We Keep Coding

Log data into cassandra using c#

I trying to log data into Cassandra using c#. So my aim is to log as much data points as I can in 200ms.
I am trying to save time, random key and value in 200ms. Please see code for refrence. the problem how can I execute session after while loop.
Cluster cluster = Cluster.Builder()
.AddContactPoint("127.0.0.1")
.Build();
ISession session = cluster.Connect("log"); //keyspace to connect with
var ps = session.Prepare("Insert into logcassandra(nanodate, key, value) values (?,?,?)");
stopwatch.Start();
while(stop.ElapsedMilliseconds <= 200)
{
i++;
var statement = ps.Bind(nanoTime(),"key"+i,"value"+i);
session.ExecuteAsync(statement);
}

Please prefer System.Threading.Timer with a TimerCallback over Stopwatch.
EDIT: (reply to the comment)
Hi, I'm not sure what you want to achieve, but here are some general concepts about async calls and parallel execution. In .NET world the async is mainly used for Non-blocking I/O operations, which means your caller thread will not wait for the response of the I/O driver. In other words, you instantiate an I/O operation and dispatch this work to a "thing" which is outside of the .NET ecosystem and that will gives you back a future (a Task). The driver acknowledges back that it received the request and it promises that it will process it once it has free capacity.
That Task represents an async work that either succeeded or fail. But because you are calling it asynchronously you are not awaiting its result (not blocking the caller thread to wait for external work) rather move on to the next statement. Eventually this operation will be finished and at that time the driver will notify that Task that a request operation has been finished. (The Task can be seen as the primary communication channel between the caller and the callee)
In your case you are using a fire and forget style async call. That means you are firing off a lot of I/O operations in async and you forget to process the result of them. You don't know either any of them failed or not. But you have called the Casandra to do a lot of staff. Your time measurement is used only for firing off jobs, which means you have no idea how much of these jobs has been finished.
If you would choose to use await against your async calls, that would mean that your while loop would be serially executed. You would firing off a job and you can't move on to the next iteration because you are awaiting it, so your caller thread will move one level higher in its call stack and examines if it can processed with something. If there is an await as well, then it moves one level higher and so on...
while(stop.ElapsedMilliseconds <= 200)
{
await session.ExecuteAsync(statement);
}
If you don't want serial execution rather parallel, you can create as many jobs as you need and await them as a whole. That's where Task.WhenAll comes into the play. You will fire off a lot of jobs and you will await that single job that will track all of other jobs.
var cassandraCalls = new List<Task>();
cassandraCalls.AddRange(Enumerable.Range(0, 100).Select(_ => session.ExecuteAsync(statement)));
await Task.WhenAll(cassandraCalls);
But this code will run until all of the jobs are finished. If you want to constrain the whole execution time then you should use some cancellation mechanism. Task.WhenAll does not support CancellationToken. But you can overcome of this limitation in several way. The simplest solution is a combination of the Task.Delay and the Task.WhenAny. Task.Delay will be used for the timeout, and Task.WhenAny will be used to await either the your cassandra calls or the timeout to complete.
var cassandraCalls = new List<Task>();
cassandraCalls.AddRange(Enumerable.Range(0, 100).Select(_ => ExecuteAsync()));
await Task.WhenAny(Task.WhenAll(cassandraCalls), Task.Delay(1000));
In this way, you have fired off as many jobs as you wanted and depending on your driver they may be executed in parallel or concurrently. You are awaiting either to finish all or elapse a certain amount of time. When the WhenAny job finishes then you can examine the result of the jobs, but simply iterating over the cassandraCalls
foreach (var call in cassandraCalls)
{
Console.WriteLine(call.IsCompleted);
}
I hope this explanation helped you a bit.

Waiting on a continuous UI background polling task

I am somewhat new to parallel programming C# (When I started my project I worked through the MSDN examples for TPL) and would appreciate some input on the following example code.
It is one of several background worker tasks. This specific task pushes status messages to a log.
var uiCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var globalMsgQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
var backgroundUiTask = new Task(
() =>
{
while (!uiCts.IsCancellationRequested)
{
while (globalMsgQueue.Count > 0)
ConsumeMsgQueue();
Thread.Sleep(backgroundUiTimeOut);
}
},
uiCts.Token);
// Somewhere else entirely
backgroundUiTask.Start();
Task.WaitAll(backgroundUiTask);
I'm asking for professional input after reading several topics like Alternatives to using Thread.Sleep for waiting, Is it always bad to use Thread.Sleep()?, When to use Task.Delay, when to use Thread.Sleep?, Continuous polling using Tasks
Which prompts me to use Task.Delay instead of Thread.Sleep as a first step and introduce TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning.
But I wonder what other caveats I might be missing? Is polling the MsgQueue.Count a code smell? Would a better version rely on an event instead?

