We Keep Coding

How can I measure the amount of physical memory use of a function?

Function is not in my control, so I cannot calculate by looking at the code. It inputs a file and behaves differently for different kind of files; and I'm trying to predict the physical memory it will require. I'm trying to find a correlation between files and the memory requirement of the function. Later, I'll use this info to determine number of threads to be created that each will call this function.
Using Process.GetCurrentProcess() and Process.PrivateMemorySize64 I can get the difference between total memory use before and after calling the function. Since there is no memory leak, I get this value as zero, so it is not an information for me. What I really need is to learn the maximum memory used during the execution of the function.
Process.PeakWorkingSet64 gives the maximum amount of total physical memory use since the start of the application.
Is there a way to reset the value of PeakWorkingSet64 to zero, so that I get the difference between the initial and the function's maximum memory use? Or is there any other way to measure what I want?
Edit
I've come up with this dirt solution, but it seems to be working. It measures process memory on every 100 milliseconds from a different thread. Any comment
or a better solution would be very appreciated.
private static int _no;
private static double getCurrentMemoryInMB(System.Diagnostics.Process proc)
{
GC.Collect(); GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers(); GC.Collect();
proc.Refresh();
return proc.PrivateMemorySize64 / 1024d / 1024d;
}
private static void measureMemoryUse(Action action, string processingFileName)
{
double before = 0d, after;
bool killTask = false;
double peak = 0d;
using (System.Diagnostics.Process proc = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetCurrentProcess())
try
{
before = getCurrentMemoryInMB(proc);
System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (!killTask)
{
peak = Math.Max(peak, getCurrentMemoryInMB(proc));
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100);
}
});
action();
}
finally
{
killTask = true;
after = getCurrentMemoryInMB(proc);
double diff = peak - before;
var fi = new System.IO.FileInfo(processingFileName);
double fileSize = fi.Length / 1024d / 1024d;
string fileName = fi.Name;
string fnReport = #"C:\....\report.csv";
if (!File.Exists(fnReport))
{
_no = 0;
File.AppendAllLines(fnReport, new string[] { "#;before (mb);peakMem (mb);after (mb);diff (mb);fileSize (mb);diff/fileSize;fileName" });
}
File.AppendAllLines(fnReport, new string[] { string.Format("{0};{1};{2};{3};{4};{5};{6};{7}", ++_no, before, peak, after, diff, fileSize, diff / fileSize, fileName) });
}
}

C# are field reads guaranteed to be reliable (fresh) when using multithreading?

Background
My colleague thinks reads in multithreaded C# are reliable and will always give you the current, fresh value of a field, but I've always used locks because I was sure I'd experienced problems otherwise.
I spent some time googling and reading articles, but I mustn't be able to provide google with correct search input, because I didn't find exactly what I was after.
So I wrote the below program without locks in an attempt to prove why that's bad.
Question
I'm assuming the below is a valid test, then the results show that the reads aren't reliable/fresh.
Can someone explain what this is caused by? (reordering, staleness or something else)?
And link me to official Microsoft documentation/section explaining why this happens and what is the recommended solution?
If the below isn't a valid test, what would be?
Program
If there are two threads, one calls SetA and the other calls SetB, if the reads are unreliable without locks, then intermittently Foo's field "c" will be false.
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace SetASetBTestAB
{
class Program
{
class Foo
{
public bool a;
public bool b;
public bool c;
public void SetA()
{
a = true;
TestAB();
}
public void SetB()
{
b = true;
TestAB();
}
public void TestAB()
{
if (a && b)
{
c = true;
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int timesCWasFalse = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
var f = new Foo();
var t1 = Task.Run(() => f.SetA());
var t2 = Task.Run(() => f.SetB());
Task.WaitAll(t1, t2);
if (!f.c)
{
timesCWasFalse++;
}
}
Console.WriteLine($"timesCWasFalse: {timesCWasFalse}");
Console.WriteLine("Finished. Press Enter to exit");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
Output
Release mode. Intel Core i7 6700HQ:
Run 1: timesCWasFalse: 8
Run 2: timesCWasFalse: 10

