I am developing a cocoa application (Mac) and wanted to know what are your tips, best practices, ... for an efficient Cocoa application, which starts in less than 1 second and which is very responsive.
I've installed twitter for Mac and was amazed by its speed. Is it using special tricks?
Thanks in advance for your ideas :)
Three things that can help reduce startup time and improve overall performance are:
Defer loading resources until they're actually needed.
Profile your app to identify the parts that have the highest cost (whether you measure that in execution time, memory, or something else). Then work to reduce the cost of those operations or figure out a way to do them less or at a different time.
Take advantage of the hardware. Most machines these days have at least two processing cores and advanced graphics processors; use GCD, Quartz, Core Animation, and other technologies to take advantage of the available power.
I don't think there are really any "tricks" per se. You just profile your code with Instruments, and eliminate the slow areas. It's the same as optimising any code; don't block the main thread with disk reads/writes, use lazy loading where appropriate, etc.
A lot of it may be simply tightly written, good quality code. These sort of apps don't tend to rely on clunky frameworks etc.
Do only what you need to do and only when you need to do it.
Related
I have a complex recursive algorithm that in it's php implementation runs about 15 minutes in the CLI to complete. I was thinking about porting it to objective-c and wanted to know who I can make use of the the GPU for the calculations. Is there a way to designate threads to be executed by the GPU?
Thanks
Yes, it's possible to use the GPU for calculations, although depending on the task it may not be advantageous. Without posting code it's anyone's guess what the most efficient means for your implementation might be. I would recommend reading the "Concurrency Programming Guide", for it's an excellent starting point in terms understanding the appropriate ways one might want to handle concurrent threading within Objective-C.
We've got a fairly large application running on VxWorks 5.5.1 that's been developed and modified for around 10 years now. We have some simple home-grown tools to show that we are not using too much memory or too much processor, but we don't have a good feel for how much headroom we actually have. It's starting to make it difficult to do estimates for future enhancements.
Does anybody have any suggestions on how to profile such a system? We've never had much luck getting the Wind River tools to work.
For bonus points: the other complication is that our system has very different behaviors at different times; during start-up it does a lot of stuff, then it sits relatively idle except for brief bursts of activity. If there is a profiler with some programmatic way to have to record state information, I think that'd be very useful too.
FWIW, this is compiled with GCC and written entirely in C.
I've done a lot of performance tuning of various kinds of software, including embedded applications. I won't discuss memory profiling - I think that is a different issue.
I can only guess where the "well-known" idea originated that to find performance problems you need to measure performance of various parts. That is a top-down approach, similar to the way governments try to control budget waste, by subdividing. IMHO, it doesn't work very well.
Measurement is OK for seeing if what you did made a difference, but it is poor at telling you what to fix.
What is good at telling you what to fix is a bottom-up approach, in which you examine a representative sample of microscopic units of what is being spent, and finding out the full explanation of why each one is being spent. This works for a simple statistical reason. If there is a reason why some percent (for example 40%) of samples can be saved, on average 40% of samples will show it, and it doesn't require a huge number of samples. It does require that you examine each sample carefully, and not just sort of aggregate them into bigger bunches.
As a historical example, this is what Harry Truman did at the outbreak of the U.S. involvement in WW II. There was terrific waste in the defense industry. He just got in his car, drove out to the factories, and interviewed the people standing around. Then he went back to the U.S. Senate, explained what the problems were exactly, and got them fixed.
Maybe this is more of an answer than you wanted. Specifically, this is the method I use, and this is a blow-by-blow example of it.
ADDED: I guess the idea of finding-by-measuring is simply natural. Around '82 I was working on an embedded system, and I needed to do some performance tuning. The hardware engineer offered to put a timer on the board that I could read (providing from his plenty). IOW he assumed that finding performance problems required timing. I thanked him and declined, because by that time I knew and trusted the random-halt technique (done with an in-circuit-emulator).
If you have the Auxiliary Clock available, you could use the SPY utility (configurable via the config.h file) which does give you a very rough approximation of which tasks are using the CPU.
The nice thing about it is that it does not require being attached to the Tornado environment and you can use it from the Kernel shell.
Otherwise, btpierre's suggestion of using taskHookAdd has been used successfully in the past.
I've worked on systems that have had luck using locally-built monitoring utilities based on taskSwitchHookAdd and related functions (delete hook, etc).
"Simply" use this to track the number of ticks a given task runs. I realize that this is fairly gross scale information for profiling, but it can be useful depending on your needs.