First of all, there's no reason to use Task.Start or use the Task constructor. Tasks aren't threads, they don't run themselves. They are a promise that something will complete in the future and may or may not produce any results. Some of them will run on a threadpool thread. Use Task.Run to create and run the task in a single step when you need to.
I assume the actual problem is how to create a buffered background worker. .NET already offers classes that can do this.
ActionBlock< T >
The ActionBlock class already implements this and a lot more - it allows you to specify how big the input buffer is, how many tasks will process incoming messages concurrently, supports cancellation and asynchronous completion.
A logging block could be as simple as this :
_logBlock=new ActionBlock<string>(msg=>File.AppendAllText("myLog.txt",msg));
The ActionBlock class itself takes care of buffering the inputs, feeding new messages to the worker function when it arrives, potentially blocking senders if the buffer gets full etc. There's no need for polling.
Other code can use Post or SendAsync to send messages to the block :
_block.Post("some message");
When we are done, we can tell the block to Complete() and await for it to process any remaining messages :
_block.Complete();
await _block.Completion;
Channels
A newer, lower-level option is to use Channels. You can think of channels as a kind of asynchronous queue, although they can be used to implement complex processing pipelines. If ActionBlock was written today, it would use Channels internally.
With channels, you need to provide the "worker" task yourself. There's no need for polling though, as the ChannelReader class allows you to read messages asynchronously or even use await foreach.
The writer method could look like this :
public ChannelWriter<string> LogIt(string path,CancellationToken token=default)
{
var channel=Channel.CreateUnbounded<string>();
var writer=channel.Writer;
_=Task.Run(async ()=>{
await foreach(var msg in channel.Reader.ReadAllAsync(token))
{
File.AppendAllText(path,msg);
}
},token).ContinueWith(t=>writer.TryComplete(t.Exception);
return writer;
}
....
_logWriter=LogIt(somePath);
Other code can send messages by using WriteAsync or TryWrite, eg :
_logWriter.TryWrite(someMessage);
When we're done, we can call Complete() or TryComplete() on the writer :
_logWriter.TryComplete();
The line
.ContinueWith(t=>writer.TryComplete(t.Exception);
is needed to ensure the channel is closed even if an exception occurs or the cancellation token is signaled.
This may seem too cumbersome at first. Channels allow us to easily run initialization code or carry state from one message to the next. We could open a stream before the loop starts and use it instead of reopening the file each time we call File.AppendAllText, eg :
public ChannelWriter<string> LogIt(string path,CancellationToken token=default)
{
var channel=Channel.CreateUnbounded<string>();
var writer=channel.Writer;
_=Task.Run(async ()=>{
//***** Can't do this with an ActionBlock ****
using(var writer=File.AppendText(somePath))
{
await foreach(var msg in channel.Reader.ReadAllAsync(token))
{
writer.WriteLine(msg);
//Or
//await writer.WriteLineAsync(msg);
}
}
},token).ContinueWith(t=>writer.TryComplete(t.Exception);
return writer;
}

Definitely Task.Delay is better than Thread.Sleep, because you will not be blocking the thread on the pool, and during the wait the thread on the pool will be available to handle other tasks. Then, you don't need to make your task long-running. Long-running tasks are run in a dedicated thread, and then Task.Delay is meaningless.
Instead, I will recommend a different approach. Just use System.Threading.Timer and make your life simple. Timers are kernel objects that will run their callback on the thread pool, and you will not have to worry about delay or sleep.

