[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe |
Date: |
Sun, 07 Apr 2019 13:28:56 -0500 |
While evaluating guile as a possibility to replace some python code,
assuming I'm not just doing something wrong, I noticed that open-pipe
appears to transfer data *much* more slowly than python when OPEN_BOTH is
specified as opposed to OPEN_READ:
discarding dev-zero as file: 12500.00 mb/s
discarding dev-zero via OPEN_READ: 4132.23 mb/s
discarding dev-zero via OPEN_WRITE: 1.42 mb/s
For something similar to the original python code and roughly similar to
open-pipe OPEN_BOTH (see code below) I see:
mb/s: 1713.26754296
In the end, what I'd need is an OPEN_BOTH (or equivalent) that could
support block-reads and ideally read-delimited operations
on the subproces output pipe at speeds much closer to python's.
Here's the trivial guile test program:
#!/usr/bin/env guile -s
!#
(use-modules
((ice-9 binary-ports) :select (get-bytevector-n! put-bytevector))
((ice-9 format) :select (format))
((ice-9 popen) :select (open-pipe open-pipe*))
((rnrs bytevectors) :select (bytevector-length make-bytevector)))
(define (cat-bytes src dest len)
;; Discard bytes if dest is #f
(let* ((buf (make-bytevector 65536))
(buf-len (bytevector-length buf)))
(let loop ((remaining len))
(unless (zero? remaining)
(let ((n-or-eof (get-bytevector-n! src buf 0 (min remaining buf-len))))
(unless (eof-object? n-or-eof)
(when dest (put-bytevector dest buf 0 n-or-eof))
(loop (- remaining n-or-eof))))))))
(define *discard* #f)
(define *dev-zero* (with-fluids ((%default-port-encoding #f))
(open-input-file "/dev/zero")))
(define (cat-zero mode)
(with-fluids ((%default-port-encoding #f))
(open-pipe* mode "cat" "/dev/zero")))
(define (time-cat-mb mb src dest)
(let ((start (tms:clock (times))))
(cat-bytes src dest (* mb 1024 1024))
(when dest (force-output dest))
(let ((end (tms:clock (times))))
(format (current-error-port)
"~,2f mb/s\n" (/ mb
(/ (- (tms:clock (times)) start)
internal-time-units-per-second))))))
(display "discarding dev-zero as file: " (current-error-port))
(time-cat-mb 10000 *dev-zero* *discard*)
(display "discarding dev-zero via OPEN_READ: " (current-error-port))
(time-cat-mb 5000 (cat-zero OPEN_READ) *discard*)
(display "discarding dev-zero via OPEN_WRITE: " (current-error-port))
(time-cat-mb 10 (cat-zero OPEN_BOTH) *discard*)
And here's the python code:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os, subprocess
proc = subprocess.Popen(['cat', '/dev/zero'],
stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
close_fds = True, bufsize = 4096)
n_kb = 1000000
start = os.times()[4]
written = 0
for i in range(n_kb):
assert(len(proc.stdout.read(1024)) == 1024)
written += 1024
end = os.times()[4]
proc.terminate()
proc.wait()
print "mb/s:", (n_kb / 1024.0) / (end - start)
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
- Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe,
Rob Browning <=
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/07
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/07
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/07
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/08
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Chris Vine, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Chris Vine, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/09