Of course it is not fresh. The average CPU nowadays has 3 layers of Caches between each cores Registers and the RAM. And it can take quite some time for a write to one cache to be propagate to all of them.
And then there is the JiT Compiler. Part of it's job is dead code dection. And one of the first things it will do is cut out "useless" variables. For example this code tried to force a OOM excpetion by running into the 2 GiB Limit on x32 Systems:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace OOM_32_forced
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//each short is 2 byte big, Int32.MaxValue is 2^31.
//So this will require a bit above 2^32 byte, or 2 GiB
short[] Array = new short[Int32.MaxValue];
/*need to actually access that array
Otherwise JIT compiler and optimisations will just skip
the array definition and creation */
foreach (short value in Array)
Console.WriteLine(value);
}
}
}
The thing is that if you cut out the output stuff, there is a decent chance that the JiT will remove the variable Array inlcuding the instantionation order. The JiT has a decent chance to reduce this programming to doing nothing at all at runtime.
volatile is first preventing the JiT from doing any optimisations on that value. And it might even have some effect on how the CPU processes stuff.

What is the best way to work with multiple files in multithread in C#?

I am creating a Windows Form application, where I select a folder that contains multiple *.txt files. Their length may vary from few thousand lines (kB) to up to 50 milion lines (1GB). Every line of the code has three informations. Date in long, location id in int and value in float all separated by semicolon (;). I need to calculate min and max value in all those files and tell in which file it is, and then the most frequent value.
I already have these files verified and stored in an arraylist. I am opening a thread to read the files one by one and I read the data by line. It works fine, but when there are 1GB files, I run out of memory. I tried to store the values in dictionary, where key would be the date and the value would be an object that contains all the info loaded from the line alongside with the filename. I see I cannot use a dictionary, because at about 6M values, I ran out of memory. So I should probably do it in multithread. I though I could run two threads, one that reads the file and puts the info in some kind of container and the other that reads from it and makes calculations and then deletes the values from the container. But I don't know which container could do such thing. Moreover I need to calculate the most frequent value, so they need to be stored somewhere which leads me back to some kind of dictionary, but I already know I will run out of memory. I don't have much experience with threads either, so I don't know what is possible. Here is my code so far:
GUI:
namespace STI {
public partial class GUI : Form {
private String path = null;
public static ArrayList txtFiles;
public GUI() {
InitializeComponent();
_GUI1 = this;
}
//I run it in thread. I thought I would run the second
//one here that would work with the values inputed in some container
private void buttonRun_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) {
ThreadDataProcessing processing = new ThreadDataProcessing();
Thread t_process = new Thread(processing.runProcessing);
t_process.Start();
//ThreadDataCalculating calculating = new ThreadDataCalculating();
//Thread t_calc = new Thread(calculating.runCalculation());
//t_calc.Start();
}
}
}
ThreadProcessing.cs
namespace STI.thread_package {
class ThreadDataProcessing {
public static Dictionary<long, object> finalMap = new Dictionary<long, object>();
public void runProcessing() {
foreach (FileInfo file in GUI.txtFiles) {
using (FileStream fs = File.Open(file.FullName.ToString(), FileMode.Open))
using (BufferedStream bs = new BufferedStream(fs))
using (StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(bs)) {
String line;
String[] splitted;
try {
while ((line = sr.ReadLine()) != null) {
splitted = line.Split(';');
if (splitted.Length == 3) {
long date = long.Parse(splitted[0]);
int location = int.Parse(splitted[1]);
float value = float.Parse(splitted[2], CultureInfo.InvariantCulture);
Entry entry = new Entry(date, location, value, file.Name);
if (!finalMap.ContainsKey(entry.getDate())) {
finalMap.Add(entry.getDate(), entry);
}
}
}
GUI._GUI1.update("File \"" + file.Name + "\" completed\n");
}
catch (FormatException ex) {
GUI._GUI1.update("Wrong file format.");
}
catch (OutOfMemoryException) {
GUI._GUI1.update("Out of memory");
}
}
}
}
}
}
and the object in which I put the values from lines:
Entry.cs
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace STI.entities_package {
class Entry {
private long date;
private int location;
private float value;
private String fileName;
private int count;
public Entry(long date, int location, float value, String fileName) {
this.date = date;
this.location = location;
this.value = value;
this.fileName = fileName;
this.count = 1;
}
public long getDate() {
return date;
}
public int getLocation() {
return location;
}
public String getFileName() {
return fileName;
}
}
}

