I am working on a VB.NET Windows Forms application where the user is supposed to be able to determine how many processes the application is allowed to launch at a time.
My current method mostly works but I've noticed that occasionally the application goes over the set amount. I use two global variables for this, _ConcurrentRuns which is 0 at the start of the application, and _MaxConcurrentRuns which is set by the user.
Private _sync As new Object()
' This is called Synchronously
Private Function RunModel() As Boolean
If CancelExectuion Then Return CancelCleanup()
Do While True
SyncLock _sync
If _ConcurrentRuns < _MaxConcurrentRuns Then
Interlocked.Increment(_ConcurrentRuns)
Exit Do
End If
End SyncLock
Threading.Thread.Sleep(50)
Loop
'This is what will launch an individual process and close it when finished
ret = RunApplication(arg)
' The process has been closed so we decrement the concurrent runs
Interlocked.Decrement(_ConcurrentRuns)
Return ret
End Function
The goal is to let only one thread exit the while loop at a time, I'm not able to catch it in the debug mode however in the task manager it will occasionally go 1-3 processes over what it's supposed to use. This makes me assume that somehow multiple threads are getting inside the synclock somehow, but I have no clue how that could be happening.
I will be very grateful for any and all help that can be provided, thanks for taking the time to read my question.
So it appears that my solution works for this, I don't want to delete this question because it might be helpful to somebody else in the future.
Answer: Use better process monitoring software / set priority to high in task manager.
Related
I want to add workers into a queue, but only have the first N workers processing in parallel. All samples I find are in C#.
This is probably simple for a programmer, but I'm not one. I know enough about VB to write simple programs.
But my first application runs fine until it suddenly hits 100% CPU and then crashes. Help, please (Yes, I've wasted 5 hours of work time searching before posting this...)
More Context: Performing a recursive inventory of directory structures, files, and permissions across file servers with over 1 million directories/subdirectories.
Process runs serially, but will take months to complete. Management already breathing on my neck. When I try using Tasks, it goes to about 1000 threads, then hits 100% CPU, stops responding, then crashes. This is on a 16 core server with 112 GB RAM.
--Added
So, with the sample provided on using Semaphores, this is what I've put in:
Public Class InvDir
Private mSm as Semaphore
Public Sub New(ByVal maxPrc As Integer)
mSm = New Semaphore(maxPrc, maxPrc)
End Sub
Public Sub GetInventory(ByVal Path As String, ByRef Totals As Object, ByRef MyData As Object)
mSm.WaitOne()
Task.Factory.StartNew(Sub()
Dim CurDir As New IO.DirectoryInfo(Path)
Totals.SubDirectoryCount += CurDir.GetDirectories().Count
Totals.FilesCount += CurDir.GetFiles().Count
For Each CurFile As IO.FileInfo in CurDir.EnumerateFiles()
MyData.AddFile(CurFile.FileName, CurFile.Extension, CurFile.FullName, CurFile.Length)
Next
End Sub).ContinueWith(Function(x) mSm.Release())
End Sub
End Class
You're attempting multithreading with disk I/O. It might be getting slower because you're throwing more threads at it. No matter how many threads there are, the disk can physically only seek one position at a time. (In fact, you mentioned that it works serially.)
If you did want to limit the number of concurrent threads you could use a Semaphore. A semaphore is like a syncLock except you can specify how many threads are allowed to execute the code at a time. In the example below, the semaphore allows three threads to execute. Any more than that have to wait until one finishes. Some modified code from the MSDN page:
Public Class Example
' A semaphore that simulates a limited resource pool.
'
Private Shared _pool As Semaphore
<MTAThread> _
Public Shared Sub Main()
' Create a semaphore that can satisfy up to three
' concurrent requests. Use an initial count of zero,
' so that the entire semaphore count is initially
' owned by the main program thread.
'
_pool = New Semaphore(0, 3)
End Sub
Private Sub SomeWorkerMethod()
'This is the method that would be called using a Task.
_pool.WaitOne()
Try
'Do whatever
Finally
_pool.Release()
End Try
End Sub
End Class
Every new thread must call _pool.WaitOne(). That tells it to wait its turn until there are fewer than three threads executing. Every thread blocks until the semaphore allows it to pass.
Every thread must also call _pool.Release() to let the semaphore know that it can allow the next waiting thread to begin. That's important, even if there's an exception. If threads don't call Release() then the semaphore will just block them forever.
If it's really going to take five months, what about cloning the drive and running the check on multiple instances of the same drive, each looking at different sections?
