I have the following function:
//Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
Random random = new Random();
return random.Next(min, max);
}
How I call it:
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Misc.RandomNumber((int)0xFFFF, (int)0xFFFFFF) % 256);
If I step that loop with the debugger during runtime I get different values (which is what I want).
However, if I put a breakpoint two lines below that code, all members of the mac array have equal value.
Why does that happen?
Every time you do new Random() it is initialized using the clock. This means that in a tight loop you get the same value lots of times. You should keep a single Random instance and keep using Next on the same instance.
//Function to get a random number
private static readonly Random random = new Random();
private static readonly object syncLock = new object();
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
lock(syncLock) { // synchronize
return random.Next(min, max);
}
}
Edit (see comments): why do we need a lock here?
Basically, Next is going to change the internal state of the Random instance. If we do that at the same time from multiple threads, you could argue "we've just made the outcome even more random", but what we are actually doing is potentially breaking the internal implementation, and we could also start getting the same numbers from different threads, which might be a problem - and might not. The guarantee of what happens internally is the bigger issue, though; since Random does not make any guarantees of thread-safety. Thus there are two valid approaches:
Synchronize so that we don't access it at the same time from different threads
Use different Random instances per thread
Either can be fine; but mutexing a single instance from multiple callers at the same time is just asking for trouble.
The lock achieves the first (and simpler) of these approaches; however, another approach might be:
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> appRandom
= new ThreadLocal<Random>(() => new Random());
this is then per-thread, so you don't need to synchronize.
For ease of re-use throughout your application a static class may help.
public static class StaticRandom
{
private static int seed;
private static ThreadLocal<Random> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Random>
(() => new Random(Interlocked.Increment(ref seed)));
static StaticRandom()
{
seed = Environment.TickCount;
}
public static Random Instance { get { return threadLocal.Value; } }
}
You can use then use static random instance with code such as
StaticRandom.Instance.Next(1, 100);
Mark's solution can be quite expensive since it needs to synchronize everytime.
We can get around the need for synchronization by using the thread-specific storage pattern:
public class RandomNumber : IRandomNumber
{
private static readonly Random Global = new Random();
[ThreadStatic] private static Random _local;
public int Next(int max)
{
var localBuffer = _local;
if (localBuffer == null)
{
int seed;
lock(Global) seed = Global.Next();
localBuffer = new Random(seed);
_local = localBuffer;
}
return localBuffer.Next(max);
}
}
Measure the two implementations and you should see a significant difference.
My answer from here:
Just reiterating the right solution:
namespace mySpace
{
public static class Util
{
private static rnd = new Random();
public static int GetRandom()
{
return rnd.Next();
}
}
}
So you can call:
var i = Util.GetRandom();
all throughout.
If you strictly need a true stateless static method to generate random numbers, you can rely on a Guid.
public static class Util
{
public static int GetRandom()
{
return Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
}
}
It's going to be a wee bit slower, but can be much more random than Random.Next, at least from my experience.
But not:
new Random(Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode()).Next();
The unnecessary object creation is going to make it slower especially under a loop.
And never:
new Random().Next();
Not only it's slower (inside a loop), its randomness is... well not really good according to me..
I would rather use the following class to generate random numbers:
byte[] random;
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider prov = new System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
prov.GetBytes(random);
1) As Marc Gravell said, try to use ONE random-generator. It's always cool to add this to the constructor: System.Environment.TickCount.
2) One tip. Let's say you want to create 100 objects and suppose each of them should have its-own random-generator (handy if you calculate LOADS of random numbers in a very short period of time). If you would do this in a loop (generation of 100 objects), you could do this like that (to assure fully-randomness):
int inMyRandSeed;
for(int i=0;i<100;i++)
{
inMyRandSeed = System.Environment.TickCount + i;
.
.
.
myNewObject = new MyNewObject(inMyRandSeed);
.
.
.
}
// Usage: Random m_rndGen = new Random(inMyRandSeed);
Cheers.
Every time you execute
Random random = new Random (15);
It does not matter if you execute it millions of times, you will always use the same seed.
If you use
Random random = new Random ();
You get different random number sequence, if a hacker guesses the seed and your algorithm is related to the security of your system - your algorithm is broken. I you execute mult. In this constructor the seed is specified by the system clock and if several instances are created in a very short period of time (milliseconds) it is possible that they may have the same seed.
If you need safe random numbers you must use the class
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider
public static int Next(int min, int max)
{
if(min >= max)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Min value is greater or equals than Max value.");
}
byte[] intBytes = new byte[4];
using(RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
rng.GetNonZeroBytes(intBytes);
}
return min + Math.Abs(BitConverter.ToInt32(intBytes, 0)) % (max - min + 1);
}
Usage:
int randomNumber = Next(1,100);
Starting from .NET 6, the Random class is now equipped with a static property named Shared:
Provides a thread-safe Random instance that may be used concurrently from any thread.
You could use it like this:
// Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
return Random.Shared.Next(min, max);
}
Accessing a thread-safe object has a small overhead, so if you are planning to
generate millions of random numbers on a single thread as fast as possible, it might be preferable to create a dedicated Random instance instead of relying on the Shared.
Why does that happen?
As was answered before, every time you call new Random() you get new copy of Random class initialized with the same clocks (so it returns the same values).
Now, starting from .NET 6, there is easy to use and thread-safe alternative: Random.Shared
In your example you can remove at all function RandomNumber and then use following code (with the same logic, but now it works correct):
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Random.Shared.Next(0, 255));
You can use code like this:
public static class ThreadSafeRandom
{
private static readonly Random _global = new Random();
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> _local = new ThreadLocal<Random>(() =>
{
int seed;
lock (_global)
{
seed = _global.Next();
}
return new Random(seed);
});
public static Random Instance => _local.Value;
}
This code can be used as is or via the NuGet package ThreadSafeRandomizer.
