I started programming in Python just a couple weeks ago. I have some experience with Java, so it wasn't too hard too hard for me to set up.
Right now I have a program that uses URLLib to scrape the source code of a list of sites.
I have thousands of sites to scrape, so I'm obviously looking to make it multi-threaded or multi-processed (I don't really know the difference).
The good thing is that my multi-threading works! But it's basically pointless for me to do, because all of my threads are scraping the exact same sites and giving me nothing but duplicates.
How can I avoid this issue? Thanks for your help in advance :)
The difference between multithreading and multiprocessing is important in python because the Global Interpreter Lock prevents threads from executing code simulteaneously in the interpreter. For web scraping purposes it's fine to use threading as long as your thread only executes the web request (so that only the thread blocks while waiting). If you also want to to some processing of the responses in parallel, it's better to use multiprocessing so that each subprocess will have it's own interpreter and you can leverage your cpu cores.
Regarding the issue with duplicates, there is probably a bug in the way you distribute the list of sites to the threads or subprocesses. In multiprocessing you have a Queue which is process-safe (thread-safe too). This means that if two subprocesses try to get from the queue at the same time, they will be given sequential items from the queue, instead of the same one.
In summary, You should put each site in the Queue from the main thread and then get from each worker thread or subprocess.
Related
I'm slightly confused about whether multithreading works in Python or not.
I know there has been a lot of questions about this and I've read many of them, but I'm still confused. I know from my own experience and have seen others post their own answers and examples here on StackOverflow that multithreading is indeed possible in Python. So why is it that everyone keep saying that Python is locked by the GIL and that only one thread can run at a time? It clearly does work. Or is there some distinction I'm not getting here?
Many posters/respondents also keep mentioning that threading is limited because it does not make use of multiple cores. But I would say they are still useful because they do work simultaneously and thus get the combined workload done faster. I mean why would there even be a Python thread module otherwise?
Update:
Thanks for all the answers so far. The way I understand it is that multithreading will only run in parallel for some IO tasks, but can only run one at a time for CPU-bound multiple core tasks.
I'm not entirely sure what this means for me in practical terms, so I'll just give an example of the kind of task I'd like to multithread. For instance, let's say I want to loop through a very long list of strings and I want to do some basic string operations on each list item. If I split up the list, send each sublist to be processed by my loop/string code in a new thread, and send the results back in a queue, will these workloads run roughly at the same time? Most importantly will this theoretically speed up the time it takes to run the script?
Another example might be if I can render and save four different pictures using PIL in four different threads, and have this be faster than processing the pictures one by one after each other? I guess this speed-component is what I'm really wondering about rather than what the correct terminology is.
I also know about the multiprocessing module but my main interest right now is for small-to-medium task loads (10-30 secs) and so I think multithreading will be more appropriate because subprocesses can be slow to initiate.
The GIL does not prevent threading. All the GIL does is make sure only one thread is executing Python code at a time; control still switches between threads.
What the GIL prevents then, is making use of more than one CPU core or separate CPUs to run threads in parallel.
This only applies to Python code. C extensions can and do release the GIL to allow multiple threads of C code and one Python thread to run across multiple cores. This extends to I/O controlled by the kernel, such as select() calls for socket reads and writes, making Python handle network events reasonably efficiently in a multi-threaded multi-core setup.
What many server deployments then do, is run more than one Python process, to let the OS handle the scheduling between processes to utilize your CPU cores to the max. You can also use the multiprocessing library to handle parallel processing across multiple processes from one codebase and parent process, if that suits your use cases.
Note that the GIL is only applicable to the CPython implementation; Jython and IronPython use a different threading implementation (the native Java VM and .NET common runtime threads respectively).
To address your update directly: Any task that tries to get a speed boost from parallel execution, using pure Python code, will not see a speed-up as threaded Python code is locked to one thread executing at a time. If you mix in C extensions and I/O, however (such as PIL or numpy operations) and any C code can run in parallel with one active Python thread.
Python threading is great for creating a responsive GUI, or for handling multiple short web requests where I/O is the bottleneck more than the Python code. It is not suitable for parallelizing computationally intensive Python code, stick to the multiprocessing module for such tasks or delegate to a dedicated external library.
