I'm working with some very large files residing on P2 (Panasonic) cards. Part of the process we employ is to first generate a checksum of the file we are going to copy, then copy the file, then run a checksum on the file to confirm that it copied OK. The problem is, is that files are large (70 GB+) and take a long time to complete. It's an issue since we will eventually be dealing with thousands of these files.
I would like to find a faster way to generate the checksum other than using the System.Security.Cryptography.MD5CryptoServiceProvider
I don't care if this means using a specialized hardware card, provided it works and is not to ungodly expensive. I would prefer to have a method of encoding that provided some feedback as to how far the process has gone along so I can display it like I do now.
The application is written in vb.net. I would prefer to be able to use it as component, library, reference within my application, but I'm willing to call an outside application if there is enough improvement in the speed of generating the checksum.
Needless to say, the checksum must be consistent and correct. :-)
Thank you in advance for your time and efforts,
Richard
I see one potential way to speed up this process: calculate the MD5 of the source file while performing the copy, not prior to it. This will reduce the number of times you'll need to read the entire file from 3 (source hash, copy, destination hash) to 2 (copy, destination hash).
The downside of this all is that you'll have to write your own copying code (as opposed to just relying on System.IO.File.Copy), and there's a non-zero chance that this will turn out to be slower in the end anyway than the 3-step process.
Other than that, I don't think there's much you can do here, as the entire process is I/O bound by design. You're spending most of your time reading/writing the file, and even at 100MB/s (a respectable I/O speed for your typical SATA drive), you'll do about 5.8GB/min at best.
With a modern processor, the overhead of calculating the MD5 (or anything else) doesn't factor into things very much, so speeding it up won't improve your overall throughput. Crypto accelerators in particular won't help you here, as unless the driver implementation is very efficient, they'll add more overhead due to context switches required to feed the data to the external card than they'll save.
What you do want to improve is the I/O speed. The .NET framework is already pretty efficient when it comes to this (using nicely-sized buffers, overlapped I/O and such), but it's possible an optimized native Windows application will perform better here. My advice: Google around for a few native MD5 calculators, and see how they compare to your current .NET implementation. If the difference in hash calculation speed is >10%, it's worth switching to using said external app.
The correct answer is to avoid using MD5. MD5 is a cryptographic hash function, designed to provide certain cryptographic features. For merely detecting accidental corruption, it is way over-engineered and slow. There are many faster checksums, the design of which can be understood by examining the literature of error detection and correction. Some common examples are the CRC checksums, of which CRC32 is very common, but you can also relatively easily compute 64 or 128 bit or even larger CRCs much much faster than an MD5 hash.
Related
I have 3 terabytes, more than 300,000 reference files of all sizes (20, 30, 40, 200 megas each) and I usually back them up regularly (not zipped). A few months ago, I lost some files probably due to data degradation (as I did "backup" of damaged files without notice).
I do not care about security, so do not need MD5, SHA, etc. I just want to be assured that the files I'm copying are good (the same bits and bytes) and verify that backups are intact after a few months before making backups again.
Therefore, my needs are basic because the files are not very important and there is no need for security (no sensitive information).
My doubt: the format/method "SFV CRC/32" is good and fast for my needs? There is something better and faster than that? I'm using the program ExactFile.
Are there any checksum faster than SFV/CRC32 but that is not flawed? I tried using the MD5 but it is slow and since I do not need data security, I preferred the SFV/CRC32. Still, it's painful, because there are more than 300,000 files and takes hours to make the checksum of all of them, even with CPU xeon 8 cores HT and fast HDD.
From the point of view of data integrity , there is some advantage in joining all the files in one .ZIP or .RAR instead of letting them " loose " in folders and files?
Some tips?
Thanks!
If you could quantify "few" and "some" in "A few months ago, I lost some files" (where "few" would be considered to be replaced with "every few" in order to get a rate), then you could calculate the probability of a false positive. However just from those words, I would say, yes, a 32-bit CRC should be fine for your application.
As for speed, if you have a recent Intel processor, you likely have a CRC-32C instruction, which can make the calculation much faster, by about a factor of 15. (See this answer for some code.) That could be made faster still by running it over multiple cores. If done right, you should be limited by the I/O, not the calculation.
There is no advantage in this case to bundling them in a zip or rar. In fact it may be worse, if a corruption of that one file causes you to lose everything.