The TPL Dataflow library is the preferred tool for this kind of job. It allows building efficient producer-consumer pairs quite easily, and more complex pipelines as well, while offering a complete set of configuration options. In your case using a single ActionBlock should be enough.
A simpler solution you might consider is to use a BlockingCollection. It has the advantage of not requiring the installation of any package (because it is built-in), and it's also much easier to learn. You don't have to learn more than the methods Add, CompleteAdding, and GetConsumingEnumerable. It also supports cancellation. The drawback is that it's a blocking collection, so it blocks the consumer thread while waiting for new messages to arrive, and the producer thread while waiting for available space in the internal buffer (only if you specify a boundedCapacity in the constructor).
var uiCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var globalMsgQueue = new BlockingCollection<string>();
var backgroundUiTask = new Task(() =>
{
foreach (var item in globalMsgQueue.GetConsumingEnumerable(uiCts.Token))
{
ConsumeMsgQueueItem(item);
}
}, uiCts.Token);
The BlockingCollection uses a ConcurrentQueue internally as a buffer.

Scaling Connections with BlockingCollection<T>()

I have a server which communicates with 50 or more devices over TCP LAN. There is a Task.Run for each socket reading message loop.
I buffer each message reach into a blocking queue, where each blocking queue has a Task.Run using a BlockingCollection.Take().
So something like (semi-pseudocode):
Socket Reading Task
Task.Run(() =>
{
while (notCancelled)
{
element = ReadXml();
switch (element)
{
case messageheader:
MessageBlockingQueue.Add(deserialze<messageType>());
...
}
}
});
Message Buffer Task
Task.Run(() =>
{
while (notCancelled)
{
Process(MessageQueue.Take());
}
});
So that would make 50+ reading tasks and 50+ tasks blocking on their own buffers.
I did it this way to avoid blocking the reading loop and allow the program to distribute processing time on messages more fairly, or so I believe.
Is this an inefficient way to handle it? what would be a better way?

You may be interested in the "channels" work, in particular: System.Threading.Channels. The aim of this is to provider asynchronous producer/consumer queues, covering both single and multiple producer and consumer scenarios, upper limits, etc. By using an asynchronous API, you aren't tying up lots of threads just waiting for something to do.
Your read loop would become:
while (notCancelled) {
var next = await queue.Reader.ReadAsync(optionalCancellationToken);
Process(next);
}
and the producer:
switch (element)
{
case messageheader:
queue.Writer.TryWrite(deserialze<messageType>());
...
}
so: minimal changes
Alternatively - or in combination - you could look into things like "pipelines" (https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.IO.Pipelines/) - since you're dealing with TCP data, this would be an ideal fit, and is something I've looked at for the custom web-socket server here on Stack Overflow (which deals with huge numbers of connections). Since the API is async throughout, it does a good job of balancing work - and the pipelines API is engineered with typical TCP scenarios in mind, for example partially consuming incoming data streams as you detect frame boundaries. I've written about this usage a lot, with code examples mostly here. Note that "pipelines" doesn't include a direct TCP layer, but the "kestrel" server includes one, or the third-party library https://www.nuget.org/packages/Pipelines.Sockets.Unofficial/ does (disclosure: I wrote it).

I actually do something similar in another project. What I learned or would do differently are the following:
First of all, better to use dedicated threads for the reading/writing loop (with new Thread(ParameterizedThreadStart)) because Task.Run uses a pool thread and as you use it in a (nearly) endless loop the thread is practically never returned to the pool.
var thread = new Thread(ReaderLoop) { Name = nameof(ReaderLoop) }; // priority, etc if needed
thread.Start(cancellationToken);
Your Process can be an event, which you can invoke asynchronously so your reader loop can be return immediately to process the new incoming packages as fast as possible:
private void ReaderLoop(object state)
{
var token = (CancellationToken)state;
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
var message = MessageQueue.Take(token);
OnMessageReceived(new MessageReceivedEventArgs(message));
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
if (!disposed && IsRunning)
Stop();
break;
}
}
}
Please note that if a delegate has multiple targets it's async invocation is not trivial. I created this extension method for invoking a delegate on pool threads:
public static void InvokeAsync<TEventArgs>(this EventHandler<TEventArgs> eventHandler, object sender, TEventArgs args)
{
void Callback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
var method = (EventHandler<TEventArgs>)ar.AsyncState;
try
{
method.EndInvoke(ar);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
HandleError(e, method);
}
}
foreach (EventHandler<TEventArgs> handler in eventHandler.GetInvocationList())
handler.BeginInvoke(sender, args, Callback, handler);
}
So the OnMessageReceived implementation can be:
protected virtual void OnMessageReceived(MessageReceivedEventArgs e)
=> messageReceivedHandler.InvokeAsync(this, e);
Finally it was a big lesson that BlockingCollection<T> has some performance issues. It uses SpinWait internally, whose SpinOnce method waits longer and longer times if there is no incoming data for a long time. This is a tricky issue because even if you log every single step of the processing you will not notice that everything is started delayed unless you can mock also the server side. Here you can find a fast BlockingCollection implementation using an AutoResetEvent for triggering incoming data. I added a Take(CancellationToken) overload to it as follows:
/// <summary>
/// Takes an item from the <see cref="FastBlockingCollection{T}"/>
/// </summary>
public T Take(CancellationToken token)
{
T item;
while (!queue.TryDequeue(out item))
{
waitHandle.WaitOne(cancellationCheckTimeout); // can be 10-100 ms
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
return item;
}
Basically that's it. Maybe not everything is applicable in your case, eg. if the nearly immediate response is not crucial the regular BlockingCollection also will do it.