EDIT: Since .NET 6.0 you can use Random.Shared.Next() instead. You can still use the above package which chooses between the above code or Random.Shared with preprocessor directives.
I use this:
int randomNumber = int.Parse(Guid.NewGuid().ToString().FirstOrDefault(Char.IsDigit).ToString().Replace("\0", "0"));
Performance: Generating 1 million random number on my PC: 711 ms.
If the Guid not contains any number (i don't know that's possible or not) then 0 will be used as the result.
I solved the problem by using the Rnd() function:
Function RollD6() As UInteger
RollD6 = (Math.Floor(6 * Rnd())) + 1
Return RollD6
End Function
When the form loads, I use the Randomize() method to make sure I don't always get the same sequence of random numbers from run to run.
In Visual Basic this works (probably can be translated to C#, if not a DLL reference can be a solution):
Private Function GetRandomInt(ByVal Min As Integer, ByVal Max As Integer) As Integer
Static Generator As System.Random = New System.Random()
Return Generator.Next(Min, Max)
End Function
There are a lot of solutions, here one: if you want only number erase the letters and the method receives a random and the result length.
public String GenerateRandom(Random oRandom, int iLongitudPin)
{
String sCharacters = "123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ123456789";
int iLength = sCharacters.Length;
char cCharacter;
int iLongitudNuevaCadena = iLongitudPin;
String sRandomResult = "";
for (int i = 0; i < iLongitudNuevaCadena; i++)
{
cCharacter = sCharacters[oRandom.Next(iLength)];
sRandomResult += cCharacter.ToString();
}
return (sRandomResult);
}
Always get a positive random number.
var nexnumber = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
if (nexnumber < 0)
{
nexnumber *= -1;
}
Related
I have the following function:
//Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
Random random = new Random();
return random.Next(min, max);
}
How I call it:
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Misc.RandomNumber((int)0xFFFF, (int)0xFFFFFF) % 256);
If I step that loop with the debugger during runtime I get different values (which is what I want).
However, if I put a breakpoint two lines below that code, all members of the mac array have equal value.
Why does that happen?
Every time you do new Random() it is initialized using the clock. This means that in a tight loop you get the same value lots of times. You should keep a single Random instance and keep using Next on the same instance.
//Function to get a random number
private static readonly Random random = new Random();
private static readonly object syncLock = new object();
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
lock(syncLock) { // synchronize
return random.Next(min, max);
}
}
Edit (see comments): why do we need a lock here?
Basically, Next is going to change the internal state of the Random instance. If we do that at the same time from multiple threads, you could argue "we've just made the outcome even more random", but what we are actually doing is potentially breaking the internal implementation, and we could also start getting the same numbers from different threads, which might be a problem - and might not. The guarantee of what happens internally is the bigger issue, though; since Random does not make any guarantees of thread-safety. Thus there are two valid approaches:
Synchronize so that we don't access it at the same time from different threads
Use different Random instances per thread
Either can be fine; but mutexing a single instance from multiple callers at the same time is just asking for trouble.
The lock achieves the first (and simpler) of these approaches; however, another approach might be:
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> appRandom
= new ThreadLocal<Random>(() => new Random());
this is then per-thread, so you don't need to synchronize.
For ease of re-use throughout your application a static class may help.
public static class StaticRandom
{
private static int seed;
private static ThreadLocal<Random> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Random>
(() => new Random(Interlocked.Increment(ref seed)));
static StaticRandom()
{
seed = Environment.TickCount;
}
public static Random Instance { get { return threadLocal.Value; } }
}
You can use then use static random instance with code such as
StaticRandom.Instance.Next(1, 100);
Mark's solution can be quite expensive since it needs to synchronize everytime.
We can get around the need for synchronization by using the thread-specific storage pattern:
public class RandomNumber : IRandomNumber
{
private static readonly Random Global = new Random();
[ThreadStatic] private static Random _local;
public int Next(int max)
{
var localBuffer = _local;
if (localBuffer == null)
{
int seed;
lock(Global) seed = Global.Next();
localBuffer = new Random(seed);
_local = localBuffer;
}
return localBuffer.Next(max);
}
}
Measure the two implementations and you should see a significant difference.
My answer from here:
Just reiterating the right solution:
namespace mySpace
{
public static class Util
{
private static rnd = new Random();
public static int GetRandom()
{
return rnd.Next();
}
}
}
So you can call:
var i = Util.GetRandom();
all throughout.
If you strictly need a true stateless static method to generate random numbers, you can rely on a Guid.
public static class Util
{
public static int GetRandom()
{
return Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
}
}
It's going to be a wee bit slower, but can be much more random than Random.Next, at least from my experience.
But not:
new Random(Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode()).Next();
The unnecessary object creation is going to make it slower especially under a loop.
And never:
new Random().Next();
Not only it's slower (inside a loop), its randomness is... well not really good according to me..
I would rather use the following class to generate random numbers:
byte[] random;
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider prov = new System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
prov.GetBytes(random);
1) As Marc Gravell said, try to use ONE random-generator. It's always cool to add this to the constructor: System.Environment.TickCount.
2) One tip. Let's say you want to create 100 objects and suppose each of them should have its-own random-generator (handy if you calculate LOADS of random numbers in a very short period of time). If you would do this in a loop (generation of 100 objects), you could do this like that (to assure fully-randomness):
int inMyRandSeed;
for(int i=0;i<100;i++)
{
inMyRandSeed = System.Environment.TickCount + i;
.
.
.
myNewObject = new MyNewObject(inMyRandSeed);
.