If you aren't getting a throughput of at least 250 MB per second per core then you're probably I/O or memory-speed bound. The raw hashing speed of CRC32 and MD5 is higher than that, even on decades-old hardware, assuming a non-sucky reasonably optimised implementation.
Have a look at the Crypto++ benchmark, which includes a wealth of other hash algorithms as well.
The Castagnoli CRC32 can be faster than standard CRC32 or MD5 because newer CPUs have a special instruction for it; with that instruction and oodles of supporting code (for hashing three streams in parallel, stitching together partial results with a bit of linear algebra, etc. pp.) you can speed up the hashing to about 1 cycle/dword. AES-based hashes are also lightning fast on recent CPUs, due to the special AES instructions.
However, in the end it doesn't matter how fast the hash function waits for data to be read; especially on a multicore machine you're almost always I/O bound in applications like this, unless you're getting sabotaged by small caches and the latencies of deep memory cache hierarchies.
I'd stick with MD5 which is no slower than CRC32 and universally available, even on the oldest of machines, in pretty much every programming system/language ever invented. Don't think of it as a 'cryptographically secure hash' (which it isn't, not anymore) but as some kind of CRC128 that's just as fast as CRC32 but that requires some 2^64 hashings for a collision to become likely, instead of only a few ten thousand as in the case of CRC32.
If you want to roll some custom code then CRCs do have some merit: the CRC of a file can be computed by combining the CRCs of sub blocks with a bit of linear algebra. With general hashes like MD5 that's not possible (but you can always process multiple files in parallel instead).
There are oodles of ready-made programs for computing MD5 hashes for files and directories fast. I'd recommend the 'deep' versions of md5sum + cousins: md5deep and hashdeep which you can find on SourceForge and on GitHub.
Darth Gizka, thanks for the tips. Now I'm using md5deep 64 you indicated. It's very good. I used to use ExactFile, which stopped being updated in 2010, is still 32-bit (no 64bit version). I did a quick comparison between the two. The ExactFile was faster to create the MD5 digest. But to compare the digest, the md5deep64 was much faster.
My problem is HDD, as you said. For backup and storage, I use three Seagates with 2 TB each (7200rpm 64 mega cache). With an SSD the procedure would be much faster, but with terabytes of files is very difficult to use SSD.
A few days ago, I did the procedure in part of the archives: 1 tera (about 170,000 files). The ExactFile took about six hours to create the digest SFV / CRC32. I used one of my newer machines, equipped with an i7 4770k (with CRC32 instructions embedded, 8 cores - four real and four virtual, MB Gygabyte Z87X-UD4H, 16 RAM).
Throughout the calculations of files, the CPU cores were almost unusable (3% to 4%, maximum 20%). The HDD was 100% used, however, only a fraction of his speed power was achieved (sata 3), most of the time 70 MB / s, sometimes dropping to 30 MB / s depending on the number of files being calculated and anti virus in the background (which I disabled later, as I often do when copying large numbers of files).
Now I am testing a copy program that uses binary file comparison. Anyway, I will continue using md5 digests. Grateful for the information and any tip is welcome.
I have this molecular dynamics program that writes atom position and velocities to a file at every n steps of simulation. The actual writing is taking like 90% of the running time! (checked by eiminating the writes) So I desperately need to optimize that.
I see that some fortrans have an extension to change the write buffer size (called i/o block size) and the "number of blocks" at the OPEN statement, but it appears that gfortran doesn't. Also I read somewhere that gfortran uses 8192 bytes write buffer.
I even tried to do an FSTAT (right after opening, is that right?) to see what is the block size and number of blocks it is using but it returns -1 on both. (compiling for windows 64 bit)
Isn't there a way to enlarge the write buffer for a file in gfortran? Will it be diferent compiling for linux than for windows?
I'd really really rather stay in fortran but as a desperate measure isn't there a way to do so by adding some c routine?
thanks!
IanH question is key. Unformatted IO is MUCH faster than formatted. The conversion from base 2 to base 10 is very CPU intensive. If you don't need the values to be human readable, then use unformatted IO. If you want to be able to read the values in another language, then use access='stream'.
Another approach would be to add your own buffering. Replace the write statement with a call to a subroutine. Have that subroutine store values and write only when it has received M values. You'll also have to have a "flush" call to the subroutine to cause it to write the last values, if they are fewer them M.