To see how much cpu% each task is using, calculate the percentage of ticks assigned to each task.
To see how much headroom you have, add a lowest priority "idle" task that just does "while(1){}", and see how much cpu% it is assigned to it. Roughly speaking, that's your headroom.
When creating applications (Java, run on a normal computer). How important is program size for users? For example, would it be necessary to replace .png's with .jpg's, convert .wav's to .midi's, or strip down libraries to save space, or do users generally not care if my program is 5mb when it could be 50kb if stripped down?
Thanks.
That depends on the delivery mechanism.
Size is generally only relevant in terms of the bandwidth required to download it. If you download it often, then it matters a lot. If its only once, it matters less and you have to weigh up the time involved in reducing that vs how much space you save.
After that, nobody cares until you get into gigabytes. Well, mobile applications will probably start caring at about 10MB+.
Users definitely care (after all, not only does space cost money, but affects program load time). However, the question becomes how much do you optimize. I suggest the 80/20 rule. 80% of your benefit comes from the first 20% of the effort.
If you use a utility like TreePie you might be able to see what parts of a large application are consuming most of your resources. If you find it's just a few large images, or one big DLL with a bunch of embedded resources, it's probably worth taking a look at reducing the size, if it's easy.
But there's a cost/benefit tradeoff. I just saw a terrabyte drive for $100 the other day. Saving the user 1 gig is about 10 cents in terms of storage space, and perhaps some hard to quantify amount of time spent loading every time they load. If you have 100,000 users, it probably worth your time to optimize a bit, but if you're writing custom software for one user it's probably not worth it unless they're complaining.
As mentioned by Graham Lee, a great deal of this is very dependant on your users. If you are writing something that needs to be optimized to fit on the chip of a 68000 processor, then you'd better believe that program size matters. Assuming you're not programming 30 years ago, you probably won't run across that particular issue.
But in general, you should be making your application as small as possible while still achieving the quality you want. That is to say, if your application is likely to be viewed on an 640x480 screen, then you don't need hi-res 6mg pngs for all your images. On the other hand, if your application is designed to be blown up on a big screen at conferences, then you probably want to upsize your images.
Another option that is very common is creating installers with separate options ranging from full to minimal. That way you can allow your users to decide whether size matters to them. It allows you to create the pretty pretty version of your app, and a scaled back version that doesn't include tutorials or mp3 files of a soothing woman's voice telling you that you've push the wrong button.
Know your users. And if you don't, then let them decide for themselves.
Consider yourself, what would you use? Would you rather save space with 5KB programs or waste it with 5MB programs?
I think that smaller is better, especially if the program doesn't use/need much graphics and can be optimized.
I would say not important at all, unless it's obscenely large.
I would argue that startup time is far more important to users that application size.
However if you include a lot of media files with your system it is logical to optimise this data as much as possible. But don't compromise the quality - switching to jpeg might be okay for photos, but it sucks for technical diagrams. A .wav could be an .aac or .mp3, but not if you're writing a professional audio application.
We should develop on slow boxen because it forces us to optimize early.
Randall Hyde points out in The Fallacy of Premature Optimization, there are plenty of misconceptions around the Hoare quote:
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil.
In particular, even though machines these days scream compared with those in Hoare's day, it doesn't mean "optimization should be avoided." So does my respected colleague have a point when he suggests that we should develop on boxes of modest tempo? The idea is that performance bottlenecks are more irritating on a slow box and so they are likely to receive attention.
This should be community wiki since it's pretty subjective and there's no "right" answer.
That said, you should develop on the fastest machine available to you. Yes, anything slower will introduce irritation and encourage you to fix the slowdowns, but only at a very high price:
Your productivity as a programmer is directly related to the number of things you can hold in your head, and anything which slows down your process or impedes you at all lengthens the amount of time you have to hold those ideas in short term-memory, making you more likely to forget them, and have to go re-learn them.
Waiting for a program to compile allows the stack of bugs, potential issues, and fixes to drop out of your head as you get distracted. Waiting for a dialog to load, or a query to finish interrupts you similarly.
Even if you ignore that effect, you've still got the truth of the later statement - early optimization will leave you chasing yourself round in circles, breaking code that already works, and guessing (with often poor accuracy) about where things might get bogged down. Design your code properly in the first place, and you can forget about optimization until it's had a chance to settle for a bit, at which point any necessary optimization will be obvious.
Slow computers are not going to help you find your performance problems.