I am currently making a vb program that i plan to make very big. I have a decent knowledge of visual basic but today i came across something i do not understand. Because of the huge size of my program , i decided to try and keep the program as organized as possible by putting specific subs in modules. These subs consist of httprequest , webbrowsers(control), webclients and alot of loops. In order to prevent these subs from lagging my main application i thread them using threading.thread and i start them from my main form. But this leads to two problems.
Problem 1: The threads cannot in any way interact with the main form.
Once the a httprequest or webclient collects the information from my desired website, i am trying to make it add the info to a listbox in my main form, So what i did is it typed
Msgbox("Info Sent")
form1.listbox1.items.add(String)
The first messagebox will show but although the code right under it runs, nothing is added to the first forms listbox.I am not using delegates to transfer the information, instead, although its not a good habit, i am using checkforillegalcrossovers.
Problem 2: Threading with a webbrowser.
Threading with a webbrowser using threading.thread also does not work because it causes an active x error. After looking it up i found that a solution was to use a single threaded apartment but this would not work because i may need multiple threads running off the same sub at once.
One solution that i have found to this problem is creating another form completely and setting it invisible, and since the form is its own thread i do not need to use threading.thread , but the problem comes when i am trying to create multiple threads, or else i can somehow dynamically create the threads and put the subs inside of it programically this method wont work And even if it does i feel that it is sloppy so i will leave this for one of two last resorts.
The other solution is the most simple one in which i just put all of the code in the main form, but if i keep on doing that form1 is gonna become huge and sloppy, doing this wont solve the webbrowser problem either and even when using regions i still feel that something that 1000+ lines deserves its own class.
There must be some solution out there that solves these problems. Any help would be appreciated, Thanks.
I checked my code for updating the progress bar, and using a single thread with synclock will NOT work. They way I make it work is perform the step of the pbar each time after a thread is started as I have limited total threads (say less than 5 threads). Thus, even the progress bar steps before the threads are finished, but it will not progress further before new threads started. It is not 100% accurate but it more or less telling the progress
'update the progress bar
some_form.PBar1.PerformStep()
' This while loop is to count the existing running thread,
' and determine whether new thread should start
While 1
Dim t2 = New System.Threading.Thread(Sub() WaitForPermission())
t2.Start()
t2.Join()
If proceed_gen Then
Exit While
End If
End While
'Start doing what I need to do
Dim t1 = SomeSub()
t1.Start()
'End of code, as VB doest not have thread.detach()
Correct me if I am wrong, but you probably have to use a background worker. I know this is annoying, but this is the limitation of VB.net.
Or, you can have something like this (pseudo code, not tested)
structure some_struct
'define the strings you want to update, and their status such that
'main() knows if you need to update the stuff to the form
' You can also put how many threads are running, and the status of each thread,
'such that the main knows if all threads are completed
end structure
sub your_sub()
'Manipulate the website, and update the data structure with
'proper stuff you need
end sub
sub main(){
dim t1 = New System.Threading.Thread(Sub() your_sub())
t1.start()
' I am listing only one threads here, but start as many as you want
'check if there are strings that you need to update to the form
while 1
'check if there are any stuff you want to update from the data structure.
' Make sure you use synclock on the data structure, so each thread won't fight each other on accessing the data struct
dim should_update as boolean = false
should_update = 'Something thatyou should implement to judge whether you should update the form.
'You can start a thread and join it so the thread won't fight with other threads for accessing the data structure
dim some_string as string
if should_update
some_string = 'You may also need a thread to join to get the stuff you need. Dim the string as an array if it is required.
'You can also try pass by ref
'if you need to use thread to access the data structure to know if you need to update the form
form1.listbox1.items.add(some_string )
end if
end while
end sub
This is an ugly solution, but it will help you do the job...
I am using Point Grey's FlyCapture API to drive some cameras.
In a public class, I implemented all the starting and initializing code ; in the following _cam refers to a ManagedGigECamera.
Because I have 16 cameras, I want the code to be as fast as possible, so I wanted to use tasks.
Here is the code I use:
_cam.StartCapture(AddressOf OnImageGrabbed)
.../...
Public Sub OnImageGrabbed(ByVal raw_image As ManagedImage)
Dim t As Task = Task.Run(Sub()
'save image to disk or whatever
End Sub)
t.Wait()
End Sub
The above gives -sort of- satisfaction. By viewing image timestamps, I can see that some images are saved seconds after they are grabbed, and even some images are skipped altogether...
I wanted to make sure each call to OnImageGrabbed would start a new task, and tried the following, but it crashes right away with 'object not set to an instance of an object' (can't really debug, the code is running on a remote machine)
_cam.StartCapture(AddressOf OnImageGrabbed)
.../...