I don't think that multithreading is going to help you here - it could help you separate the IO-bound tasks from the CPU-bound tasks, but your CPU-bound tasks are so trivial that I don't think they warrant their own thread. All multithreading is going to do is unnecessarily increase the problem complexity.
Calculating the min/max in constant memory is trivial: just maintain a minFile and maxFile variable that gets updated when the current file's value is less-than minFile or greater-than maxFile. Finding the most frequent value is going to require more memory, but with only a few million files you ought to have enough RAM to store a Dictionary<float, int> that maintains the frequency of each value, after which you iterate through the map to determine which value had the highest frequency. If for some reason you don't have enough RAM (make sure that your files are being closed and garbage collected if you're running out of memory, because a Dictionary<float, int> with a few million entries ought to fit in less than a gigabyte of RAM) then you can make multiple passes over the files: on the first pass store the values in a Dictionary<interval, int> where you've split up the interval between MIN_FLOAT and MAX_FLOAT into a few thousand sub-intervals, then on the next pass you can ignore all values that didn't fit into the interval with the highest frequency thus shrinking the dictionary's size. However, the Dictionary<float, int> ought to fit into memory, so unless you start processing billions of files instead of millions of files you probably won't need a multi-pass procedure.

Caching in C#/.Net

I wanted to ask you what is the best approach to implement a cache in C#? Is there a possibility by using given .NET classes or something like that? Perhaps something like a dictionary that will remove some entries, if it gets too large, but where whose entries won't be removed by the garbage collector?

If you are using .NET 4 or superior, you can use MemoryCache class.

If you're using ASP.NET, you could use the Cache class (System.Web.Caching).
Here is a good helper class: c-cache-helper-class
If you mean caching in a windows form app, it depends on what you're trying to do, and where you're trying to cache the data.
We've implemented a cache behind a Webservice for certain methods
(using the System.Web.Caching object.).
However, you might also want to look at the Caching Application Block. (See here) that is part of the Enterprise Library for .NET Framework 2.0.

MemoryCache in the framework is a good place to start, but you might also like to consider the open source library LazyCache because it has a simpler API than memory cache and has built in locking as well as some other developer friendly features. It is also available on nuget.
To give you an example:
// Create our cache service using the defaults (Dependency injection ready).
// Uses MemoryCache.Default as default so cache is shared between instances
IAppCache cache = new CachingService();
// Declare (but don't execute) a func/delegate whose result we want to cache
Func<ComplexObjects> complexObjectFactory = () => methodThatTakesTimeOrResources();
// Get our ComplexObjects from the cache, or build them in the factory func
// and cache the results for next time under the given key
ComplexObject cachedResults = cache.GetOrAdd("uniqueKey", complexObjectFactory);
I recently wrote this article about getting started with caching in dot net that you may find useful.
(Disclaimer: I am the author of LazyCache)

The cache classes supplied with .NET are handy, but have a major problem - they can not store much data (tens of millions+) of objects for a long time without killing your GC. They work great if you cache a few thousand objects, but the moment you move into millions and keep them around until they propagate into GEN2 - the GC pauses would eventually start to be noticeable when you system comes to low memory threshold and GC needs to sweep all gens.
The practicality is this - if you need to store a few hundred thousand instances - use MS cache. Does not matter if your objects are 2-field or 25 field - its about the number of references.
On the other hand there are cases when large RAMs, which are common these days, need to be utilized, i.e. 64 GB.
For that we have created a 100% managed memory manager and cache that sits on top of it.
Our solution can easily store 300,000,000 object in-memory in-process without taxing GC at all - this is because we store data in large (250 mb) byte[] segments.
Here is the code: NFX Pile (Apache 2.0)
And video:
NFX Pile Cache - Youtube

You can use the ObjectCache.
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.runtime.caching.objectcache.aspx

For Local Stores
.NET MemoryCache
NCache Express
AppFabric Caching
...