If your test data is only a few hundred rows in a table your db will cache it all and you'll never find badly written queries or bad table/index design. If your server application is not multi-threaded server you will not find that out until you stress test it with 500 users. Or if the app bottlenecks on bandwidth.
Optimization is "A Good Thing" but as I say to new developers who have all sorts of ideas about how to do it better 'I don't care how quickly you give me the wrong answer'. Get it right first, then make it faster when you find a bottleneck. An experienced programmer is going to design and build it reasonably well to start with.
If performance is really critical (real time? millisecond-transactions?) then you need to design and implement a set of benchmarks and tools to scientifically prove to yourselves that your changes are making it faster. There are way too many variables out there that affect performance.
Plus there's the classic programmer excuse they will bring out - 'but it's running slow because we have deliberately picked slow computers, it will run much faster when we deploy it.'
If your colleague thinks its important give him a slow computer and put him in charge of 'performance' :-)
I guess it would depend on what you're making and what the intended audience is.
If you're writing software for fixed hardware (say, console games) then use equipment (at least test equipment) that is similar or the same as what you will deploy on.
If you're developing desktop apps or something in that realm then develop on whatever machine you want and then tune it afterward to run on the desired min-spec hardware. Likewise, if you're developing in-house software, there is likely to be a min-spec for the machines that the company wants to buy. In that case, develop on a fast machine (to decrease development time and therefore costs) and test against that min-spec.
Bottom line, develop on the fastest machine you can get your hands on, and test on the minimum or exact hardware that you'll be supporting.
If you are programming on hardware that is close to the final test and production environments, you tend to find that there are less nasty surprises when it comes time to release the code.
I've seen enough programmers get side-swiped by serious, but unexpected problems caused by their machines being way faster than their most of their users. But also, I've seen the same problem occur with data. The code is tested on a small dataset and then "crumbles" on a large one.
Any differences in development and deployment environments can be the source of unexpected problems.
Still, since programming is expensive and time-consuming, if the end-user is running slow out-of-date equipment, the better solution is to deal with it at testing time (and schedule in a few early tests just to check usability and timing).
Why cripple your programmers just because you're worried about missing a potential problem? That's not a sane development strategy.
Paul.
for the love of Codd, use profiling tools, not slow development machines!
Optimization should be avoided, didn't that give us Vista? :p
But in all seriousness, its always a matter of tradeoffs. Important questions to ask yourself
What platform will your end users be using?
Can I drop cycles? What will happen if I do?
I agree with most that initial development should be done on the fastest or most efficient (not neccesarily the same) machine available to you. But for running tests, run it on your target platform, and test often and early.
Depends on your time to delivery. If you are in a 12 month delivery cycle then you should develop on a box with decent speed since your customers' 12 months from now will have better "average" boxes than the current "average".
As your development cycle approaches "today", your development machines should approach the current "average" speed of your clients' boxes.
I typically develop on the fastest machine I can get my hands on.
Most of the time I'm running a debug build, which is slow enough already.
I think it is a sound concept (but maybe because it works for me).
If my developer workstation is too fast I find I don't think ideas through thorougly enough simply because there is little time-penalty in re-generating the software image or downloading it to the target. I'd say at least half my downloads were unnecessary because I just remembered something I'd missed right before I was going to debug the code.
The target machine could well contain a throttled processor. If - on an embedded MCU - you have half the FLASH, RAM and clock cycles per second chances are developers will be a lot more careful when designing their code. I once suggested byte variables for the lengths of individual records in a data area (not in RAM but in a serial eeprom) and received the reply "we don't need to be stingy." A few months later they hit the RAM ceiling (128KiB). My reflection was that for this app there would never be any records larger than 256 bytes simply because there was no RAM to copy them to.
For server applications I think it would be a great idea to have a (much) lower-performing hardware to test on. Two or four cores instead of sixteen (or more). 1.6 GHz istdo 2.8. The list goes on. A server is usually - due to the very fact that everyone talks to it - a bottleneck in the system architecture. And that is long before you start developing the (server) application for it.
A two parter:
1) Say you're designing a new type of application and you're in the process of coming up with new algorithms to express the concepts and content -- does it make sense to attempt to actively not consider optimisation techniques at that stage, even if in the back of your mind you fear it might end up as O(N!) over millions of elements?
2) If so, say to avoid limiting cool functionality which you might be able to optimise once the proof-of-concept is running -- how do you stop yourself from this programmers habit of a lifetime? I've been trying mental exercises, paper notes, but I grew up essentially counting clock cycles in assembler and I continually find myself vetoing potential solutions for being too wasteful before fully considering the functional value.