Public Async Sub OnImageGrabbed(ByVal raw_image As ManagedImage)
Await Task.Run(Sub()
'save image to disk or whatever
End Sub)
End Sub
All in all, my questions are:
how can I run an event handler asynchronously ?
why, using the first code, do I get (what appears to be) random delays between each call
to OnImageGrabbed ? I mean the differences in time between image timestamps is never the same, and tend to increase on the long run (first few images are almost synchronized, but after 1 minute or so, each image is separated by more and more time). Memory leak ? GC ?
Thanks in advance for any hint !
EDIT:
In the end I changed the way the system works: I fire a software trigger on each camera using a timer, and each trigger is fired 'in parallel':
Parallel.ForEach(Of ListOfCameras)(SingleCamera,
Sub(aCamera, loopstate, num)
aCamera.FireTrigger()
End Sub)
Starting a task and then immediately blocking on it (via Wait) nets you nothing. You may as well just run the saving-image code directly.
The second example is actually asynchronous. You're probably getting an exception because the ManagedImage argument or one of its child objects is being disposed. Remember that the code raising the event has no idea that your code is asynchronous; it's up to you to copy out what you need from the event arguments if you're going to use it asynchronously.
My apologies in advance if this has already been answered, but every search I have done does not come close to what I need. Also, this is all pseudo code.
Here is the situation: I created a form (targeting DOT NET 3.5) that does a loop on a gridview recreating a class and runs the code. After the code runs, there is a local variable on the class that gets updated and allows me to use it and the process repeats. Something like this:
For x as Integer = 0 to Me.txtTextBox.Lines.Count - 1 'Can be in the hundreds
Dim objMyClass as MyClass = New MyClass(Me.DatagridView1.Rows(x).Cells(0).Value)
if objMyClass.Start() = True then
'Do my thing with objMyClass.LocalLongVariable
End If
Next
This works just fine, but takes literally days to complete. The last time I ran this it took like 6 days, 7 hours and 40 something minutes to complete and barely bumped the CPU usage.
So, now I want to use MulitThreading to run several of these instances at the same time. I have not been able to get this to work. Everything I try returns different values every time I run it (and it should not). I believe that the threads are accessing the local variable across other threads and are incrementing at will. And SyncLock locks up the entire program. I have also tried adding a custom event that fires when the process is completed and executes a delegate on the Main form, but that has not worked either.
Now, my question is simple: How can I run multiple threads using the same base class (passing a unique string variable) and have the local class variable produce the correct results back to the UI? (And, from what I have been reading, the BackgroundWorker class in not suitable for this many threads (like hundreds); correct me if I read it incorrectly please)
I am looking for something like:
Dim thrd(Me.txtTextBox.Lines.Count) as Thread
Dim objMyClass(Me.txtTextBox.Lines.Count) as MyClass
For x as Integer = 0 to Me.txtTextBox.Lines.Count - 1
thrd(x) = new Thread (Sub()
objMyClass(x) = New MyClass(Me.GridView1.Rows(x).Cells(0).Value
If objMyClass.Start() = True Then
'Do my stuff here (maybe call a delegate??)
End If
End)
thrd(x).IsBackground = True
thrd(x).Start()
Next
Any help/advice on how to proceed will be greatly appreciated. And, if you know of any examples of your suggestion, please post the code/link.
The solution was, in fact, Synclock. My issue was that I was locking the wrong object, objMyClass, instead of the current Me AND I was failing to use Monitor.PulseAll(). Also, I switched to using the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(AddressOf objMyClass, args) and also used SyncLock on my custom event raised when the thread completes. It's a whole lot easier!! Thanks!!
Hello once again and I need some help. I am developing an automatic updating component to update one of my other apps in vb.net. The problem is that IFF an update is available, the update app has to be able to "kill" the app that is being updated. Note that the update app and program app are 2 separate projects and have no connection what so ever. I am wondering if there is a way to kill that program app's process from the update app. I have looked at several examples, but they start and stop the process in the code. I want to be able to search for a process by name and then kill it(NOT START AS IT IS ALREADY RUNNING).
Any help is appreciated!
(NOTE: Those who redirect to another link will not get best answer)
I have done something similar to this before. If I am understanding your requirements correctly then you need to use the GetProcess in the System.Diagnostic namespace. There is more information about it here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.process.kill.aspx.
Here you can use this function and pass the process name as a parameter.
Public Function killProcess(ByVal procName As String) As Boolean
Try
Dim proc = Process.GetProcessesByName(procName)
For i As Integer = 0 To proc.Count - 1
proc(i).Kill()
Next i
Return True
Catch ex As Exception
Return False
End Try
End Function
This function takes the process name such as "chrome" and checks for multiple instances and kills each of them.
You can call this function as bellow
killProcess("Process Name")