So I have my .exe ready to deploy, and for distribution, I need to know the minimal requirements for my program to run on a machine... and I really don't know how to do that.
Is there a way to know that ? Some kind of benchmark ? Or must I just set things as I think it'll work ?
Maybe should I just buy all existing components until I find the minimal ? :')
Well, thanks for your answers.
Start by seeing the first Windows' version you can deploy on (Windows XP? Vista?).
If your program is cpu or gpu intensive, and has a fixed time loop (eg. game) then you'll have to do benchmarks.
You should look at several old vs new CPUs/GPUs and trying to "guess" based on online specs posted online what the minimal requirement is. For example, if your program can't run on an old cpu, but runs blazingly fast on a new one, try to find the model that -barely- runs it, which will obviously be one somewhere in the middle.
If your program requires other special things, specify them (eg. USB 3.0, controllers supported...).
Otherwise, if your program loads slower but doesn't have runtime issues, the minimum specs should be indicative of a reasonable loading time (a minute seems to be the standard now, sadly).
Additionally, if your program is memory hungry (both hard drive or RAM), you must indicate this.
For hard drive memory, simply state your program size, along with the files included with it.
For RAM, use a profiler - it will tell you how much memory your program is using.
I've completely skipped over the fact that, in some computers, the bottleneck might be the cpu, and it might be the gpu in others. You need to know which is the bottleneck to make your judgement.
To find out is a rather simple process - remove expensive gpu operations (lower texture resolutions, turn off shaders). If the program still runs slowly, then the bottleneck is the cpu.
edit: this is a simplification of the problem and hardware is a little more complicated than this (slower multi-core cpus vs faster one-core cpus vary their performance depending on how many cores a program uses and how / a program may require a gpu to have less memory but more processing power, or the opposite... even heat dissipation can affect component efficiency: your program might run fine for 20 minutes but start to slow down if the cpu isn't cooled down properly), but "minimal hardware requirements" aren't exactly precise so this method is appropriate.
tl;dr of the spoiler:
In short, there are so many factors that affect performance that you can't measure it, so just a rough estimation is good.
I use MATLAB for programming some meta-heuristics. Recently, I have been working on an algorithm for solving an industrial engineering problem. My problem with MATLAB is getting "out of memory" errors. Now I'm trying some suggestions from Mathworks and Stackoverflow (Hope they will work). However, there is one thing I did not understand.
During the run of the algorithm in MATLAB (it takes 4000-5000 cpu sec for a medium sized problem), even though I preallocate variables, code does not demand dynamic array resizing and does not add new variables, I observe that the memory usage of the algorithm grows continuously. The main function calls some other functions written by me. What could be the reason of increase of the memory usage?
The computer I use for the running of the algorithm has 8GBs of memory and win8 64bit installed.
The only way to figure this out is to see where the memory is going.
I think you may accidentally store results that you don't need, or that you underestimate the size of your output/intermediate variables.
Here is how I would proceed:
Turn on dbstop if error
Run the code till you get the out of memory error
See how much memory is being used (make sure to check all work spaces)
Probably you now know where the extra memory is going. If you don't find much memory being used, continue with this:
Check the memory command to see how much memory is still available
Carefully look at the line being executed, perhaps you actually need a huge amount of memory for it
If all else fails share your findings here and others can help you look for it.
The reason of memory usage growth is CPlex. I tried many alternatives but I couldn't find any other useful solution than increasing virtual memory to several hundred GBs. If you don't have special reasons to insist on CPlex (commercial usage, licensing etc.), I would suggest anyone, who encounter this problem, to use GUROBI. It is free and unlimited for academic usage, totally integrable with MATLAB. That's the solution I have found for my problem with Cplex. I hope this solution works for everybody.
My question is specific to iPhone, iPod, and iPad, since I am assuming that the architecture makes a big difference. I'm hoping there is either a specification somewhere (for the various chips perhaps), or a reliable way to measure T for each specific instruction. I know I can use any number of tools to measure aggregate processor time used, memory used, etc. I want to quantify at a lower level.
So, I'm able to figure out how many times I go through the main part of the algorithm. For example, I iterate n * (n-1) times in a naive implementation, and between n (best case) and n + n * (n-1) (worst case) in another. I can also make a reasonable count of the total number of instructions (+ - = % * /, and logic statements), and I can compare those counts, but that's assuming the weight of each operation is the same. Also, I don't have any idea how to weight the actual time value of a logic statement (if, else, for, while) vs a mathematical operator... is "if" as much work as "+" each time I use it? I would love to know where to find this information.
So, for clarity, my goal is to discover how much processor time I am demanding of the CPU (or GPU or any U) so that I can design an optimal algorithm around processor time. Can someone give me an idea of where to start for iOS hardware?
