I have an STM32f042 and I have loaded the example Custom HID firmware from the STM32F0x2_USB-FS-Device_Lib V1.0.0.
I then did some simple write transfers sending just one or two bytes, and watched the response using wireshark.
After doing about ten transfers it looks like time for a transfer to complete ranges between 15ms and 31ms with the average being somewhere around 25ms.
I've been told in the past that a single fast USB transaction should take around 1ms so this feels to me to be about an order of magnitude slow.
Is this a normal time for this chip? (And how would I go about figuring out what "normal" is?) Or is this abnormally slow?
Please check configuration descriptor in usbd_customhid.c file. The polling interval for each endpoint set but parameter: bInterval, the default value in examples(as I remember) set to 0x20(32ms) try to change it!
Related
We got "device overload" error after the program ran successfully on production for a few months. And we find that some maps' sizes are very big, which may be bigger than 1,000.
After I inspected the source code, I found that the reason of "devcie overload" is that the write queue is beyond limitations, and the length of the write queue is related to the effiency of processing.
So I checked the "particle_map" file, and I suspect that the whole map will be rewritten even if we just want to insert one pair of KV into the map.
But I am not so sure about this. Any advice ?
So I checked the "particle_map" file, and I suspect that the whole map will be rewritten even if we just want to insert one pair of KV into the map.
You are correct. When using persistence, Aerospike does not update records in-place. Each update/insert is buffered into an in-memory write-block which, when full, is queued to be written to disk. This queue allows for short bursts that exceed your disks max IO but if the burst is sustained for too long the server will begin to fail the writes with the 'device overload' error you have mentioned. How far behind the disk is allowed to get is controlled by the max-write-cache namespace storage-engine parameter.
You can find more about our storage layer at https://www.aerospike.com/docs/architecture/index.html.
I am trying to get my head around an issue I have recently encountered and I hope someone will be able to point me in the most reasonable direction of solving it.
I am using Riak KV store and working on CRDT data, where I have some sort of counter inside each CRDT item stored in database.
I have a rabbitmq queue, where each message is a request to increase or decrease a certain amount of aforementioned counters.
Finally, I have a group of service-workers, that listens on the queue, and for each request try to change the amount of counters accordingly.
The issue I have is as follows: While a single worker is processing a request, it may get stuck for a while on a write operation to database – let’s say on a second change of counters out of three. It’s connection with rabbitmq gets lost (timeout) so the message-request gets back on to the queue (I cannot afford to miss one). Then it is picked up by second worker, which begins all processing anew. However, the first worker finishes its work, and as a results I have processed a single message twice.
I can split those increments into single actions, but this still leaves me with dilemma – can still change value of counter twice, if some worker gets stuck on a write operation for a long period.
I do not have possibility of making Riak KV CRDT writes work faster, nor can I accept missing out a message-request. I need to implement some means of checking whether a request was already processed before.
My initial thoughts were to use some alternative, quick KV store for storing rabbitMQ message ID if they are being processed. That way other workers could tell whether they are not starting to process a message that is already parsed elsewhere.
I could use any help and pointers to materials I can read.
You can't have "exactly one delivery" semantic. You can reduce double-sent messages or missed deliveries, so it's up to you to decide which misbehavior is the least inconvenient.
First of all are you sure it's the CRDTs that are too slow ? Are you using simple counters or counters inside maps ? In my experience they are quite fast, although slower than kv. You could try:
- having simple CRDTs (no maps), and more CRDTs objects, to lower their stress( can you split the counters in two ?)
- not using CRDTs but using good old sibling resolution on client side on simple key/values.
- accumulate the count updates orders and apply them in batch, but then you're accepting an increase in latency so it's equivalent to increasing the timeout.
Can you provide some metrics? Like how long the updates take, what numbers you'd expect, if it's as slow when you have few updates or many updates, etc
For my school project I have to stream screen grabbing from 1 station (i.e. server) to another (i.e. client) in Real Time, both running linux (ubuntu).
I'm using libav-tools (avconv as the encoder on the server side and avplay as the player on the client side)
avconv uses x11grab format to grab from the screen.
My problem is: avconv needs a few seconds to output the encoded video. this wait is too long for RT.
I've tried streaming to localhost to avoid network influence on speed, it still seems that avconv is responsible for the long wait.
Also, streaming a video file seems to be much faster, almost immediately.
The project is implemented in C++ and executes avconv in a fork.
Any suggestions as to shortening the procedure?
This is most likely due to internal buffering. There is often a buffer which is way too big on default. That is because having no delay is not the primary concern of most software, they are more concerned with bad connections and that sort of problems, which is what buffers are for.
See https://libav.org/avconv.html, search for "nobuffer" or "-analyzeduration" or "-rtbufsize" or "-max_delay" or "-fpsprobesize" or "rtmp_buffer" (if you use rtmp) or others and try your luck.
There will always be a noticable delay, especially if you use an encodings like h264 for transfer. But a few seconds it does not need to be in a controlled environment. You should be able to bring it down to fractions of a second.
During load testing of our module we found that bigquery insert calls are taking time (3-4 s). I am not sure if this is ok. We are using java biguqery client libarary and on an average we push 500 records per api call. We are expecting a million records per second traffic to our module so bigquery inserts are bottleneck to handle this traffic. Currently it is taking hours to push data.