.
.
}
// Usage: Random m_rndGen = new Random(inMyRandSeed);
Cheers.
Every time you execute
Random random = new Random (15);
It does not matter if you execute it millions of times, you will always use the same seed.
If you use
Random random = new Random ();
You get different random number sequence, if a hacker guesses the seed and your algorithm is related to the security of your system - your algorithm is broken. I you execute mult. In this constructor the seed is specified by the system clock and if several instances are created in a very short period of time (milliseconds) it is possible that they may have the same seed.
If you need safe random numbers you must use the class
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider
public static int Next(int min, int max)
{
if(min >= max)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Min value is greater or equals than Max value.");
}
byte[] intBytes = new byte[4];
using(RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
rng.GetNonZeroBytes(intBytes);
}
return min + Math.Abs(BitConverter.ToInt32(intBytes, 0)) % (max - min + 1);
}
Usage:
int randomNumber = Next(1,100);
Starting from .NET 6, the Random class is now equipped with a static property named Shared:
Provides a thread-safe Random instance that may be used concurrently from any thread.
You could use it like this:
// Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
return Random.Shared.Next(min, max);
}
Accessing a thread-safe object has a small overhead, so if you are planning to
generate millions of random numbers on a single thread as fast as possible, it might be preferable to create a dedicated Random instance instead of relying on the Shared.
Why does that happen?
As was answered before, every time you call new Random() you get new copy of Random class initialized with the same clocks (so it returns the same values).
Now, starting from .NET 6, there is easy to use and thread-safe alternative: Random.Shared
In your example you can remove at all function RandomNumber and then use following code (with the same logic, but now it works correct):
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Random.Shared.Next(0, 255));
You can use code like this:
public static class ThreadSafeRandom
{
private static readonly Random _global = new Random();
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> _local = new ThreadLocal<Random>(() =>
{
int seed;
lock (_global)
{
seed = _global.Next();
}
return new Random(seed);
});
public static Random Instance => _local.Value;
}
This code can be used as is or via the NuGet package ThreadSafeRandomizer.
EDIT: Since .NET 6.0 you can use Random.Shared.Next() instead. You can still use the above package which chooses between the above code or Random.Shared with preprocessor directives.
I use this:
int randomNumber = int.Parse(Guid.NewGuid().ToString().FirstOrDefault(Char.IsDigit).ToString().Replace("\0", "0"));
Performance: Generating 1 million random number on my PC: 711 ms.
If the Guid not contains any number (i don't know that's possible or not) then 0 will be used as the result.
I solved the problem by using the Rnd() function:
Function RollD6() As UInteger
RollD6 = (Math.Floor(6 * Rnd())) + 1
Return RollD6
End Function
When the form loads, I use the Randomize() method to make sure I don't always get the same sequence of random numbers from run to run.
In Visual Basic this works (probably can be translated to C#, if not a DLL reference can be a solution):
Private Function GetRandomInt(ByVal Min As Integer, ByVal Max As Integer) As Integer
Static Generator As System.Random = New System.Random()
Return Generator.Next(Min, Max)
End Function
There are a lot of solutions, here one: if you want only number erase the letters and the method receives a random and the result length.
public String GenerateRandom(Random oRandom, int iLongitudPin)
{
String sCharacters = "123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ123456789";
int iLength = sCharacters.Length;
char cCharacter;
int iLongitudNuevaCadena = iLongitudPin;
String sRandomResult = "";
for (int i = 0; i < iLongitudNuevaCadena; i++)
{
cCharacter = sCharacters[oRandom.Next(iLength)];
sRandomResult += cCharacter.ToString();
}
return (sRandomResult);
}
Always get a positive random number.
var nexnumber = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
if (nexnumber < 0)
{
nexnumber *= -1;
}
I have the following function:
//Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
Random random = new Random();
return random.Next(min, max);
}
How I call it:
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Misc.RandomNumber((int)0xFFFF, (int)0xFFFFFF) % 256);
If I step that loop with the debugger during runtime I get different values (which is what I want).
However, if I put a breakpoint two lines below that code, all members of the mac array have equal value.
Why does that happen?
Every time you do new Random() it is initialized using the clock. This means that in a tight loop you get the same value lots of times. You should keep a single Random instance and keep using Next on the same instance.
//Function to get a random number
private static readonly Random random = new Random();
private static readonly object syncLock = new object();
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
lock(syncLock) { // synchronize
return random.Next(min, max);
}
}
Edit (see comments): why do we need a lock here?
Basically, Next is going to change the internal state of the Random instance. If we do that at the same time from multiple threads, you could argue "we've just made the outcome even more random", but what we are actually doing is potentially breaking the internal implementation, and we could also start getting the same numbers from different threads, which might be a problem - and might not. The guarantee of what happens internally is the bigger issue, though; since Random does not make any guarantees of thread-safety. Thus there are two valid approaches:
Synchronize so that we don't access it at the same time from different threads
Use different Random instances per thread
Either can be fine; but mutexing a single instance from multiple callers at the same time is just asking for trouble.
The lock achieves the first (and simpler) of these approaches; however, another approach might be:
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> appRandom
= new ThreadLocal<Random>(() => new Random());
this is then per-thread, so you don't need to synchronize.
For ease of re-use throughout your application a static class may help.
public static class StaticRandom
{
private static int seed;
private static ThreadLocal<Random> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Random>
(() => new Random(Interlocked.Increment(ref seed)));
static StaticRandom()
{
seed = Environment.TickCount;
}
public static Random Instance { get { return threadLocal.Value; } }
}
You can use then use static random instance with code such as
StaticRandom.Instance.Next(1, 100);
Mark's solution can be quite expensive since it needs to synchronize everytime.
