1GB/s for copying a file is reasonable - it's around half the memory bandwidth, so copying the data twice would give that result (assuming no actual I/O is taking place, which is what you want because actual I/O will swamp any differences at the software level).

The Handle overhead should be negligible if you're only using hGetBufSome and hPutBuf, because those functions basically just call read() and write() when the amount of data is larger than the buffer size.

There's clearly something suspicious going on here, unfortunately I don't have time right now to investigate, but I'll keep an eye on the thread.

Cheers,
        Simon

On 08/03/13 08:36, Gregory Collins wrote:
+Simon Marlow
A couple of comments:

  * maybe we shouldn't back the file by a Handle. io-streams does this
    by default out of the box; I had a posix file interface for unix
    (guarded by CPP) for a while but decided to ditch it for simplicity.
    If your results are correct, given how slow going by Handle seems to
    be I may revisit this, I figured it would be "good enough".
  * io-streams turns Handle buffering off in withFileAsOutput. So the
    difference shouldn't be as a result of buffering. Simon: is this an
    expected result? I presume you did some Handle debugging?
  * the IO manager should not have any bearing here because file code
    doesn't actually ever use it (epoll() doesn't work for files)
  * does the difference persist when the file size gets bigger?
  * your file descriptor code doesn't handle EINTR properly, although
    you said you checked that the file copy is being done?
  * Copying a 1MB file in 1ms gives a throughput of ~1GB/s. The other
    methods have a more believable ~70MB/s throughput.

G


On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com
<mailto:mich...@snoyman.com>> wrote:

    Hi all,

    I'm turning to the community for some help understanding some
    benchmark results[1]. I was curious to see how the new io-streams
    would work with conduit, as it looks like a far saner low-level
    approach than Handles. In fact, the API is so simple that the entire
    wrapper is just a few lines of code[2].

    I then added in some basic file copy benchmarks, comparing
    conduit+Handle (with ResourceT or bracket), conduit+io-streams,
    straight io-streams, and lazy I/O. All approaches fell into the same
    ballpark, with conduit+bracket and conduit+io-streams taking a
    slight lead. (I haven't analyzed that enough to know if it means
    anything, however.)

    Then I decided to pull up the NoHandle code I wrote a while ago for
    conduit. This code was written initially for Windows only, to work
    around the fact that System.IO.openFile does some file locking. To
    avoid using Handles, I wrote a simple FFI wrapper exposing open,
    read, and close system calls, ported it to POSIX, and hid it behind
    a Cabal flag. Out of curiosity, I decided to expose it and include
    it in the benchmark.

    The results are extreme. I've confirmed multiple times that the copy
    algorithm is in fact copying the file, so I don't think the test
    itself is cheating somehow. But I don't know how to explain the
    massive gap. I've run this on two different systems. The results you
    see linked are from my local machine. On an EC2 instance, the gap
    was a bit smaller, but the NoHandle code was still 75% faster than
    the others.

    My initial guess is that I'm not properly tying into the IO manager,
    but I wanted to see if the community had any thoughts. The relevant
    pieces of code are [3][4][5].

    Michael

    [1] http://static.snoyman.com/streams.html
    [2]
    
https://github.com/snoyberg/conduit/blob/streams/io-streams-conduit/Data/Conduit/Streams.hs
    [3]
    
https://github.com/snoyberg/conduit/blob/streams/conduit/System/PosixFile.hsc
    [4]
    
https://github.com/snoyberg/conduit/blob/streams/conduit/Data/Conduit/Binary.hs#L54
    [5]
    
https://github.com/snoyberg/conduit/blob/streams/conduit/Data/Conduit/Binary.hs#L167

    _______________________________________________
    Haskell-Cafe mailing list
    Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org>
    http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe




--
Gregory Collins <g...@gregorycollins.net <mailto:g...@gregorycollins.net>>


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Reply via email to