Edit: This is about designing something which hasn't been done before (the unknown), when you're not even sure if it can be done in theory, never mind with unlimited computing power at hand. So answers along the line of "of course you have to optimise before you have a prototype because it's an established computing principle," aren't particularly useful.
I say all the following not because I think you don't already know it, but to provide moral support while you suppress your inner critic :-)
The key is to retain sanity.
If you find yourself writing a Theta(N!) algorithm which is expected to scale, then you're crazy. You'll have to throw it away, so you might as well start now finding a better algorithm that you might actually use.
If you find yourself worrying about whether a bit of Pentium code, that executes precisely once per user keypress, will take 10 cycles or 10K cycles, then you're crazy. The CPU is 95% idle. Give it ten thousand measly cycles. Raise an enhancement ticket if you must, but step slowly away from the assembler.
Once thing to decide is whether the project is "write a research prototype and then evolve it into a real product", or "write a research prototype". With obviously an expectation that if the research succeeds, there will be another related project down the line.
In the latter case (which from comments sounds like what you have), you can afford to write something that only works for N<=7 and even then causes brownouts from here to Cincinnati. That's still something you weren't sure you could do. Once you have a feel for the problem, then you'll have a better idea what the performance issues are.
What you're doing, is striking a balance between wasting time now (on considerations that your research proves irrelevant) with wasting time later (because you didn't consider something now that turns out to be important). The more risky your research is, the more you should be happy just to do something, and worry about what you've done later.
My big answer is Test Driven Development. By writing all your tests up front then you force yourself to only write enough code to implement the behavior you are looking for. If timing and clock cycles becomes a requirement then you can write tests to cover that scenario and then refactor your code to meet those requirements.
Like security and usability, performance is something that has to be considered from the beginning of the project. As such, you should definitely be designing with good performance in mind.
The old Knuth line is "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." O(N!) to O(poly(N)) is not a "small efficiency"!
The best way to handle type 1 is to start with the simplest thing that could possibly work (O(N!) cannot possibly work unless you're not scaling past a couple dozen elements!) and encapsulate it from the rest of the application so you could rewrite it to a better approach assuming that there is going to be a performance issue.
Optimization isn't exactly a danger; its good to think about speed to some extent when writing code, because it stops you from implementing slow and messy solutions when something simpler and faster would do. It also gives you a check in your mind on whether something is going to be practical or not.
The worst thing that can happen is you design a large program explicitly ignoring optimization, only to go back and find that your entire design is completely useless because it cannot be optimized without completely rewriting it. This never happens if you consider everything when writing it--and part of that "everything" is potential performance issues.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" is the root of all evil. I've seen projects crippled by overuse of this concept. At my company we have a software program that broadcasts transport streams from disk on the network. It was originally created for testing purposes (so we would just need a few streams at once), but it was always in the program's spec requirements that it work for larger numbers of streams so it could later be used for video on demand.
Because it was written completely ignoring speed, it was a mess; it had tons of memcpys despite the fact that they should never be necessary, its TS processing code was absurdly slow (it actually parsed every single TS packet multiple times), and so forth. It handled a mere 40 streams at a time instead of the thousands it was supposed to, and when it actually came time to use it for VOD, we had to go back and spend a huge amount of time cleaning it up and rewriting large parts of it.
"First, make it run. Then make it run fast."
or
"To finish first, first you have to finish."
Slow existing app is usually better than ultra-fast non-existing app.
First of all peopleclaim that finishign is only thing that matters (or almost).
But if you finish a product that has O(N!) complexity on its main algorithm, as a rule of thumb you did not finished it! You have an incomplete and unacceptable product for 99% of the cases.
A reasonable performance is part of a working product. A perfect performance might not be. If you finish a text editor that needs 6 GB of memory to write a short note, then you have not finished a product at all, you have only a waste of time at your hands.. You must remember always that is not only delivering code that makes a product complete, is making it achieve capability of supplying the costumer/users needs. If you fail at that it matters nothing that you have finished the code writing in the schedule.
So all optimizations that avoid a resulting useless product are due to be considered and applied as soon as they do not compromise the rest of design and implementation proccess.
"actively not consider optimisation" sounds really weird to me. Usually 80/20 rule works quite good. If you spend 80% of your time to optimize program for less than 20% of use cases, it might be better to not waste time unless those 20% of use-cases really matter.