We can get around the need for synchronization by using the thread-specific storage pattern:
public class RandomNumber : IRandomNumber
{
private static readonly Random Global = new Random();
[ThreadStatic] private static Random _local;
public int Next(int max)
{
var localBuffer = _local;
if (localBuffer == null)
{
int seed;
lock(Global) seed = Global.Next();
localBuffer = new Random(seed);
_local = localBuffer;
}
return localBuffer.Next(max);
}
}
Measure the two implementations and you should see a significant difference.
My answer from here:
Just reiterating the right solution:
namespace mySpace
{
public static class Util
{
private static rnd = new Random();
public static int GetRandom()
{
return rnd.Next();
}
}
}
So you can call:
var i = Util.GetRandom();
all throughout.
If you strictly need a true stateless static method to generate random numbers, you can rely on a Guid.
public static class Util
{
public static int GetRandom()
{
return Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
}
}
It's going to be a wee bit slower, but can be much more random than Random.Next, at least from my experience.
But not:
new Random(Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode()).Next();
The unnecessary object creation is going to make it slower especially under a loop.
And never:
new Random().Next();
Not only it's slower (inside a loop), its randomness is... well not really good according to me..
I would rather use the following class to generate random numbers:
byte[] random;
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider prov = new System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
prov.GetBytes(random);
1) As Marc Gravell said, try to use ONE random-generator. It's always cool to add this to the constructor: System.Environment.TickCount.
2) One tip. Let's say you want to create 100 objects and suppose each of them should have its-own random-generator (handy if you calculate LOADS of random numbers in a very short period of time). If you would do this in a loop (generation of 100 objects), you could do this like that (to assure fully-randomness):
int inMyRandSeed;
for(int i=0;i<100;i++)
{
inMyRandSeed = System.Environment.TickCount + i;
.
.
.
myNewObject = new MyNewObject(inMyRandSeed);
.
.
.
}
// Usage: Random m_rndGen = new Random(inMyRandSeed);
Cheers.
Every time you execute
Random random = new Random (15);
It does not matter if you execute it millions of times, you will always use the same seed.
If you use
Random random = new Random ();
You get different random number sequence, if a hacker guesses the seed and your algorithm is related to the security of your system - your algorithm is broken. I you execute mult. In this constructor the seed is specified by the system clock and if several instances are created in a very short period of time (milliseconds) it is possible that they may have the same seed.
If you need safe random numbers you must use the class
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider
public static int Next(int min, int max)
{
if(min >= max)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Min value is greater or equals than Max value.");
}
byte[] intBytes = new byte[4];
using(RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
rng.GetNonZeroBytes(intBytes);
}
return min + Math.Abs(BitConverter.ToInt32(intBytes, 0)) % (max - min + 1);
}
Usage:
int randomNumber = Next(1,100);
Starting from .NET 6, the Random class is now equipped with a static property named Shared:
Provides a thread-safe Random instance that may be used concurrently from any thread.
You could use it like this:
// Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
return Random.Shared.Next(min, max);
}
Accessing a thread-safe object has a small overhead, so if you are planning to
generate millions of random numbers on a single thread as fast as possible, it might be preferable to create a dedicated Random instance instead of relying on the Shared.
Why does that happen?
As was answered before, every time you call new Random() you get new copy of Random class initialized with the same clocks (so it returns the same values).
Now, starting from .NET 6, there is easy to use and thread-safe alternative: Random.Shared
In your example you can remove at all function RandomNumber and then use following code (with the same logic, but now it works correct):
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Random.Shared.Next(0, 255));
You can use code like this:
public static class ThreadSafeRandom
{
private static readonly Random _global = new Random();
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> _local = new ThreadLocal<Random>(() =>
{
int seed;
lock (_global)
{
seed = _global.Next();
}
return new Random(seed);
});
public static Random Instance => _local.Value;
}
This code can be used as is or via the NuGet package ThreadSafeRandomizer.
EDIT: Since .NET 6.0 you can use Random.Shared.Next() instead. You can still use the above package which chooses between the above code or Random.Shared with preprocessor directives.
I use this:
int randomNumber = int.Parse(Guid.NewGuid().ToString().FirstOrDefault(Char.IsDigit).ToString().Replace("\0", "0"));
Performance: Generating 1 million random number on my PC: 711 ms.
If the Guid not contains any number (i don't know that's possible or not) then 0 will be used as the result.
I solved the problem by using the Rnd() function:
Function RollD6() As UInteger
RollD6 = (Math.Floor(6 * Rnd())) + 1
Return RollD6
End Function
When the form loads, I use the Randomize() method to make sure I don't always get the same sequence of random numbers from run to run.
In Visual Basic this works (probably can be translated to C#, if not a DLL reference can be a solution):
Private Function GetRandomInt(ByVal Min As Integer, ByVal Max As Integer) As Integer
Static Generator As System.Random = New System.Random()
Return Generator.Next(Min, Max)
End Function
There are a lot of solutions, here one: if you want only number erase the letters and the method receives a random and the result length.
public String GenerateRandom(Random oRandom, int iLongitudPin)
{
String sCharacters = "123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ123456789";
int iLength = sCharacters.Length;
char cCharacter;
int iLongitudNuevaCadena = iLongitudPin;
String sRandomResult = "";
for (int i = 0; i < iLongitudNuevaCadena; i++)
{
cCharacter = sCharacters[oRandom.Next(iLength)];
sRandomResult += cCharacter.ToString();
}
return (sRandomResult);
}
Always get a positive random number.
var nexnumber = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
if (nexnumber < 0)
{
nexnumber *= -1;
}
I have the following function:
//Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
Random random = new Random();
return random.Next(min, max);
}
How I call it:
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Misc.RandomNumber((int)0xFFFF, (int)0xFFFFFF) % 256);
If I step that loop with the debugger during runtime I get different values (which is what I want).