Yes. :)
You have the low level thread module and the higher level threading module. But it you simply want to use multicore machines, the multiprocessing module is the way to go.
Quote from the docs:
In CPython, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, only one thread can
execute Python code at once (even though certain performance-oriented
libraries might overcome this limitation). If you want your
application to make better use of the computational resources of
multi-core machines, you are advised to use multiprocessing. However,
threading is still an appropriate model if you want to run multiple
I/O-bound tasks simultaneously.
Threading is Allowed in Python, the only problem is that the GIL will make sure that just one thread is executed at a time (no parallelism).
So basically if you want to multi-thread the code to speed up calculation it won't speed it up as just one thread is executed at a time, but if you use it to interact with a database for example it will.
I feel for the poster because the answer is invariably "it depends what you want to do". However parallel speed up in python has always been terrible in my experience even for multiprocessing.
For example check this tutorial out (second to top result in google): https://www.machinelearningplus.com/python/parallel-processing-python/
I put timings around this code and increased the number of processes (2,4,8,16) for the pool map function and got the following bad timings:
serial 70.8921644706279
parallel 93.49704207479954 tasks 2
parallel 56.02441442012787 tasks 4
parallel 51.026168536394835 tasks 8
parallel 39.18044807203114 tasks 16
code:
# increase array size at the start
# my compute node has 40 CPUs so I've got plenty to spare here
arr = np.random.randint(0, 10, size=[2000000, 600])
.... more code ....
tasks = [2,4,8,16]
for task in tasks:
tic = time.perf_counter()
pool = mp.Pool(task)
results = pool.map(howmany_within_range_rowonly, [row for row in data])
pool.close()
toc = time.perf_counter()
time1 = toc - tic
print(f"parallel {time1} tasks {task}")
I'm slightly confused about whether multithreading works in Python or not.
I know there has been a lot of questions about this and I've read many of them, but I'm still confused. I know from my own experience and have seen others post their own answers and examples here on StackOverflow that multithreading is indeed possible in Python. So why is it that everyone keep saying that Python is locked by the GIL and that only one thread can run at a time? It clearly does work. Or is there some distinction I'm not getting here?
Many posters/respondents also keep mentioning that threading is limited because it does not make use of multiple cores. But I would say they are still useful because they do work simultaneously and thus get the combined workload done faster. I mean why would there even be a Python thread module otherwise?
Update:
Thanks for all the answers so far. The way I understand it is that multithreading will only run in parallel for some IO tasks, but can only run one at a time for CPU-bound multiple core tasks.
I'm not entirely sure what this means for me in practical terms, so I'll just give an example of the kind of task I'd like to multithread. For instance, let's say I want to loop through a very long list of strings and I want to do some basic string operations on each list item. If I split up the list, send each sublist to be processed by my loop/string code in a new thread, and send the results back in a queue, will these workloads run roughly at the same time? Most importantly will this theoretically speed up the time it takes to run the script?
Another example might be if I can render and save four different pictures using PIL in four different threads, and have this be faster than processing the pictures one by one after each other? I guess this speed-component is what I'm really wondering about rather than what the correct terminology is.
I also know about the multiprocessing module but my main interest right now is for small-to-medium task loads (10-30 secs) and so I think multithreading will be more appropriate because subprocesses can be slow to initiate.
The GIL does not prevent threading. All the GIL does is make sure only one thread is executing Python code at a time; control still switches between threads.
What the GIL prevents then, is making use of more than one CPU core or separate CPUs to run threads in parallel.
This only applies to Python code. C extensions can and do release the GIL to allow multiple threads of C code and one Python thread to run across multiple cores. This extends to I/O controlled by the kernel, such as select() calls for socket reads and writes, making Python handle network events reasonably efficiently in a multi-threaded multi-core setup.
What many server deployments then do, is run more than one Python process, to let the OS handle the scheduling between processes to utilize your CPU cores to the max. You can also use the multiprocessing library to handle parallel processing across multiple processes from one codebase and parent process, if that suits your use cases.