As mentioned in other answers, the default choice using the .NET Framework is MemoryCache and the various related implementations in Microsoft NuGet packages (e.g. Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.MemoryCache). All of these caches bound size in terms of memory used, and attempt to estimate memory used by tracking how total physical memory is increasing relative to the number of cached objects. A background thread then periodically 'trims' entries.
MemoryCache etc. share some limitations:
Keys are strings, so if the key type is not natively string, you will be forced to constantly allocate strings on the heap. This can really add up in a server application when items are 'hot'.
Has poor 'scan resistance' - e.g. if some automated process is rapidly looping through all the items in that exist, the cache size can grow too fast for the background thread to keep up. This can result in memory pressure, page faults, induced GC or when running under IIS, recycling the process due to exceeding the private bytes limit.
Does not scale well with concurrent writes.
Contains perf counters that cannot be disabled (which incur overhead).
Your workload will determine the degree to which these things are problematic. An alternative approach to caching is to bound the number of objects in the cache (rather than estimating memory used). A cache replacement policy then determines which object to discard when the cache is full.
Below is the source code for a simple cache with least recently used eviction policy:
public sealed class ClassicLru<K, V>
{
private readonly int capacity;
private readonly ConcurrentDictionary<K, LinkedListNode<LruItem>> dictionary;
private readonly LinkedList<LruItem> linkedList = new LinkedList<LruItem>();
private long requestHitCount;
private long requestTotalCount;
public ClassicLru(int capacity)
: this(Defaults.ConcurrencyLevel, capacity, EqualityComparer<K>.Default)
{
}
public ClassicLru(int concurrencyLevel, int capacity, IEqualityComparer<K> comparer)
{
if (capacity < 3)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Capacity must be greater than or equal to 3.");
}
if (comparer == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(comparer));
}
this.capacity = capacity;
this.dictionary = new ConcurrentDictionary<K, LinkedListNode<LruItem>>(concurrencyLevel, this.capacity + 1, comparer);
}
public int Count => this.linkedList.Count;
public double HitRatio => (double)requestHitCount / (double)requestTotalCount;
///<inheritdoc/>
public bool TryGet(K key, out V value)
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref requestTotalCount);
LinkedListNode<LruItem> node;
if (dictionary.TryGetValue(key, out node))
{
LockAndMoveToEnd(node);
Interlocked.Increment(ref requestHitCount);
value = node.Value.Value;
return true;
}
value = default(V);
return false;
}
public V GetOrAdd(K key, Func<K, V> valueFactory)
{
if (this.TryGet(key, out var value))
{
return value;
}
var node = new LinkedListNode<LruItem>(new LruItem(key, valueFactory(key)));
if (this.dictionary.TryAdd(key, node))
{
LinkedListNode<LruItem> first = null;
lock (this.linkedList)
{
if (linkedList.Count >= capacity)
{
first = linkedList.First;
linkedList.RemoveFirst();
}
linkedList.AddLast(node);
}
// Remove from the dictionary outside the lock. This means that the dictionary at this moment
// contains an item that is not in the linked list. If another thread fetches this item,
// LockAndMoveToEnd will ignore it, since it is detached. This means we potentially 'lose' an
// item just as it was about to move to the back of the LRU list and be preserved. The next request
// for the same key will be a miss. Dictionary and list are eventually consistent.
// However, all operations inside the lock are extremely fast, so contention is minimized.
if (first != null)
{
dictionary.TryRemove(first.Value.Key, out var removed);
if (removed.Value.Value is IDisposable d)
{
d.Dispose();
}
}
return node.Value.Value;
}
return this.GetOrAdd(key, valueFactory);
}
public bool TryRemove(K key)
{
if (dictionary.TryRemove(key, out var node))
{
// If the node has already been removed from the list, ignore.
// E.g. thread A reads x from the dictionary. Thread B adds a new item, removes x from
// the List & Dictionary. Now thread A will try to move x to the end of the list.
if (node.List != null)
{
lock (this.linkedList)
{
if (node.List != null)
{
linkedList.Remove(node);
}
}
}
if (node.Value.Value is IDisposable d)
{
d.Dispose();
}
return true;
}
return false;
}
// Thead A reads x from the dictionary. Thread B adds a new item. Thread A moves x to the end. Thread B now removes the new first Node (removal is atomic on both data structures).
private void LockAndMoveToEnd(LinkedListNode<LruItem> node)
{
// If the node has already been removed from the list, ignore.
// E.g. thread A reads x from the dictionary. Thread B adds a new item, removes x from
// the List & Dictionary. Now thread A will try to move x to the end of the list.
if (node.List == null)
{
return;
}
lock (this.linkedList)
{
if (node.List == null)
{
return;
}
linkedList.Remove(node);
linkedList.AddLast(node);
}
}
private class LruItem
{
public LruItem(K k, V v)
{
Key = k;
Value = v;
}
public K Key { get; }
public V Value { get; }
}
}
This is just to illustrate a thread safe cache - it probably has bugs and can be a bottleneck under heavy concurrent workloads (e.g. in a web server).
A thoroughly tested, production ready, scalable concurrent implementation is a bit beyond a stack overflow post. To solve this in my projects, I implemented a thread safe pseudo LRU (think concurrent dictionary, but with constrained size). Performance is very close to a raw ConcurrentDictionary, ~10x faster than MemoryCache, ~10x better concurrent throughput than ClassicLru above, and better hit rate. A detailed performance analysis provided in the github link below.
Usage looks like this:
int capacity = 666;
var lru = new ConcurrentLru<int, SomeItem>(capacity);
var value = lru.GetOrAdd(1, (k) => new SomeItem(k));
GitHub: https://github.com/bitfaster/BitFaster.Caching
Install-Package BitFaster.Caching