However, if I put a breakpoint two lines below that code, all members of the mac array have equal value.
Why does that happen?
Every time you do new Random() it is initialized using the clock. This means that in a tight loop you get the same value lots of times. You should keep a single Random instance and keep using Next on the same instance.
//Function to get a random number
private static readonly Random random = new Random();
private static readonly object syncLock = new object();
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
lock(syncLock) { // synchronize
return random.Next(min, max);
}
}
Edit (see comments): why do we need a lock here?
Basically, Next is going to change the internal state of the Random instance. If we do that at the same time from multiple threads, you could argue "we've just made the outcome even more random", but what we are actually doing is potentially breaking the internal implementation, and we could also start getting the same numbers from different threads, which might be a problem - and might not. The guarantee of what happens internally is the bigger issue, though; since Random does not make any guarantees of thread-safety. Thus there are two valid approaches:
Synchronize so that we don't access it at the same time from different threads
Use different Random instances per thread
Either can be fine; but mutexing a single instance from multiple callers at the same time is just asking for trouble.
The lock achieves the first (and simpler) of these approaches; however, another approach might be:
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> appRandom
= new ThreadLocal<Random>(() => new Random());
this is then per-thread, so you don't need to synchronize.
For ease of re-use throughout your application a static class may help.
public static class StaticRandom
{
private static int seed;
private static ThreadLocal<Random> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Random>
(() => new Random(Interlocked.Increment(ref seed)));
static StaticRandom()
{
seed = Environment.TickCount;
}
public static Random Instance { get { return threadLocal.Value; } }
}
You can use then use static random instance with code such as
StaticRandom.Instance.Next(1, 100);
Mark's solution can be quite expensive since it needs to synchronize everytime.
We can get around the need for synchronization by using the thread-specific storage pattern:
public class RandomNumber : IRandomNumber
{
private static readonly Random Global = new Random();
[ThreadStatic] private static Random _local;
public int Next(int max)
{
var localBuffer = _local;
if (localBuffer == null)
{
int seed;
lock(Global) seed = Global.Next();
localBuffer = new Random(seed);
_local = localBuffer;
}
return localBuffer.Next(max);
}
}
Measure the two implementations and you should see a significant difference.
My answer from here:
Just reiterating the right solution:
namespace mySpace
{
public static class Util
{
private static rnd = new Random();
public static int GetRandom()
{
return rnd.Next();
}
}
}
So you can call:
var i = Util.GetRandom();
all throughout.
If you strictly need a true stateless static method to generate random numbers, you can rely on a Guid.
public static class Util
{
public static int GetRandom()
{
return Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
}
}
It's going to be a wee bit slower, but can be much more random than Random.Next, at least from my experience.
But not:
new Random(Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode()).Next();
The unnecessary object creation is going to make it slower especially under a loop.
And never:
new Random().Next();
Not only it's slower (inside a loop), its randomness is... well not really good according to me..
I would rather use the following class to generate random numbers:
byte[] random;
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider prov = new System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
prov.GetBytes(random);
1) As Marc Gravell said, try to use ONE random-generator. It's always cool to add this to the constructor: System.Environment.TickCount.
2) One tip. Let's say you want to create 100 objects and suppose each of them should have its-own random-generator (handy if you calculate LOADS of random numbers in a very short period of time). If you would do this in a loop (generation of 100 objects), you could do this like that (to assure fully-randomness):
int inMyRandSeed;
for(int i=0;i<100;i++)
{
inMyRandSeed = System.Environment.TickCount + i;
.
.
.
myNewObject = new MyNewObject(inMyRandSeed);
.
.
.
}
// Usage: Random m_rndGen = new Random(inMyRandSeed);
Cheers.
Every time you execute
Random random = new Random (15);
It does not matter if you execute it millions of times, you will always use the same seed.
If you use
Random random = new Random ();
You get different random number sequence, if a hacker guesses the seed and your algorithm is related to the security of your system - your algorithm is broken. I you execute mult. In this constructor the seed is specified by the system clock and if several instances are created in a very short period of time (milliseconds) it is possible that they may have the same seed.
If you need safe random numbers you must use the class
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider
public static int Next(int min, int max)
{
if(min >= max)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Min value is greater or equals than Max value.");
}
byte[] intBytes = new byte[4];
using(RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
rng.GetNonZeroBytes(intBytes);
}
return min + Math.Abs(BitConverter.ToInt32(intBytes, 0)) % (max - min + 1);
}
Usage:
int randomNumber = Next(1,100);
Starting from .NET 6, the Random class is now equipped with a static property named Shared:
Provides a thread-safe Random instance that may be used concurrently from any thread.
You could use it like this:
// Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
return Random.Shared.Next(min, max);
}
Accessing a thread-safe object has a small overhead, so if you are planning to
generate millions of random numbers on a single thread as fast as possible, it might be preferable to create a dedicated Random instance instead of relying on the Shared.
Why does that happen?
As was answered before, every time you call new Random() you get new copy of Random class initialized with the same clocks (so it returns the same values).
Now, starting from .NET 6, there is easy to use and thread-safe alternative: Random.Shared
In your example you can remove at all function RandomNumber and then use following code (with the same logic, but now it works correct):
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Random.Shared.Next(0, 255));
You can use code like this:
public static class ThreadSafeRandom
{
private static readonly Random _global = new Random();
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> _local = new ThreadLocal<Random>(() =>
{
int seed;
lock (_global)
{
seed = _global.Next();
}
return new Random(seed);
});
public static Random Instance => _local.Value;
}
This code can be used as is or via the NuGet package ThreadSafeRandomizer.