Yes, this is a bit inefficient, because you block ThreadPool threads.
I already discussed this problem Using Task.Yield to overcome ThreadPool starvation while implementing producer/consumer pattern
You can also look at examples with testing a producer -consumer pattern here:
https://github.com/BBGONE/TestThreadAffinity
You can use await Task.Yield in the loop to give other tasks access to this thread.
You can solve it also by using dedicated threads or better a custom ThreadScheduler which uses its own thread pool. But it is ineffective to create 50+ plain threads. Better to adjust the task, so it would be more cooperative.
If you use a BlockingCollection (because it can block the thread for long while waiting to write (if bounded) or to read or no items to read) then it is better to use System.Threading.Tasks.Channels https://github.com/stephentoub/corefxlab/blob/master/src/System.Threading.Tasks.Channels/README.md
They don't block the thread while waiting when the collection will be available to write or to read. There's an example how it is used https://github.com/BBGONE/TestThreadAffinity/tree/master/ThreadingChannelsCoreFX/ChannelsTest

Using Task.Yield to overcome ThreadPool starvation while implementing producer/consumer pattern

Answering the question: Task.Yield - real usages?
I proposed to use Task.Yield allowing a pool thread to be reused by other tasks. In such pattern:
CancellationTokenSource cts;
void Start()
{
cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
// run async operation
var task = Task.Run(() => SomeWork(cts.Token), cts.Token);
// wait for completion
// after the completion handle the result/ cancellation/ errors
}
async Task<int> SomeWork(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
int result = 0;
bool loopAgain = true;
while (loopAgain)
{
// do something ... means a substantial work or a micro batch here - not processing a single byte
loopAgain = /* check for loop end && */ cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested;
if (loopAgain) {
// reschedule the task to the threadpool and free this thread for other waiting tasks
await Task.Yield();
}
}
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
return result;
}
void Cancel()
{
// request cancelation
cts.Cancel();
}
But one user wrote
I don't think using Task.Yield to overcome ThreadPool starvation while
implementing producer/consumer pattern is a good idea. I suggest you
ask a separate question if you want to go into details as to why.
Anybody knows, why is not a good idea?

There are some good points left in the comments to your question. Being the user you quoted, I'd just like to sum it up: use the right tool for the job.
Using ThreadPool doesn't feel like the right tool for executing multiple continuous CPU-bound tasks, even if you try to organize some cooperative execution by turning them into state machines which yield CPU time to each other with await Task.Yield(). Thread switching is rather expensive; by doing await Task.Yield() on a tight loop you add a significant overhead. Besides, you should never take over the whole ThreadPool, as the .NET framework (and the underlying OS process) may need it for other things. On a related note, TPL even has the TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning option that requests to not run the task on a ThreadPool thread (rather, it creates a normal thread with new Thread() behind the scene).
That said, using a custom TaskScheduler with limited parallelism on some dedicated, out-of-pool threads with thread affinity for individual long-running tasks might be a different thing. At least, await continuations would be posted on the same thread, which should help reducing the switching overhead. This reminds me of a different problem I was trying to solve a while ago with ThreadAffinityTaskScheduler.
Still, depending on a particular scenario, it's usually better to use an existing well-established and tested tool. To name a few: Parallel Class, TPL Dataflow, System.Threading.Channels, Reactive Extensions.
There is also a whole range of existing industrial-strength solutions to deal with Publish-Subscribe pattern (RabbitMQ, PubNub, Redis, Azure Service Bus, Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM), Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) etc).