Your question needs more clarification. C# is a language not a framework. You have to specify which framework you want to implement the caching. If we consider that you want to implement it in ASP.NET it is still depends completely on what you want from Cache. You can decide between in-process cache (which will keep the data inside the heap of your application) and out-of-process cache (in this case you can store the data in other memory than the heap like Amazon Elastic cache server). And there is also another decision to make which is between client caching or serve side caching. Usually in solution you have to develop different solution for caching different data. Because base on four factors (accessibility, persistency, size, cost) you have to make decision which solution you need.

I wrote this some time ago and it seems to work well. It allows you to differentiate different cache stores by using different Types: ApplicationCaching<MyCacheType1>, ApplicationCaching<MyCacheType2>....
You can decide to allow some stores to persist after execution and others to expire.
You will need a reference to the Newtonsoft.Json serializer (or use an alternative one) and of course all objects or values types to be cached must be serializable.
Use MaxItemCount to set a limit to the number of items in any one store.
A separate Zipper class (see code below) uses System.IO.Compression. This minimises the size of the store and helps speed up loading times.
public static class ApplicationCaching<K>
{
//====================================================================================================================
public static event EventHandler InitialAccess = (s, e) => { };
//=============================================================================================
static Dictionary<string, byte[]> _StoredValues;
static Dictionary<string, DateTime> _ExpirationTimes = new Dictionary<string, DateTime>();
//=============================================================================================
public static int MaxItemCount { get; set; } = 0;
private static void OnInitialAccess()
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_StoredValues = new Dictionary<string, byte[]>();
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InitialAccess?.Invoke(null, EventArgs.Empty);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
public static void AddToCache<T>(string key, T value, DateTime expirationTime)
{
try
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_StoredValues is null) OnInitialAccess();
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
string strValue = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(value);
byte[] zippedValue = Zipper.Zip(strValue);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_StoredValues.Remove(key);
_StoredValues.Add(key, zippedValue);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ExpirationTimes.Remove(key);
_ExpirationTimes.Add(key, expirationTime);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
//=============================================================================================
public static T GetFromCache<T>(string key, T defaultValue = default)
{
try
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_StoredValues is null) OnInitialAccess();
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_StoredValues.ContainsKey(key))
{
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_ExpirationTimes[key] <= DateTime.Now)
{
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_StoredValues.Remove(key);
_ExpirationTimes.Remove(key);
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
return defaultValue;
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
byte[] zippedValue = _StoredValues[key];
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
string strValue = Zipper.Unzip(zippedValue);
T value = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<T>(strValue);
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
return value;
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
else
{
return defaultValue;
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
//=============================================================================================
public static string ConvertCacheToString()
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_StoredValues is null || _ExpirationTimes is null) return "";
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List<string> storage = new List<string>();
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
string strStoredObject = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(_StoredValues);
string strExpirationTimes = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(_ExpirationTimes);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
storage.AddRange(new string[] { strStoredObject, strExpirationTimes});