Edit: This link to ClockServices.c and SIMD stuff in the developer portal might be a good start for people interested in this. A few more cups of coffee tonight and I might get through it ;)
On a modern platform, processor time isn't the only limiting factor. Often, memory access is.
Still, processor time:
Your basic approach at an estimation for the processor load is OK, though, and is sensible: Make a rough estimate of the cost based on your knowledge of typical platforms.
In this article, Table 1 shows the times for typical primitive operations in .NET. While your platform may vary, the relative time is usually very similar. Maybe you can find - or even make - one for iStuff.
(I haven't come across one so thorough for other platforms, except processor / instruction set manuals, but they deal with assembly instructions)
memory locality:
A cache miss can cost you hundreds of cycles, a disk access a thousand times as much. So controlling your memory access patterns (i.e. reducing the working set, restructuring and accessing data in a cache-friendly way) is an important part of evaluating an algorithm.
xCode has instruments to measure performance of each function/operation, you can simply use them.
I'm trying to figure out the best programming language for an analytical model I'm building. Primary consideration is speed at which it will run FOR loops.
Some detail:
The model needs to perform numerous (~30 per entry, over 12 cycles) operations on a set of elements from an array -- there are ~300k rows, and ~150 columns in the array. Most of these operations are logical in nature, e.g., if place(i) = 1, then j(i) = 2.
I've built an earlier version of this model using Octave -- to run it takes ~55 hours on an Amazon EC2 m2.xlarge instance (and it uses ~10 GB of memory, but I'm perfectly happy to throw more memory at it). Octave/Matlab won't do elementwise logical operations, so a large number of for loops are needed -- I'm relatively certain that I've vectorized as much as possible -- the loops that remain are necessary. I've gotten octave-multicore to work with this code, which makes some improvement (~30% speed reduction when I get it running on 8 EC2 cores), but ends up being unstable with file locking, etc.
+I'm really looking for a step change in run-time -- I know that actually using Matlab might get me as much as a 50% improvement from looking at some benchmarks, but that is cost-prohibitive. The original plan when starting this was to actually run a Monte Carlo with this, but at 55 hours a run, that's completely impractical.
The next version of this is going to be a complete rebuild from the ground up (for IP reasons I won't get in to if nothing else), so I'm completely open to any programming language. I'm most familiar with Octave/Matlab, but have dabbled in R, C, C++, Java. I'm also proficient w/ SQL if the solution involves storing the data in a database. I'll learn any language for this -- these aren't complicated functionality we're looking for, no interfacing with other programs, etc., so not too concerned about learning curve.
So with all that said, what's the fastest programming language specifically for FOR loops? From a search of SO and Google, Fortran and C bubble to the top, but looking for some more advice before diving in to one or the other.
Thanks!
This for loop looks no more complex than this when it hits the CPU:
for(int i = 0; i != 1024; i++) translates to
mov r0, 0 ;;start the counter
top:
;;some processing
add r0, r0, 1 ;;increment the counter by 1
jne top: r0, 1024 ;;jump to the loop top if we havn't hit the top of the for loop (1024 elements)
;;continue on
As you can tell, this is sufficiently simple you can't really optimize it very well[1]... Refocus towards the algorithm level.
The first cut at the problem is to look at cache locality. Look up the classic example of matrix multiplication and swapping the i and j indexes.
edit: As a second cut, I would suggest evaluating the algorithm for data-dependencies between iterations and data dependency between localities in your 'matrix' of data. It may be a good candidate for parallelization.
[1] There are some micro-optimizations possible, but those will not produce the speedsups you're looking for.
~300k * ~150 * ~30 * ~12 = ~16G iterations, right?
This number of primitive operations should complete in a matter of minutes (if not seconds) in any compiled language on any decent CPU.
Fortran, C/C++ should do it almost equally well. Even managed languages, such as Java and C#, would only fall behind by a small margin (if at all).
If you have a problem of ~16G iterations running 55 hours, this means that they are very far from being primitive (80k per second? this is ridiculous), so maybe we should know more. (as was already suggested, is disk access limiting performance? is it network access?)
As #Rotsor said, 16G operations / 55 hours is about 80,000 operations per second, or one operation every 12.5 microseconds. That's a lot of time per operation.
That means your loops are not the cause of poor performance, it's what's in the innermost loop that's taking the time. And Octave is an interpreted language. That alone means an order of magnitude slowdown.