Note that the GIL is only applicable to the CPython implementation; Jython and IronPython use a different threading implementation (the native Java VM and .NET common runtime threads respectively).
To address your update directly: Any task that tries to get a speed boost from parallel execution, using pure Python code, will not see a speed-up as threaded Python code is locked to one thread executing at a time. If you mix in C extensions and I/O, however (such as PIL or numpy operations) and any C code can run in parallel with one active Python thread.
Python threading is great for creating a responsive GUI, or for handling multiple short web requests where I/O is the bottleneck more than the Python code. It is not suitable for parallelizing computationally intensive Python code, stick to the multiprocessing module for such tasks or delegate to a dedicated external library.
Yes. :)
You have the low level thread module and the higher level threading module. But it you simply want to use multicore machines, the multiprocessing module is the way to go.
Quote from the docs:
In CPython, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, only one thread can
execute Python code at once (even though certain performance-oriented
libraries might overcome this limitation). If you want your
application to make better use of the computational resources of
multi-core machines, you are advised to use multiprocessing. However,
threading is still an appropriate model if you want to run multiple
I/O-bound tasks simultaneously.
Threading is Allowed in Python, the only problem is that the GIL will make sure that just one thread is executed at a time (no parallelism).
So basically if you want to multi-thread the code to speed up calculation it won't speed it up as just one thread is executed at a time, but if you use it to interact with a database for example it will.
I feel for the poster because the answer is invariably "it depends what you want to do". However parallel speed up in python has always been terrible in my experience even for multiprocessing.
For example check this tutorial out (second to top result in google): https://www.machinelearningplus.com/python/parallel-processing-python/
I put timings around this code and increased the number of processes (2,4,8,16) for the pool map function and got the following bad timings:
serial 70.8921644706279
parallel 93.49704207479954 tasks 2
parallel 56.02441442012787 tasks 4
parallel 51.026168536394835 tasks 8
parallel 39.18044807203114 tasks 16
code:
# increase array size at the start
# my compute node has 40 CPUs so I've got plenty to spare here
arr = np.random.randint(0, 10, size=[2000000, 600])
.... more code ....
tasks = [2,4,8,16]
for task in tasks:
tic = time.perf_counter()
pool = mp.Pool(task)
results = pool.map(howmany_within_range_rowonly, [row for row in data])
pool.close()
toc = time.perf_counter()
time1 = toc - tic
print(f"parallel {time1} tasks {task}")
I have a situation where I'm downloading a lot of files. Right now everything runs on one main Python thread, and downloads as many as 3000 files every few minutes. The problem is that the time it takes to do this is too long. I realize Python has no true multi-threading, but is there a better way of doing this? I was thinking of launching multiple threads since the I/O bound operations should not require access to the global interpreter lock, but perhaps I misunderstand that concept.
Multithreading is just fine for the specific purpose of speeding up I/O on the net (although asynchronous programming would give even greater performance). CPython's multithreading is quite "true" (native OS threads) -- what you're probably thinking of is the GIL, the global interpreter lock that stops different threads from simultaneously running Python code. But all the I/O primitives give up the GIL while they're waiting for system calls to complete, so the GIL is not relevant to I/O performance!
For asynchronous programming, the most powerful framework around is twisted, but it can take a while to get the hang of it if you're never done such programming. It would probably be simpler for you to get extra I/O performance via the use of a pool of threads.
Could always take a look at multiprocessing.
is there a better way of doing this?
Yes
I was thinking of launching multiple threads since the I/O bound operations
Don't.
At the OS level, all the threads in a process are sharing a limited set of I/O resources.
If you want real speed, spawn as many heavyweight OS processes as your platform will tolerate. The OS is really, really good about balancing I/O workloads among processes. Make the OS sort this out.
Folks will say that spawning 3000 processes is bad, and they're right. You probably only want to spawn a few hundred at a time.
What you really want is the following.
A shared message queue in which the 3000 URI's are queued up.
A few hundred workers which are all reading from the queue.
Each worker gets a URI from the queue and gets the file.
The workers can stay running. When the queue's empty, they'll just sit there, waiting for work.