If gcc C is faster at IO, you could mix Fortran and C with Fortran's ISO_C_Binding: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/fortran-iso-c-binding. There are examples of the use of the ISO C Binding in the gfortran manual under "Mixed Language Programming".
If you spend 90% of your runtime writing coords/vels every n timesteps, the obvious quick fix would be to instead write data every, say, n/100 timestep. But I'm sure you already thought of that yourself.
But yes, gfortran has a fixed 8k buffer, whose size cannot be changed except by modifying the libgfortran source and rebuilding it. The reason for the buffering is to amortize the syscall overhead; (simplistic) tests on Linux showed that 8k is sufficient and more than that goes far into diminishing returns territory. That being said, if you have some substantiated claims that bigger buffers are useful on some I/O patterns and/or OS, there's no reason why the buffer can't be made larger in a future release.
As for you performance issues, as already mentioned, unformatted is a lot faster than formatted I/O. Additionally, gfortran has rather high per-IO-statement overhead. You can amortize that by writing arrays (or, array sections) rather than individual elements (this matters mostly for unformatted, for formatted IO there is so much to do that this doesn't help that much).
I am thinking that if cost of IO is comparable or even larger than the effort of simulation, then it probably isn't such a good idea to store all these data to disk the first place. It is better to do whatever processing you intend to do directly during the simulation, instead of saving lots of intermediate data them later read them in again to do the processing.
Moreover, MD is an inherently highly parallelizable problem, and with IO you will severely cripple the efficiency of parallelization! I would avoid IO whenever possible.
For individual trajectories, normally you just need to store the initial condition of each trajectory, along with its key statistics, or important snapshots at a small number of time values. When you need one specific trajectory plotted you can regenerate the exact same trajectory or section of trajectory from the initial condition or the closest snapshot, and with similar cost as reading it from the disk.
This question strikes me as almost silly, but I just want to sanity check myself. For a variety of reasons, I'm welding together a bunch of files into a single megafile before packing this as a resource in my iOS app. I'm then using NSFileHandle to open the file, seek to the right place, and read out just the bytes I want.
Is there any performance difference between doing it this way and reading loose files? Or, supposing I could choose to use just one monolithic megafile, versus, say, 10 medium-sized (but still joined) files, is there any performance difference between "opening" the large versus a smaller file?
Since I know exactly where to seek to, and I'm reading just the bytes I want, I don't see how there could be a difference. But, hey -- Stranger things have proved to be. Thanks in advance!
There could be a difference if it was an extremely large number of files. Every open file uses up resources in memory (file handles, and the like), and on some storage devices, a file will take up an entire block even if it doesn't fill it. That can lead to wasted space in extreme cases. But in practice, it probably won't be a problem. To know for sure, you can profile your code and see if it's faster one way vs. the other, and see what sort of space it takes up on a typical device.
I wrote a MPI program that seems to run ok, but I wonder about performance. Master thread needs to do 10 or more times MPI_Send, and the worker receives data 10 or more times and sends it. I wonder if it gives a performance penalty and whether I could transfer everything in single structs or which other technique could I benefit from.
Other general question, once a mpi program works more or less, what are the best optimization techniques.
It's usually the case that sending 1 large message is faster than sending 10 small messages. The time cost of sending a message is well modelled by considering a latency (how long it would take to send an empty message, which is non-zero because of the overhead of function calls, network latency, etc) and a bandwidth (how much longer it takes to send an extra byte given that the network communications has already started). By bundling up messages into one message, you only incurr the latency cost once, and this is often a win (although it's always possible to come up with cases where it isn't). The best way to know for any particular code is simply to try. Note that MPI datatypes allow you very powerful ways to describe the layout of your data in memory so that you can take it almost directly from memory to the network without having to do an intermediate copy into some buffer (so-called "marshalling" of the data).
As to more general optimization questions about MPI -- without knowing more, all we can do is give you advice which is so general as to not be very useful. Minimize the amount of communications which need to be done; wherever possible, use built-in MPI tools (collectives, etc) rather than implementing your own.
One way to fully understand the performance of your MPI application is to run it within the SimGrid platform simulator. The tooling and models provided are sufficient to get realistic timing predictions of mid-range applications (like, a few dozen thousands lines of C or Fortran), and it can be associated to adapted visualization tools that can help you fully understand what is going on in your application, and the actual performance tradeoffs that you have to consider.