As for perfectionism, there is nothing wrong with it unless it starts to slow you down and makes you miss time-frames. Art of computer programming is an act of balancing between beauty and functionality of your applications. To help yourself consider learning time-management. When you learn how to split and measure your work, it would be easy to decide whether to optimize it right now, or create working version.
I think it is quite reasonable to forget about O(N!) worst case for an algorithm. First you need to determine that a given process is possible at all. Keep in mind that Moore's law is still in effect, so even bad algorithms will take less time in 10 or 20 years!
First optimize for Design -- e.g. get it to work first :-) Then optimize for performance. This is the kind of tradeoff python programmers do inherently. By programming in a language that is typically slower at run-time, but is higher level (e.g. compared to C/C++) and thus faster to develop, python programmers are able to accomplish quite a bit. Then they focus on optimization.
One caveat, if the time it takes to finish is so long that you can't determine if your algorithm is right, then it is a very good time to worry about optimization earlier up stream. I've encountered this scenario only a few times -- but good to be aware of it.
Following on from onebyone's answer there's a big difference between optimising the code and optimising the algorithm.
Yes, at this stage optimising the code is going to be of questionable benefit. You don't know where the real bottlenecks are, you don't know if there is going to be a speed problem in the first place.
But being mindful of scaling issues even at this stage of the development of your algorithm/data structures etc. is not only reasonable but I suspect essential. After all there's not going to be a lot of point continuing if your back-of-the-envelope analysis says that you won't be able to run your shiny new application once to completion before the heat death of the universe happens. ;-)
I like this question, so I'm giving an answer, even though others have already answered it.
When I was in grad school, in the MIT AI Lab, we faced this situation all the time, where we were trying to write programs to gain understanding into language, vision, learning, reasoning, etc.
My impression was that those who made progress were more interested in writing programs that would do something interesting than do something fast. In fact, time spent worrying about performance was basically subtracted from time spent conceiving interesting behavior.
Now I work on more prosaic stuff, but the same principle applies. If I get something working I can always make it work faster.
I would caution however that the way software engineering is now taught strongly encourages making mountains out of molehills. Rather than just getting it done, folks are taught to create a class hierarchy, with as many layers of abstraction as they can make, with services, interface specifications, plugins, and everything under the sun. They are not taught to use these things as sparingly as possible.
The result is monstrously overcomplicated software that is much harder to optimize because it is much more complicated to change.
I think the only way to avoid this is to get a lot of experience doing performance tuning and in that way come to recognize the design approaches that lead to this overcomplication. (Such as: an over-emphasis on classes and data structure.)
Here is an example of tuning an application that has been written in the way that is generally taught.
I will give a little story about something that happened to me, but not really an answer.
I am developing a project for a client where one part of it is processing very large scans (images) on the server. When i wrote it i was looking for functionality, but i thought of several ways to optimize the code so it was faster and used less memory.
Now an issue has arisen. During Demos to potential clients for this software and beta testing, on the demo unit (self contained laptop) it fails due to too much memory being used. It also fails on the dev server with really large files.
So was it an optimization, or was it a known future bug. Do i fix it or oprtimize it now? well, that is to be determined as their are other priorities as well.
It just makes me wish I did spend the time to reoptimize the code earlier on.
Think about the operational scenarios. ( use cases)
Say that we're making a pizza-shop finder gizmo.
The user turns on the machine. It has to show him the nearest Pizza shop in meaningful time. It Turns out our users want to know fast: in under 15 seconds.
So now, any idea you have, you think: is this going to ever, realistically run in some time less than 15 seconds, less all other time spend doing important stuff..
Or you're a trading system: accurate sums. Less than a millisecond per trade if you can, please. (They'd probably accept 10ms), so , agian: you look at every idea from the relevant scenarios point of view.
Say it's a phone app: has to start in under (how many seconds)
Demonstrations to customers fomr laptops are ALWAYS a scenario. We've got to sell the product.
Maintenance, where some person upgrades the thing are ALWAYS a scenario.
So now, as an example: all the hard, AI heavy, lisp-customized approaches are not suitable.
Or for different strokes, the XML server configuration file is not user friendly enough.
See how that helps.
If I'm concerned about the codes ability to handle data growth, before I get too far along I try to set up sample data sets in large chunk increments to test it with like:
1000 records
10000 records
100000 records
1000000 records
and see where it breaks or becomes un-usable. Then you can decide based on real data if you need to optimize or re-design the core algorithms.