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
string strStorage = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(storage);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
return strStorage;
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
//=============================================================================================
public static void InializeCacheFromString(string strCache)
{
try
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List<string> storage = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<string>>(strCache);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (storage != null && storage.Count == 2)
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_StoredValues = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Dictionary<string, byte[]>>(storage.First());
_ExpirationTimes = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Dictionary<string, DateTime>>(storage.Last());
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_ExpirationTimes != null && _StoredValues != null)
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for (int i = 0; i < _ExpirationTimes.Count; i++)
{
string key = _ExpirationTimes.ElementAt(i).Key;
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_ExpirationTimes[key] < DateTime.Now)
{
ClearItem(key);
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (MaxItemCount > 0 && _StoredValues.Count > MaxItemCount)
{
IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, DateTime>> countedOutItems = _ExpirationTimes.OrderByDescending(o => o.Value).Skip(MaxItemCount);
for (int i = 0; i < countedOutItems.Count(); i++)
{
ClearItem(countedOutItems.ElementAt(i).Key);
}
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
return;
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_StoredValues = new Dictionary<string, byte[]>();
_ExpirationTimes = new Dictionary<string, DateTime>();
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
catch (Exception)
{
throw;
}
}
//=============================================================================================
public static void ClearItem(string key)
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_StoredValues.ContainsKey(key))
{
_StoredValues.Remove(key);
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (_ExpirationTimes.ContainsKey(key))
_ExpirationTimes.Remove(key);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
//=============================================================================================
}
You can easily start using the cache on the fly with something like...
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
string key = "MyUniqueKeyForThisItem";
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MyType obj = ApplicationCaching<MyCacheType>.GetFromCache<MyType>(key);
//------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (obj == default)
{
obj = new MyType(...);
ApplicationCaching<MyCacheType>.AddToCache(key, obj, DateTime.Now.AddHours(1));
}
Note the actual types stored in the cache can be the same or different from the cache type. The cache type is ONLY used to differentiate different cache stores.
You can then decide to allow the cache to persist after execution terminates using Default Settings
string bulkCache = ApplicationCaching<MyType>.ConvertCacheToString();
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (bulkCache != "")
{
Properties.Settings.Default.*MyType*DataCachingStore = bulkCache;
}
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
try
{
Properties.Settings.Default.Save();
}
catch (IsolatedStorageException)
{
//handle Isolated Storage exceptions here
}
Handle the InitialAccess Event to reinitialize the cache when you restart the app
private static void ApplicationCaching_InitialAccess(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
string storedCache = Properties.Settings.Default.*MyType*DataCachingStore;
ApplicationCaching<MyCacheType>.InializeCacheFromString(storedCache);
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
Finally here is the Zipper class...
public class Zipper
{
public static void CopyTo(Stream src, Stream dest)
{
byte[] bytes = new byte[4096];
int cnt;
while ((cnt = src.Read(bytes, 0, bytes.Length)) != 0)
{
dest.Write(bytes, 0, cnt);
}
}
public static byte[] Zip(string str)
{
var bytes = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(str);
using (var msi = new MemoryStream(bytes))
using (var mso = new MemoryStream())
{
using (var gs = new GZipStream(mso, CompressionMode.Compress))
{
CopyTo(msi, gs);
}
return mso.ToArray();
}
}
public static string Unzip(byte[] bytes)
{
using (var msi = new MemoryStream(bytes))
using (var mso = new MemoryStream())
{
using (var gs = new GZipStream(msi, CompressionMode.Decompress))
{
CopyTo(gs, mso);
}
return Encoding.UTF8.GetString(mso.ToArray());
}
}
}