For a demo, please refer to this screencast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOxFOR_t3xI
I need a FAST decompression routine optimized for restricted resource environment like embedded systems on binary (hex data) that has following characteristics:
Data is 8bit (byte) oriented (data bus is 8 bits wide).
Byte values do NOT range uniformly from 0 - 0xFF, but have a poisson distribution (bell curve) in each DataSet.
Dataset is fixed in advanced (to be burnt into Flash) and each set is rarely > 1 - 2MB
Compression can take as much as time required, but decompression of a byte should take 23uS in the worst case scenario with minimal memory footprint as it will be done on a restricted resource environment like an embedded system (3Mhz - 12Mhz core, 2k byte RAM).
What would be a good decompression routine?
The basic Run-length encoding seems too wasteful - I can immediately see that adding a header setion to the compressed data to put to use unused byte values to represent oft repeated patterns would give phenomenal performance!
With me who only invested a few minutes, surely there must already exist much better algorithms from people who love this stuff?
I would like to have some "ready to go" examples to try out on a PC so that I can compare the performance vis-a-vis a basic RLE.
The two solutions I use when performance is the only concern:
LZO Has a GPL License.
liblzf Has a BSD License.
miniLZO.tar.gz This is LZO, just repacked in to a 'minified' version that is better suited to embedded development.
Both are extremely fast when decompressing. I've found that LZO will create slightly smaller compressed data than liblzf in most cases. You'll need to do your own benchmarks for speeds, but I consider them to be "essentially equal". Both are light-years faster than zlib, though neither compresses as well (as you would expect).
LZO, in particular miniLZO, and liblzf are both excellent for embedded targets.
If you have a preset distribution of values that means the propability of each value is fixed over all datasets, you can create a huffman encoding with fixed codes (the code tree has not to be embedded into the data).
Depending on the data, I'd try huffman with fixed codes or lz77 (see links of Brian).
Well, the main two algorithms that come to mind are Huffman and LZ.
The first basically just creates a dictionary. If you restrict the dictionary's size sufficiently, it should be pretty fast...but don't expect very good compression.
The latter works by adding back-references to repeating portions of output file. This probably would take very little memory to run, except that you would need to either use file i/o to read the back-references or store a chunk of the recently read data in RAM.
I suspect LZ is your best option, if the repeated sections tend to be close to one another. Huffman works by having a dictionary of often repeated elements, as you mentioned.
Since this seems to be audio, I'd look at either differential PCM or ADPCM, or something similar, which will reduce it to 4 bits/sample without much loss in quality.
With the most basic differential PCM implementation, you just store a 4 bit signed difference between the current sample and an accumulator, and add that difference to the accumulator and move to the next sample. If the difference it outside of [-8,7], you have to clamp the value and it may take several samples for the accumulator to catch up. Decoding is very fast using almost no memory, just adding each value to the accumulator and outputting the accumulator as the next sample.
A small improvement over basic DPCM to help the accumulator catch up faster when the signal gets louder and higher pitch is to use a lookup table to decode the 4 bit values to a larger non-linear range, where they're still 1 apart near zero, but increase at larger increments toward the limits. And/or you could reserve one of the values to toggle a multiplier. Deciding when to use it up to the encoder. With these improvements, you can either achieve better quality or get away with 3 bits per sample instead of 4.
If your device has a non-linear μ-law or A-law ADC, you can get quality comparable to 11-12 bit with 8 bit samples. Or you can probably do it yourself in your decoder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-law_algorithm
There might be inexpensive chips out there that already do all this for you, depending on what you're making. I haven't looked into any.
You should try different compression algorithms with either a compression software tool with command line switches or a compression library where you can try out different algorithms.
Use typical data for your application.
Then you know which algorithm is best-fitting for your needs.
I have used zlib in embedded systems for a bootloader that decompresses the application image to RAM on start-up. The licence is nicely permissive, no GPL nonsense. It does make a single malloc call, but in my case I simply replaced this with a stub that returned a pointer to a static block, and a corresponding free() stub. I did this by monitoring its memory allocation usage to get the size right. If your system can support dynamic memory allocation, then it is much simpler.
http://www.zlib.net/