EDIT: Since .NET 6.0 you can use Random.Shared.Next() instead. You can still use the above package which chooses between the above code or Random.Shared with preprocessor directives.
I use this:
int randomNumber = int.Parse(Guid.NewGuid().ToString().FirstOrDefault(Char.IsDigit).ToString().Replace("\0", "0"));
Performance: Generating 1 million random number on my PC: 711 ms.
If the Guid not contains any number (i don't know that's possible or not) then 0 will be used as the result.
I solved the problem by using the Rnd() function:
Function RollD6() As UInteger
RollD6 = (Math.Floor(6 * Rnd())) + 1
Return RollD6
End Function
When the form loads, I use the Randomize() method to make sure I don't always get the same sequence of random numbers from run to run.
In Visual Basic this works (probably can be translated to C#, if not a DLL reference can be a solution):
Private Function GetRandomInt(ByVal Min As Integer, ByVal Max As Integer) As Integer
Static Generator As System.Random = New System.Random()
Return Generator.Next(Min, Max)
End Function
There are a lot of solutions, here one: if you want only number erase the letters and the method receives a random and the result length.
public String GenerateRandom(Random oRandom, int iLongitudPin)
{
String sCharacters = "123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ123456789";
int iLength = sCharacters.Length;
char cCharacter;
int iLongitudNuevaCadena = iLongitudPin;
String sRandomResult = "";
for (int i = 0; i < iLongitudNuevaCadena; i++)
{
cCharacter = sCharacters[oRandom.Next(iLength)];
sRandomResult += cCharacter.ToString();
}
return (sRandomResult);
}
Always get a positive random number.
var nexnumber = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
if (nexnumber < 0)
{
nexnumber *= -1;
}
I have the following function:
//Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
Random random = new Random();
return random.Next(min, max);
}
How I call it:
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Misc.RandomNumber((int)0xFFFF, (int)0xFFFFFF) % 256);
If I step that loop with the debugger during runtime I get different values (which is what I want).
However, if I put a breakpoint two lines below that code, all members of the mac array have equal value.
Why does that happen?
Every time you do new Random() it is initialized using the clock. This means that in a tight loop you get the same value lots of times. You should keep a single Random instance and keep using Next on the same instance.
//Function to get a random number
private static readonly Random random = new Random();
private static readonly object syncLock = new object();
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
lock(syncLock) { // synchronize
return random.Next(min, max);
}
}
Edit (see comments): why do we need a lock here?
Basically, Next is going to change the internal state of the Random instance. If we do that at the same time from multiple threads, you could argue "we've just made the outcome even more random", but what we are actually doing is potentially breaking the internal implementation, and we could also start getting the same numbers from different threads, which might be a problem - and might not. The guarantee of what happens internally is the bigger issue, though; since Random does not make any guarantees of thread-safety. Thus there are two valid approaches:
Synchronize so that we don't access it at the same time from different threads
Use different Random instances per thread
Either can be fine; but mutexing a single instance from multiple callers at the same time is just asking for trouble.
The lock achieves the first (and simpler) of these approaches; however, another approach might be:
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> appRandom
= new ThreadLocal<Random>(() => new Random());
this is then per-thread, so you don't need to synchronize.
For ease of re-use throughout your application a static class may help.
public static class StaticRandom
{
private static int seed;
private static ThreadLocal<Random> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Random>
(() => new Random(Interlocked.Increment(ref seed)));
static StaticRandom()
{
seed = Environment.TickCount;
}
public static Random Instance { get { return threadLocal.Value; } }
}
You can use then use static random instance with code such as
StaticRandom.Instance.Next(1, 100);
Mark's solution can be quite expensive since it needs to synchronize everytime.
We can get around the need for synchronization by using the thread-specific storage pattern:
public class RandomNumber : IRandomNumber
{
private static readonly Random Global = new Random();
[ThreadStatic] private static Random _local;
public int Next(int max)
{
var localBuffer = _local;
if (localBuffer == null)
{
int seed;
lock(Global) seed = Global.Next();
localBuffer = new Random(seed);
_local = localBuffer;
}
return localBuffer.Next(max);
}
}
Measure the two implementations and you should see a significant difference.
My answer from here:
Just reiterating the right solution:
namespace mySpace
{
public static class Util
{
private static rnd = new Random();
public static int GetRandom()
{
return rnd.Next();
}
}
}
So you can call:
var i = Util.GetRandom();
all throughout.
If you strictly need a true stateless static method to generate random numbers, you can rely on a Guid.
public static class Util
{
public static int GetRandom()
{
return Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
}
}
It's going to be a wee bit slower, but can be much more random than Random.Next, at least from my experience.
But not:
new Random(Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode()).Next();
The unnecessary object creation is going to make it slower especially under a loop.
And never:
new Random().Next();
Not only it's slower (inside a loop), its randomness is... well not really good according to me..
I would rather use the following class to generate random numbers:
byte[] random;
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider prov = new System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
prov.GetBytes(random);
1) As Marc Gravell said, try to use ONE random-generator. It's always cool to add this to the constructor: System.Environment.TickCount.
2) One tip. Let's say you want to create 100 objects and suppose each of them should have its-own random-generator (handy if you calculate LOADS of random numbers in a very short period of time). If you would do this in a loop (generation of 100 objects), you could do this like that (to assure fully-randomness):
int inMyRandSeed;
for(int i=0;i<100;i++)
{
inMyRandSeed = System.Environment.TickCount + i;
.
.
.
myNewObject = new MyNewObject(inMyRandSeed);
.
.
.
}
// Usage: Random m_rndGen = new Random(inMyRandSeed);
Cheers.