"every few minutes" you dump the 3000 URI's into the queue to make the workers start working.
This will tie up every resource on your processor, and it's quite trivial. Each worker is only a few lines of code. Loading the queue is a special "manager" that's just a few lines of code, also.
Gevent is perfect for this.
Gevent's use of Greenlets (lightweight coroutines in the same python process) offer you asynchronous operations without compromising code readability or introducing abstract 'reactor' concepts into your mix.
Was looking to write a little web crawler in python. I was starting to investigate writing it as a multithreaded script, one pool of threads downloading and one pool processing results. Due to the GIL would it actually do simultaneous downloading? How does the GIL affect a web crawler? Would each thread pick some data off the socket, then move on to the next thread, let it pick some data off the socket, etc..?
Basically I'm asking is doing a multi-threaded crawler in python really going to buy me much performance vs single threaded?
thanks!
The GIL is not held by the Python interpreter when doing network operations. If you are doing work that is network-bound (like a crawler), you can safely ignore the effects of the GIL.
On the other hand, you may want to measure your performance if you create lots of threads doing processing (after downloading). Limiting the number of threads there will reduce the effects of the GIL on your performance.
Look at how scrapy works. It can help you a lot. It doesn't use threads, but can do multiple "simultaneous" downloading, all in the same thread.
If you think about it, you have only a single network card, so parallel processing can't really help by definition.
What scrapy does is just not wait around for the response of one request before sending another. All in a single thread.
When it comes to crawling you might be better off using something event-based such as Twisted that uses non-blocking asynchronous socket operations to fetch and return data as it comes, rather than blocking on each one.
Asynchronous network operations can easily be and usually are single-threaded. Network I/O almost always has higher latency than that of CPU because you really have no idea how long a page is going to take to return, and this is where async shines because an async operation is much lighter weight than a thread.
Edit: Here is a simple example of how to use Twisted's getPage to create a simple web crawler.
Another consideration: if you're scraping a single website and the server places limits on the frequency of requests your can send from your IP address, adding multiple threads may make no difference.
Yes, multithreading scraping increases the process speed significantly. This is not a case where GIL is an issue. You are losing a lot of idle CPU and unused bandwidth waiting for a request to finish. If the web page you are scraping is in your local network (a rare scraping case) then the difference between multithreading and single thread scraping can be smaller.
You can try the benchmark yourself playing with one to "n" threads. I have written a simple multithreaded crawler on Discovering Web Resources and I wrote a related article on Automated Discovery of Blog Feeds and Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn Accounts Connected to Business Website. You can select how many threads to use changing the NWORKERS class variable in FocusedWebCrawler.
I'm making a python script that needs to do 3 things simultaneously.
What is a good way to achieve this as do to what i've heard about the GIL i'm not so lean into using threads anymore.
2 of the things that the script needs to do will be heavily active, they will have lots of work to do and then i need to have the third thing reporting to the user over a socket when he asks (so it will be like a tiny server) about the status of the other 2 processes.
Now my question is what would be a good way to achieve this? I don't want to have three different script and also due to GIL using threads i think i won't get much performance and i'll make things worse.
Is there a fork() for python like in C so from my script so fork 2 processes that will do their job and from the main process to report to the user? And how can i communicate from the forked processes with the main process?
LE:: to be more precise 1thread should get email from a imap server and store them into a database, another thread should get messages from db that needs to be sent and then send them and the main thread should be a tiny http server that will just accept one url and will show the status of those two threads in json format. So are threads oK? will the work be done simultaneously or due to the gil there will be performance issues?
I think you could use the multiprocessing package that has an API similar to the threading package and will allow you to get a better performance with multiple cores on a single CPU.
To view the gain of performance using multiprocessing instead threading, check on this link about the average time comparison of the same program using multiprocessing x threading.
The GIL is really only something to care about if you want to do multiprocessing, that is spread the load over several cores/processors. If that is the case, and it kinda sounds like it from your description, use multiprocessing.
If you just need to do three things "simultaneously" in that way that you need to wait in the background for things to happen, then threads are just fine. That's what threads are for in the first place. 8-I)