If you are looking to Cache something in ASP.Net then I would look at the Cache class. For example
Hashtable menuTable = new Hashtable();
menuTable.add("Home","default.aspx");
Cache["menu"] = menuTable;
Then to retrieve it again
Hashtable menuTable = (Hashtable)Cache["menu"];

- Memory cache implementation for .Net core
public class CachePocRepository : ICachedEmployeeRepository
{
private readonly IEmployeeRepository _employeeRepository;
private readonly IMemoryCache _memoryCache;
public CachePocRepository(
IEmployeeRepository employeeRepository,
IMemoryCache memoryCache)
{
_employeeRepository = employeeRepository;
_memoryCache = memoryCache;
}
public async Task<Employee> GetEmployeeDetailsId(string employeeId)
{
_memoryCache.TryGetValue(employeeId, out Employee employee);
if (employee != null)
{
return employee;
}
employee = await _employeeRepository.GetEmployeeDetailsId(employeeId);
_memoryCache.Set(employeeId,
employee,
new MemoryCacheEntryOptions()
{
AbsoluteExpiration = DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddDays(7),
});
return employee;
}

You could use a Hashtable
it has very fast lookups, no key collisions and your data will not garbage collected

Is the Managed heap not scalable to multi-core systems

I was seeing some strange behavior in a multi threading application which I wrote and which was not scaling well across multiple cores.
The following code illustrates the behavior I am seeing. It appears the heap intensive operations do not scale across multiple cores rather they seem to slow down. ie using a single thread would be faster.
class Program
{
public static Data _threadOneData = new Data();
public static Data _threadTwoData = new Data();
public static Data _threadThreeData = new Data();
public static Data _threadFourData = new Data();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Do heap intensive tests
var start = DateTime.Now;
RunOneThread(WorkerUsingHeap);
var finish = DateTime.Now;
var timeLapse = finish - start;
Console.WriteLine("One thread using heap: " + timeLapse);
start = DateTime.Now;
RunFourThreads(WorkerUsingHeap);
finish = DateTime.Now;
timeLapse = finish - start;
Console.WriteLine("Four threads using heap: " + timeLapse);
// Do stack intensive tests
start = DateTime.Now;
RunOneThread(WorkerUsingStack);
finish = DateTime.Now;
timeLapse = finish - start;
Console.WriteLine("One thread using stack: " + timeLapse);
start = DateTime.Now;
RunFourThreads(WorkerUsingStack);
finish = DateTime.Now;
timeLapse = finish - start;
Console.WriteLine("Four threads using stack: " + timeLapse);
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void RunOneThread(ParameterizedThreadStart worker)
{
var threadOne = new Thread(worker);
threadOne.Start(_threadOneData);
threadOne.Join();
}
public static void RunFourThreads(ParameterizedThreadStart worker)
{
var threadOne = new Thread(worker);
threadOne.Start(_threadOneData);
var threadTwo = new Thread(worker);
threadTwo.Start(_threadTwoData);
var threadThree = new Thread(worker);
threadThree.Start(_threadThreeData);
var threadFour = new Thread(worker);
threadFour.Start(_threadFourData);
threadOne.Join();
threadTwo.Join();
threadThree.Join();
threadFour.Join();
}
static void WorkerUsingHeap(object state)
{
var data = state as Data;
for (int count = 0; count < 100000000; count++)
{
var property = data.Property;
data.Property = property + 1;
}
}
static void WorkerUsingStack(object state)
{
var data = state as Data;
double dataOnStack = data.Property;
for (int count = 0; count < 100000000; count++)
{
dataOnStack++;
}
data.Property = dataOnStack;
}
public class Data
{
public double Property
{
get;
set;
}
}
}
This code was run on a Core 2 Quad (4 core system) with the following results:
One thread using heap: 00:00:01.8125000
Four threads using heap: 00:00:17.7500000
One thread using stack: 00:00:00.3437500
Four threads using stack: 00:00:00.3750000
So using the heap with four threads did 4 times the work but took almost 10 times as long. This means it would be twice as fast in this case to use only one thread??????
Using the stack was much more as expected.
I would like to know what is going on here. Can the heap only be written to from one thread at a time?

The answer is simple - run outside of Visual Studio...
I just copied your entire program, and ran it on my quad core system.
Inside VS (Release Build):
One thread using heap: 00:00:03.2206779
Four threads using heap: 00:00:23.1476850
One thread using stack: 00:00:00.3779622
Four threads using stack: 00:00:00.5219478
Outside VS (Release Build):
One thread using heap: 00:00:00.3899610
Four threads using heap: 00:00:00.4689531
One thread using stack: 00:00:00.1359864
Four threads using stack: 00:00:00.1409859
Note the difference. The extra time in the build outside VS is pretty much all due to the overhead of starting the threads. Your work in this case is too small to really test, and you're not using the high performance counters, so it's not a perfect test.
Main rule of thumb - always do perf. testing outside VS, ie: use Ctrl+F5 instead of F5 to run.

Aside from the debug-vs-release effects, there is something more you should be aware of.
You cannot effectively evaluate multi-threaded code for performance in 0.3s.
The point of threads is two-fold: effectively model parallel work in code, and effectively exploit parallel resources (cpus, cores).
You are trying to evaluate the latter. Given that thread start overhead is not vanishingly small in comparison to the interval over which you are timing, your measurement is immediately suspect. In most perf test trials, a significant warm up interval is appropriate. This may sound silly to you - it's a computer program fter all, not a lawnmower. But warm-up is absolutely imperative if you are really going to evaluate multi-thread performance. Caches get filled, pipelines fill up, pools get filled, GC generations get filled. The steady-state, continuous performance is what you would like to evaluate. For purposes of this exercise, the program behaves like a lawnmower.
You could say - Well, no, I don't want to evaluate the steady state performance. And if that is the case, then I would say that your scenario is very specialized. Most app scenarios, whether their designers explicitly realize it or not, need continuous, steady performance.
If you truly need the perf to be good only over a single 0.3s interval, you have found your answer. But be careful to not generalize the results.
If you want general results, you need to have reasonably long warm up intervals, and longer collection intervals. You might start at 20s/60s for those phases, but here is the key thing: you need to vary those intervals until you find the results converging. YMMV. The valid times vary depending on the application workload and the resources dedicated to it, obviously. You may find that a measurement interval of 120s is necessary for convergence, or you may find 40s is just fine. But (a) you won't know until you measure it, and (b) you can bet 0.3s is not long enough.