Every time you execute
Random random = new Random (15);
It does not matter if you execute it millions of times, you will always use the same seed.
If you use
Random random = new Random ();
You get different random number sequence, if a hacker guesses the seed and your algorithm is related to the security of your system - your algorithm is broken. I you execute mult. In this constructor the seed is specified by the system clock and if several instances are created in a very short period of time (milliseconds) it is possible that they may have the same seed.
If you need safe random numbers you must use the class
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider
public static int Next(int min, int max)
{
if(min >= max)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Min value is greater or equals than Max value.");
}
byte[] intBytes = new byte[4];
using(RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
rng.GetNonZeroBytes(intBytes);
}
return min + Math.Abs(BitConverter.ToInt32(intBytes, 0)) % (max - min + 1);
}
Usage:
int randomNumber = Next(1,100);
Starting from .NET 6, the Random class is now equipped with a static property named Shared:
Provides a thread-safe Random instance that may be used concurrently from any thread.
You could use it like this:
// Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
return Random.Shared.Next(min, max);
}
Accessing a thread-safe object has a small overhead, so if you are planning to
generate millions of random numbers on a single thread as fast as possible, it might be preferable to create a dedicated Random instance instead of relying on the Shared.
Why does that happen?
As was answered before, every time you call new Random() you get new copy of Random class initialized with the same clocks (so it returns the same values).
Now, starting from .NET 6, there is easy to use and thread-safe alternative: Random.Shared
In your example you can remove at all function RandomNumber and then use following code (with the same logic, but now it works correct):
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Random.Shared.Next(0, 255));
You can use code like this:
public static class ThreadSafeRandom
{
private static readonly Random _global = new Random();
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> _local = new ThreadLocal<Random>(() =>
{
int seed;
lock (_global)
{
seed = _global.Next();
}
return new Random(seed);
});
public static Random Instance => _local.Value;
}
This code can be used as is or via the NuGet package ThreadSafeRandomizer.
EDIT: Since .NET 6.0 you can use Random.Shared.Next() instead. You can still use the above package which chooses between the above code or Random.Shared with preprocessor directives.
I use this:
int randomNumber = int.Parse(Guid.NewGuid().ToString().FirstOrDefault(Char.IsDigit).ToString().Replace("\0", "0"));
Performance: Generating 1 million random number on my PC: 711 ms.
If the Guid not contains any number (i don't know that's possible or not) then 0 will be used as the result.
I solved the problem by using the Rnd() function:
Function RollD6() As UInteger
RollD6 = (Math.Floor(6 * Rnd())) + 1
Return RollD6
End Function
When the form loads, I use the Randomize() method to make sure I don't always get the same sequence of random numbers from run to run.
In Visual Basic this works (probably can be translated to C#, if not a DLL reference can be a solution):
Private Function GetRandomInt(ByVal Min As Integer, ByVal Max As Integer) As Integer
Static Generator As System.Random = New System.Random()
Return Generator.Next(Min, Max)
End Function
There are a lot of solutions, here one: if you want only number erase the letters and the method receives a random and the result length.
public String GenerateRandom(Random oRandom, int iLongitudPin)
{
String sCharacters = "123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ123456789";
int iLength = sCharacters.Length;
char cCharacter;
int iLongitudNuevaCadena = iLongitudPin;
String sRandomResult = "";
for (int i = 0; i < iLongitudNuevaCadena; i++)
{
cCharacter = sCharacters[oRandom.Next(iLength)];
sRandomResult += cCharacter.ToString();
}
return (sRandomResult);
}
Always get a positive random number.
var nexnumber = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
if (nexnumber < 0)
{
nexnumber *= -1;
}
I have the following function:
//Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
Random random = new Random();
return random.Next(min, max);
}
How I call it:
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Misc.RandomNumber((int)0xFFFF, (int)0xFFFFFF) % 256);
If I step that loop with the debugger during runtime I get different values (which is what I want).
However, if I put a breakpoint two lines below that code, all members of the mac array have equal value.
Why does that happen?
Every time you do new Random() it is initialized using the clock. This means that in a tight loop you get the same value lots of times. You should keep a single Random instance and keep using Next on the same instance.
//Function to get a random number
private static readonly Random random = new Random();
private static readonly object syncLock = new object();
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
lock(syncLock) { // synchronize
return random.Next(min, max);
}
}
Edit (see comments): why do we need a lock here?
Basically, Next is going to change the internal state of the Random instance. If we do that at the same time from multiple threads, you could argue "we've just made the outcome even more random", but what we are actually doing is potentially breaking the internal implementation, and we could also start getting the same numbers from different threads, which might be a problem - and might not. The guarantee of what happens internally is the bigger issue, though; since Random does not make any guarantees of thread-safety. Thus there are two valid approaches:
Synchronize so that we don't access it at the same time from different threads
Use different Random instances per thread
Either can be fine; but mutexing a single instance from multiple callers at the same time is just asking for trouble.
The lock achieves the first (and simpler) of these approaches; however, another approach might be:
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> appRandom
= new ThreadLocal<Random>(() => new Random());
this is then per-thread, so you don't need to synchronize.
For ease of re-use throughout your application a static class may help.
public static class StaticRandom
{
private static int seed;
private static ThreadLocal<Random> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Random>
(() => new Random(Interlocked.Increment(ref seed)));
static StaticRandom()
{
seed = Environment.TickCount;
}
public static Random Instance { get { return threadLocal.Value; } }
}
You can use then use static random instance with code such as
StaticRandom.Instance.Next(1, 100);
Mark's solution can be quite expensive since it needs to synchronize everytime.