If you want speed, you first need to be in a compiled language. Then you need to do performance tuning (aka profiling) or, just single step it in a debugger at the instruction level. That will tell you what it is actually doing in its heart of hearts. Once you've got it to where it's not wasting cycles, fancier hardware, cores, CUDA, etc. will give you a parallelism speedup. But it's silly to do that if your code is taking unnecessarily many cycles. (Here's an example of performance tuning - a 43x speedup just by trimming the fat.)
I can't believe the number of responders talking about matlab, APL, and other vectorized languages. Those are interpreters. They give you concise source code, which is not at all the same thing as fast execution. When it comes down to the bare metal, they are stuck with the same hardware as every other language.
Added: to show you what I mean, I just ran this C++ code, which does 16G operations, on this moldy old laptop, and it took 94 seconds, or about 6ns per iteration. (I can't believe you baby-sat that thing for 2 whole days.)
void doit(){
double sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
for (int j = 0; j < 16000000; j++){
sum += j * 3.1415926;
}
}
}
In terms of absolute speed, probably Fortran followed by C, followed by C++. In practical application, well written code in any of the three, compiled with a descent compiler should be plenty fast.
Edit- generally you are going to see much better performance with any kind of looped or forking (e.g.- if statements) code with a compiled language, versus an interpreted language.
To give an example, on a recent project I was working on, the data sizes and operations were about 3/4 the size of what you're talking about here, but like your code, had very little room for vectorization, and required significant looping. After converting the code from matlab to C++, runtimes went from 16-18 hours, down to around 25 minutes.
For what you're discussing, Fortran is probably your first choice. The closest second place is probably C++. Some C++ libraries use "expression templates" to gain some speed over C for this kind of task. It's not entirely certain those will do you any good, but C++ can be at least as fast as C, and possibly somewhat faster.
At least in theory, there's no reason Ada couldn't be competitive as well, but it's been so long since I used it for anything like this that I hesitate to recommend it -- not because it isn't good, but because I just haven't kept track of current Ada compilers well enough to comment on them intelligently.
Any compiled language should perform the loop itself on roughly equal terms.
If you can formulate your problem in its terms, you might want to look at CUDA or OpenCL and run your matrix code on the GPU - though this is less good for code with lots of conditionals.
If you want to stay on conventional CPUs, you may be able to formulate your problem in terms of SSE scatter/gather and bitmask operations.
Probably the assembly language for whatever your platform is. But compilers (especially special-purpose ones that specifically target a single platform (e.g., Analog Devices or TI DSPs)) are often as good as or better than humans. Also, compilers often know about tricks that you don't. For example, the aforementioned DSPs support zero-overhead loops and the compiler will know how to optimize code to use those loops.
Matlab will do element-wise logical operations and they are generally quite fast.
Here is a quick example on my computer (AMD Athalon 2.3GHz w/3GB) :
d=rand(300000,150);
d=floor(d*10);
>> numel(d(d==1))
ans =
4501524
>> tic;d(d==1)=10;toc;
Elapsed time is 0.754711 seconds.
>> numel(d(d==1))
ans =
0
>> numel(d(d==10))
ans =
4501524
In general I've found matlab's operators are very speedy, you just have to find ways to express your algorithms directly in terms of matrix operators.
C++ is not fast when doing matrixy things with for loops. C is, in fact, specifically bad at it. See good math bad math.
I hear that C99 has __restrict pointers that help, but don't know much about it.
Fortran is still the goto language for numerical computing.
How is the data stored? Your execution time is probably more effected by I/O (especially disk or worse, network) than by your language.
Assuming operations on rows are orthogonal, I would go with C# and use PLINQ to exploit all the parallelism I could.
Might you not be best with a hand-coded assembler insert? Assuming, of course, that you don't need portability.
That and an optimized algorithm should help (and perhaps restructuring the data?).
You might also want to try multiple algorithms and profile them.
APL.
Even though it's interpreted, its primitive operators all operate on arrays natively, therefore you rarely need any explicit loops. You write the same code, whether the data is scalar or array, and the interpreter takes care of any looping needed internally, and thus with the minimum overhead - the loops themselves are in a compiled language, and will have been heavily optimised for the specific architecture of the CPU it's running on.
Here's an example of the simplicity of array handling in APL:
A <- 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
((2|A)/A) <- 0
A
2 0 4 0 6 8 10
The first line sets A to a vector of numbers.
The second line replaces all the odd numbers in the vector with zeroes.
The third line queries the new values of A, and the fourth line is the resulting output.
Note that no explicit looping was required, as scalar operators such as '|' (remainder) automatically extend to arrays as required. APL also has built-in primitives for searching and sorting, which will probably be faster than writing your own loops for these operations.
Wikipedia has a good article on APL, which also provides links to suppliers such as IBM and Dyalog.