[edit]Turns out, this is a release vs. debug build issue -- not sure why it is, but it is. See comments and other answers.[/edit]
This was very interesting -- I wouldn't have guessed there'd be that much difference. (similar test machine here -- Core 2 Quad Q9300)
Here's an interesting comparison -- add a decent-sized additional element to the 'Data' class -- I changed it to this:
public class Data
{
public double Property { get; set; }
public byte[] Spacer = new byte[8096];
}
It's still not quite the same time, but it's very close (running it for 10x as long results in 13.1s vs. 17.6s on my machine).
If I had to guess, I'd speculate that it's related to cross-core cache coherency, at least if I'm remembering how CPU cache works. With the small version of 'Data', if a single cache line contains multiple instances of Data, the cores are having to constantly invalidate each other's caches (worst case if they're all on the same cache line). With the 'spacer' added, their memory addresses are sufficiently far enough apart that one CPU's write of a given address doesn't invalidate the caches of the other CPUs.
Another thing to note -- the 4 threads start nearly concurrently, but they don't finish at the same time -- another indication that there's cross-core issues at work here. Also, I'd guess that running on a multi-cpu machine of a different architecture would bring more interesting issues to light here.
I guess the lesson from this is that in a highly-concurrent scenario, if you're doing a bunch of work with a few small data structures, you should try to make sure they aren't all packed on top of each other in memory. Of course, there's really no way to make sure of that, but I'm guessing there are techniques (like adding spacers) that could be used to try to make it happen.
[edit]
This was too interesting -- I couldn't put it down. To test this out further, I thought I'd try varying-sized spacers, and use an integer instead of a double to keep the object without any added spacers smaller.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("name\t1 thread\t4 threads");
RunTest("no spacer", WorkerUsingHeap, () => new Data());
var values = new int[] { -1, 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 };
foreach (var sv in values)
{
var v = sv;
RunTest(string.Format(v == -1 ? "null spacer" : "{0}B spacer", v), WorkerUsingHeap, () => new DataWithSpacer(v));
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void RunTest(string name, ParameterizedThreadStart worker, Func<object> fo)
{
var start = DateTime.UtcNow;
RunOneThread(worker, fo);
var middle = DateTime.UtcNow;
RunFourThreads(worker, fo);
var end = DateTime.UtcNow;
Console.WriteLine("{0}\t{1}\t{2}", name, middle-start, end-middle);
}
public static void RunOneThread(ParameterizedThreadStart worker, Func<object> fo)
{
var data = fo();
var threadOne = new Thread(worker);
threadOne.Start(data);
threadOne.Join();
}
public static void RunFourThreads(ParameterizedThreadStart worker, Func<object> fo)
{
var data1 = fo();
var data2 = fo();
var data3 = fo();
var data4 = fo();
var threadOne = new Thread(worker);
threadOne.Start(data1);
var threadTwo = new Thread(worker);
threadTwo.Start(data2);
var threadThree = new Thread(worker);
threadThree.Start(data3);
var threadFour = new Thread(worker);
threadFour.Start(data4);
threadOne.Join();
threadTwo.Join();
threadThree.Join();
threadFour.Join();
}
static void WorkerUsingHeap(object state)
{
var data = state as Data;
for (int count = 0; count < 500000000; count++)
{
var property = data.Property;
data.Property = property + 1;
}
}
public class Data
{
public int Property { get; set; }
}
public class DataWithSpacer : Data
{
public DataWithSpacer(int size) { Spacer = size == 0 ? null : new byte[size]; }
public byte[] Spacer;
}
}
Result:
1 thread vs. 4 threads
no spacer 00:00:06.3480000 00:00:42.6260000
null spacer 00:00:06.2300000 00:00:36.4030000
0B spacer 00:00:06.1920000 00:00:19.8460000
4B spacer 00:00:06.1870000 00:00:07.4150000
8B spacer 00:00:06.3750000 00:00:07.1260000
12B spacer 00:00:06.3420000 00:00:07.6930000
16B spacer 00:00:06.2250000 00:00:07.5530000
20B spacer 00:00:06.2170000 00:00:07.3670000
No spacer = 1/6th the speed, null spacer = 1/5th the speed, 0B spacer = 1/3th the speed, 4B spacer = full speed.
I don't know the full details of how the CLR allocates or aligns objects, so I can't speak to what these allocation patterns look like in real memory, but these definitely are some interesting results.