We can get around the need for synchronization by using the thread-specific storage pattern:
public class RandomNumber : IRandomNumber
{
private static readonly Random Global = new Random();
[ThreadStatic] private static Random _local;
public int Next(int max)
{
var localBuffer = _local;
if (localBuffer == null)
{
int seed;
lock(Global) seed = Global.Next();
localBuffer = new Random(seed);
_local = localBuffer;
}
return localBuffer.Next(max);
}
}
Measure the two implementations and you should see a significant difference.
My answer from here:
Just reiterating the right solution:
namespace mySpace
{
public static class Util
{
private static rnd = new Random();
public static int GetRandom()
{
return rnd.Next();
}
}
}
So you can call:
var i = Util.GetRandom();
all throughout.
If you strictly need a true stateless static method to generate random numbers, you can rely on a Guid.
public static class Util
{
public static int GetRandom()
{
return Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
}
}
It's going to be a wee bit slower, but can be much more random than Random.Next, at least from my experience.
But not:
new Random(Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode()).Next();
The unnecessary object creation is going to make it slower especially under a loop.
And never:
new Random().Next();
Not only it's slower (inside a loop), its randomness is... well not really good according to me..
I would rather use the following class to generate random numbers:
byte[] random;
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider prov = new System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
prov.GetBytes(random);
1) As Marc Gravell said, try to use ONE random-generator. It's always cool to add this to the constructor: System.Environment.TickCount.
2) One tip. Let's say you want to create 100 objects and suppose each of them should have its-own random-generator (handy if you calculate LOADS of random numbers in a very short period of time). If you would do this in a loop (generation of 100 objects), you could do this like that (to assure fully-randomness):
int inMyRandSeed;
for(int i=0;i<100;i++)
{
inMyRandSeed = System.Environment.TickCount + i;
.
.
.
myNewObject = new MyNewObject(inMyRandSeed);
.
.
.
}
// Usage: Random m_rndGen = new Random(inMyRandSeed);
Cheers.
Every time you execute
Random random = new Random (15);
It does not matter if you execute it millions of times, you will always use the same seed.
If you use
Random random = new Random ();
You get different random number sequence, if a hacker guesses the seed and your algorithm is related to the security of your system - your algorithm is broken. I you execute mult. In this constructor the seed is specified by the system clock and if several instances are created in a very short period of time (milliseconds) it is possible that they may have the same seed.
If you need safe random numbers you must use the class
System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider
public static int Next(int min, int max)
{
if(min >= max)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Min value is greater or equals than Max value.");
}
byte[] intBytes = new byte[4];
using(RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider())
{
rng.GetNonZeroBytes(intBytes);
}
return min + Math.Abs(BitConverter.ToInt32(intBytes, 0)) % (max - min + 1);
}
Usage:
int randomNumber = Next(1,100);
Starting from .NET 6, the Random class is now equipped with a static property named Shared:
Provides a thread-safe Random instance that may be used concurrently from any thread.
You could use it like this:
// Function to get random number
public static int RandomNumber(int min, int max)
{
return Random.Shared.Next(min, max);
}
Accessing a thread-safe object has a small overhead, so if you are planning to
generate millions of random numbers on a single thread as fast as possible, it might be preferable to create a dedicated Random instance instead of relying on the Shared.
Why does that happen?
As was answered before, every time you call new Random() you get new copy of Random class initialized with the same clocks (so it returns the same values).
Now, starting from .NET 6, there is easy to use and thread-safe alternative: Random.Shared
In your example you can remove at all function RandomNumber and then use following code (with the same logic, but now it works correct):
byte[] mac = new byte[6];
for (int x = 0; x < 6; ++x)
mac[x] = (byte)(Random.Shared.Next(0, 255));
You can use code like this:
public static class ThreadSafeRandom
{
private static readonly Random _global = new Random();
private static readonly ThreadLocal<Random> _local = new ThreadLocal<Random>(() =>
{
int seed;
lock (_global)
{
seed = _global.Next();
}
return new Random(seed);
});
public static Random Instance => _local.Value;
}
This code can be used as is or via the NuGet package ThreadSafeRandomizer.
EDIT: Since .NET 6.0 you can use Random.Shared.Next() instead. You can still use the above package which chooses between the above code or Random.Shared with preprocessor directives.
I use this:
int randomNumber = int.Parse(Guid.NewGuid().ToString().FirstOrDefault(Char.IsDigit).ToString().Replace("\0", "0"));
Performance: Generating 1 million random number on my PC: 711 ms.
If the Guid not contains any number (i don't know that's possible or not) then 0 will be used as the result.
I solved the problem by using the Rnd() function:
Function RollD6() As UInteger
RollD6 = (Math.Floor(6 * Rnd())) + 1
Return RollD6
End Function
When the form loads, I use the Randomize() method to make sure I don't always get the same sequence of random numbers from run to run.
In Visual Basic this works (probably can be translated to C#, if not a DLL reference can be a solution):
Private Function GetRandomInt(ByVal Min As Integer, ByVal Max As Integer) As Integer
Static Generator As System.Random = New System.Random()
Return Generator.Next(Min, Max)
End Function
There are a lot of solutions, here one: if you want only number erase the letters and the method receives a random and the result length.
public String GenerateRandom(Random oRandom, int iLongitudPin)
{
String sCharacters = "123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ123456789";
int iLength = sCharacters.Length;
char cCharacter;
int iLongitudNuevaCadena = iLongitudPin;
String sRandomResult = "";
for (int i = 0; i < iLongitudNuevaCadena; i++)
{
cCharacter = sCharacters[oRandom.Next(iLength)];
sRandomResult += cCharacter.ToString();
}
return (sRandomResult);
}
Always get a positive random number.
var nexnumber = Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode();
if (nexnumber < 0)
{
nexnumber *= -1;
}