Let me know if we need more info regarding code or scenario or anything.
Thanks
Pankaj
Since streaming has a limited payload size, see Quota policy it's easier to talk about times, as the payload is limited in the same way to both of us, but I will mention other side effects too.
We measure between 1200-2500 ms for each streaming request, and this was consistent over the last month as you can see in the chart.
We seen several side effects although:
the request randomly fails with type 'Backend error'
the request randomly fails with type 'Connection error'
the request randomly fails with type 'timeout' (watch out here, as only some rows are failing and not the whole payload)
some other error messages are non descriptive, and they are so vague that they don't help you, just retry.
we see hundreds of such failures each day, so they are pretty much constant, and not related to Cloud health.
For all these we opened cases in paid Google Enterprise Support, but unfortunately they didn't resolved it. It seams the recommended option to take for these is an exponential-backoff with retry, even the support told to do so. Which personally doesn't make me happy.
The approach you've chosen if takes hours that means it does not scale, and won't scale. You need to rethink the approach with async processes. In order to finish sooner, you need to run in parallel multiple workers, the streaming performance will be the same. Just having 10 workers in parallel it means time will be 10 times less.
Processing in background IO bound or cpu bound tasks is now a common practice in most web applications. There's plenty of software to help build background jobs, some based on a messaging system like Beanstalkd.
Basically, you needed to distribute insert jobs across a closed network, to prioritize them, and consume(run) them. Well, that's exactly what Beanstalkd provides.
Beanstalkd gives the possibility to organize jobs in tubes, each tube corresponding to a job type.
You need an API/producer which can put jobs on a tube, let's say a json representation of the row. This was a killer feature for our use case. So we have an API which gets the rows, and places them on tube, this takes just a few milliseconds, so you could achieve fast response time.
On the other part, you have now a bunch of jobs on some tubes. You need an agent. An agent/consumer can reserve a job.
It helps you also with job management and retries: When a job is successfully processed, a consumer can delete the job from the tube. In the case of failure, the consumer can bury the job. This job will not be pushed back to the tube, but will be available for further inspection.
A consumer can release a job, Beanstalkd will push this job back in the tube, and make it available for another client.
Beanstalkd clients can be found in most common languages, a web interface can be useful for debugging.
We are using BigQuery as event logging platform.
The problem we faced was very slow insertAll post requests (https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/reference/v2/tabledata/insertAll).
It does not matter where they are fired - from server or client side.
Minimum is 900ms, average is 1500s, where nearly 1000ms is connection time.
Even if there is 1 request per second (so no throttling here).
We use Google Analytics measurement protocol and timings from the same machines are 50-150ms.
The solution described in BigQuery streaming 'insertAll' performance with PHP suugested to use queues, but it seems to be overkill because we send no more than 10 requests per second.
The question is if 1500ms is normal for streaming inserts and if not, how to make them faster.
Addtional information:
If we send malformed JSON, response arrives in 50-100ms.
Since streaming has a limited payload size, see Quota policy it's easier to talk about times, as the payload is limited in the same way to both of us, but I will mention other side effects too.
We measure between 1200-2500 ms for each streaming request, and this was consistent over the last month as you can see in the chart.
We seen several side effects although:
the request randomly fails with type 'Backend error'
the request randomly fails with type 'Connection error'
the request randomly fails with type 'timeout' (watch out here, as only some rows are failing and not the whole payload)
some other error messages are non descriptive, and they are so vague that they don't help you, just retry.
we see hundreds of such failures each day, so they are pretty much constant, and not related to Cloud health.
For all these we opened cases in paid Google Enterprise Support, but unfortunately they didn't resolved it. It seams the recommended option to take for these is an exponential-backoff with retry, even the support told to do so. Which personally doesn't make me happy.
Also the failure rate fits the 99.9% uptime we have in the SLA, so there is no reason for objection.
There's something to keep in mind in regards to the SLA, it's a very strictly defined structure, the details are here. The 99.9% is uptime not directly translated into fail rate. What this means is that if BQ has a 30 minute downtime one month, and then you do 10,000 inserts within that period but didn't do any inserts in other times of the month, it will cause the numbers to be skewered. This is why we suggest a exponential backoff algorithm. The SLA is explicitly based on uptime and not error rate, but logically the two correlates closely if you do streaming inserts throughout the month at different times with backoff-retry setup. Technically, you should experience on average about 1/1000 failed insert if you are doing inserts through out the month if you have setup the proper retry mechanism.
You can check out this chart about your project health:
https://console.developers.google.com/project/YOUR-APP-ID/apiui/apiview/bigquery?tabId=usage&duration=P1D
It happens that my response is on the linked other article, and I proposed the queues, because it made our exponential-backoff with retry very easy, and working with queues is very easy. We use Beanstalkd.
To my experience any request to bigquery will take long. We've tried using it as a database for performance data but eventually are moving out due to slow response times. As far as I can see. BQ is built for handling big requests within a 1 - 10 second response time. These are the requests BQ categorizes as interactive. BQ doesn't get faster by doing less. We stream quite some records to BQ but always make sure we batch them up (per table). And run all requests asynchronously (or if you have to in another theat).
PS. I can confirm what Pentium10 sais about faillures in BQ. Make sure you retry the stuff that fails and if it fails again log it to file for retrying it another time.