After a bit of debating on the issue with other users - who are worried about the context switching and its influence on the performance.
I see what they are worried about.
But I meant: do something ... inside the loop to be a substantial task - usually in the form of a message handler which reads a message from the queue and processes it. The message handlers are usually user defined and the message bus executes them using some sort of dispatcher. The user can implement a handler which executes synchronously (nobody knows what the user will do), and without Task.Yield that will block the thread to process those synchronous tasks in a loop.
Not to be empty worded i added tests to github: https://github.com/BBGONE/TestThreadAffinity
They compare the ThreadAffinityTaskScheduler, .NET ThreadScheduler with BlockingCollection and .NET ThreadScheduler with Threading.Channels.
The tests show that for Ultra Short jobs the performance degradation is
around 15%. To use the Task.Yield without the performance degradation (even small) - it is not to use extremely short tasks and if the task is too short then combine shorter tasks into a bigger batch.
[The price of context switch] = [context switch duration] / ([job duration]+[context switch duration]).
In that case the influence of the switching the tasks is negligible on the performance. But it adds a better task cooperation and responsiveness of the system.
For long running tasks it is better to use a custom Scheduler which executes tasks on its own dedicated thread pool - (like the WorkStealingTaskScheduler).
For the mixed jobs - which can contain different parts - short running CPU bound, asynchronous and long running code parts. It is better to split the task into subtasks.
private async Task HandleLongRunMessage(TestMessage message, CancellationToken token = default(CancellationToken))
{
// SHORT SYNCHRONOUS TASK - execute as is on the default thread (from thread pool)
CPU_TASK(message, 50);
// IO BOUND ASYNCH TASK - used as is
await Task.Delay(50);
// BUT WRAP the LONG SYNCHRONOUS TASK inside the Task
// which is scheduled on the custom thread pool
// (to save threadpool threads)
await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
CPU_TASK(message, 100000);
}, token, TaskCreationOptions.DenyChildAttach, _workStealingTaskScheduler);
}

Replace infinite thread loop (message pump) with Tasks

In my application I have to listen on multiple different queues and deserialize/dispatch incoming messages received on queues.
Actually, what I am doing to achieve this is that each QueueConnector object creates a new thread on construction, which executes a infinite loop with a blocking call to queue.Receive() to receive next message in queue as exposed by the code below :
// Instantiate message pump thread
msmqPumpThread = new Thread(() => while (true)
{
// Blocking call (infinite timeout)
// Wait for a new message to come in queue and get it
var message = queue.Receive();
// Deserialize/Dispatch message
DeserializeAndDispatchMessage(message);
}).Start();
I'd like to know if this "message pump" can be replaced using Task(s) instead of going through an infinite loop on a new Thread.
I made a task already for the Message receiving part (see below) but I don't really see how to use it for a message pump (Can I recall the same task on completion over and over again, with continuations, replacing infinite loop in separate thread as in the code above ?)
Task<Message> GetMessageFromQueueAsync()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<Message>();
ReceiveCompletedEventHandler receiveCompletedHandler = null;
receiveCompletedHandler = (s, e) =>
{
queue.ReceiveCompleted -= receiveCompletedHandler;
tcs.SetResult(e.Message);
};
queue.BeginReceive();
return tcs.Task;
}
Will I gain anything by using Tasks instead of an infinite loop in a separate thread (with a blocking call => blocking thread) in this context ? And if yes, how to do it properly ?
Please note that this application don't have a lot of QueueConnector objects, and won't have (maybe 10 connectors MAX), meaning ten Threads max through the first solution, so memory footprint / performance starting threads is not an issue here. I was rather thinking about scheduling performance / CPU usage. Will there be any difference ?

You will generally have more overhead and less throughput with async code when the count of threads is low. Nonblocking code is most useful when the number of threads is very high causing a) lots of wasted memory due to stacks and b) context switches. It has noticable overhead though because of more allocation, more indirection and more user-kernel-transitions.
For low thread counts (< 100) you probably shouldn't worry. Try to focus on writing maintainable, bug-resistant and simple code. Use threads.