Any modern compiled or JITted language is going to render down to pretty much the same machine language code, giving a loop overhead of 10 nano seconds or less, per iteration, on modern processors.
Quoting #Rotsor:
If you have a problem of ~16G iterations running 55 hours, this means that they are very far from being primitive (80k per second? this is ridiculous), so maybe we should know more.
80k operations per second is around 12.5 microseconds each - a factor of 1000 greater than the loop overhead you'd expect.
Assuming your 55 hour runtime is single threaded, and if your per item operations are as simple as suggested, you should be able to (conservatively) achieve a speedup of 100x and cut it down to under an hour very easily.
If you want to run faster still, you'll want to look at writing multi-threaded solution, in which case a language that provides good support would be essential. I'd lean towards PLINQ and C# 4.0, but that's because I already know C# - YMMV.
what about a lazy loading language like clojure. it is a lisp so like most lisp dialects lacks a for loop but has many other forms that operate more idiomatically for list processing. It might help your scaling issues as well because the operations are thread safe and because the language is functional it has fewer side effects. If you wanted to find all the items in the list that were 'i' values to operate on them you might do something like this.
(def mylist ["i" "j" "i" "i" "j" "i"])
(map #(= "i" %) mylist)
result
(true false true true false true)
I'm trying to optimize the performance of my code, but I'm not familiar with xcode's debuggers or debuggers in general. Is it possible to track the execution time and frequency of calls being made at runtime?
Imagine a chain of events with some recursive calls over a fraction of a second. What's the best way to track where the CPU spends most of its time?
Many thanks.
Edit: Maybe this is better asked by saying, how do I use the xcode debug tools to do a stack trace?
You want to use the built-in performance tools called 'Instruments', check out Apples guide to Instruments. Specifically you probably want the System Instruments. There's also the Tuning Guide which could be useful to you and Shark.
Imagine a chain of events with some
recursive calls over a fraction of a
second. What's the best way to track
where the CPU spends most of its time?
Short version of previous answer.
Learn an IDE or debugger. Make sure it has a "pause" button or you can interrupt it when your program is running and taking too long.
If your code runs too quickly to be manually paused, wrap a temporary loop of 10 to 1000 times around it.
When you pause it, make a copy of the call stack, into some text editor. Repeat several times.
Your answer will be in those stacks. If the CPU is spending most of its time in a statement, that statement will be at the bottom of most of the stack samples. If there is some function call that causes most of the time to be used, that function call will be on most of the stacks. It doesn't matter if it's recursive - that just means it shows up more than once on a stack.
Don't think about measuring microseconds, or counting calls. Think about "percent of time active". That's what stack samples tell you, and that's roughly what you'll save if you fix it.
It's that simple.
BTW, when you fix that problem, you will get a speedup factor. Then, other issues in your code will be magnified by that factor, so they will be easier to find. This way, you can keep going until you've squeezed every cycle out of it.
The first thing I tell people is to recognize the difference between
1) timing routines and counting how many times they are called, and
2) finding code that you can fruitfully optimize.
For (1) there are instrumenting profilers.
To be really successful at (2) you need a rare type of profiler.
You need a sampling profiler that
samples the entire call stack, not just the program counter
samples at random wall clock times, not just CPU, so as to capture possible I/O problems
samples when you want it to (not when waiting for user input)
for output, gives you, for each line of code that appears on stack samples, the percent of samples containing that line. That is a direct measure of the total time that could be saved if that line were not there.
(I actually do it by hand, interrupting the program under the debugger.)
Don't get sidetracked by problems you don't have, such as
accuracy of measurement. If a line of code appears on 30% of call stack samples, it's actual cost could be anywhere in a range around 30%. If you can find a way to eliminate it or invoke it a lot less, you will save what it costs, even if you don't know in advance exactly what its cost is.
efficiency of sampling. Since you don't need accuracy of time measurement, you don't need a large number of samples. Even if you get a large number of samples, they don't skew the results significantly, because they don't fail to spot the costly lines of code.
call graphs. They make nice graphics, but are not what you need to know. An arc on a call graph corresponds to a line of code in the best case, usually multiple lines, so knowing cost of an arc only tells the cost of a line in the best case. Call graphs concentrate on functions, when what you need to find is lines of code. Call graphs get wrapped up in the issue of recursion, which is irrelevant.
It's important to understand what to expect. Many programmers, using traditional profilers, can get a 20% improvement, consider that terrific, count the profiler a winner, and stop there. Others, working with large programs, can often get speedup factors of 20 times.
This is done by fixing a series of problems, each one giving a multiplicative speedup factor. As soon as the profiler fails to find the next problem, the process stops. That's why "good enough" isn't good enough.
Here is a brief explanation of the method.