and there was never a case during testing that a "timed out" url was actually timing out.
The reason i want to run >20 threads is that i want to perform this test every 5 minutes, with some of the URL's taking a full 10sec (or higher if the timeout is set higher), i want to make sure that its able to run through all URLs within 2-3 minutes.
Is there a better way to go about checking if a URL is available, or, should I be looking at the system/network for an issue.
MAIN
while (rdr.Read())
{
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(check_web));
t.Start(rdr[0]);
}
static void check_web(object weburl)
{
bool isok;
isok = ConnectionAvailable(weburl.ToString());
}
public static bool ConnectionAvailable(string strServer)
{
try
{
strServer = "http://" + strServer;
HttpWebRequest reqFP = (HttpWebRequest)HttpWebRequest.Create(strServer);
reqFP.Timeout = 10000;
reqFP.Method = "HEAD";
HttpWebResponse rspFP = (HttpWebResponse)reqFP.GetResponse();
if (HttpStatusCode.OK == rspFP.StatusCode)
{
Console.WriteLine(strServer + " - OK");
rspFP.Close();
return true;
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine(strServer + " Server returned error..");
rspFP.Close();
return false;
}
}
catch (WebException x)
{
if (x.ToString().Contains("timed out"))
{
Console.WriteLine(strServer + " - Timed out");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine(x.Message.ToString());
}
return false;
}
}
Just remember, you asked.
Very bad implementation.
Do not go creating threads like that. It does very little good to have more threads than processor cores. The extra threads will pretty much just compete with each other, especially since they're all running the same code.
You need to implement using blocks. If you throw an exception (and chances are you will), then you will be leaking resources.
What is the purpose in returning a bool? Do you check it somewhere? In any case, your error and exception processing are a mess.
When you get a non-200 response, you don't display the error code.
You're comparing against the Message property to decide if it's a timeout. Microsoft should put a space between the "time" and "out" just to spite you.
When it's not a timeout, you display only the Message property, not the entire exception, and the Message property is already a string and doesn't need you to call ToString() on it.
Next Batch of Changes
This isn't finished, I don't think, but try this one:
public static void Main()
{
// Don't mind the interpretation. I needed an excuse to define "rdr"
using (var conn = new SqlConnection())
{
conn.Open();
using (var cmd = new SqlCommand("SELECT Url FROM UrlsToCheck", conn))
{
using (var rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
while (rdr.Read())
{
// Use the thread pool. Please.
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
delegate(object weburl)
{
// I invented a reason for you to return bool
if (!ConnectionAvailable(weburl.ToString()))
{
// Console would be getting pretty busy with all
// those threads
Debug.WriteLine(
String.Format(
"{0} was not available",
weburl));
}
},
rdr[0]);
}
}
}
}
}
public static bool ConnectionAvailable(string strServer)
{
try
{
strServer = "http://" + strServer;
var reqFp = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(strServer);
reqFp.Timeout = 10000;
reqFp.Method = "HEAD";
// BTW, what's an "FP"?
using (var rspFp = (HttpWebResponse) reqFp.GetResponse()) // IDisposable
{
if (HttpStatusCode.OK == rspFp.StatusCode)
{
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - OK", strServer));
return true; // Dispose called when using is exited
}
// Include the error because it's nice to know these things
Debug.WriteLine(String.Format(
"{0} Server returned error: {1}",
strServer, rspFp.StatusCode));
return false;
}
}
catch (WebException x)
{
// Don't tempt fate and don't let programs read human-readable messages
if (x.Status == WebExceptionStatus.Timeout)
{
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - Timed out", strServer));
}
else
{
// The FULL exception, please
Debug.WriteLine(x.ToString());
}
return false;
}
}
Almost Done - Not Tested Late Night Code
public static void Main()
{
using (var conn = new SqlConnection())
{
conn.Open();
using (var cmd = new SqlCommand("", conn))
{
using (var rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
if (rdr == null)
{
return;
}
while (rdr.Read())
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
CheckConnectionAvailable, rdr[0]);
}
}
}
}
}
private static void CheckConnectionAvailable(object weburl)
{
try
{
// If this works, it's a lot simpler
var strServer = new Uri("http://" + weburl);
using (var client = new WebClient())
{
client.UploadDataCompleted += ClientOnUploadDataCompleted;
client.UploadDataAsync(
strServer, "HEAD", new byte[] {}, strServer);
}
}
catch (WebException x)
{
Debug.WriteLine(x);
}
}
private static void ClientOnUploadDataCompleted(
object sender, UploadDataCompletedEventArgs args)
{
if (args.Error == null)
{
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - OK", args.UserState));
}
else
{
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - Error", args.Error));
}
}
Use ThreadPool class. Don't spawn hundreds of threads like this. Threads have such a huge overhead and what happens in your case is that your CPU will spend 99% time on context switching and 1% doing real work.
Don't use threads.
Asynch Call backs and queues. Why create a thread when the resource that they are all wanting is access to the outside world. Limit your threads to about 5, and then implement a class that uses a queue. split the code into two parts, the fetch and the process. One controls the flow of data while the other controls access to the outside world.
Use whatever language you like but you won't got wrong if you think that threads are for processing and number crunching and async call backs are for resource management.