We Keep Coding

How to apply parallel or asynchronous I/O file writing on a python piece of code

To begin with, we're given the following piece of code:
from validate_email import validate_email
import time
import os
def verify_emails(email_path, good_filepath, bad_filepath):
good_emails = open(good_filepath, 'w+')
bad_emails = open(bad_filepath, 'w+')
emails = set()
with open(email_path) as f:
for email in f:
email = email.strip()
if email in emails:
continue
emails.add(email)
if validate_email(email, verify=True):
good_emails.write(email + '\n')
else:
bad_emails.write(email + '\n')
if __name__ == "__main__":
os.system('cls')
verify_emails("emails.txt", "good_emails.txt", "bad_emails.txt")
I expect contacting SMTP servers to be the most expensive part by far from my program when emails.txt contains large amount of lines (>1k). Using some form of parallel or asynchronous I/O should speed this up a lot, since I can wait for multiple servers to respond instead of waiting sequentially.
As far as I have read:
Asynchronous I/O operates by queuing a request for I/O to the file
descriptor, tracked independently of the calling process. For a file
descriptor that supports asynchronous I/O (raw disk devcies
typically), a process can call aio_read() (for instance) to request a
number of bytes be read from the file descriptor. The system call
returns immediately, whether or not the I/O has completed. Some time
later, the process then polls the operating system for the completion
of the I/O (that is, buffer is filled with data).
To be sincere, I didn't quite understand how to implement async I/O on my program. Can anybody take a little time and explain me the whole process ?
EDIT as per PArakleta suggested:
from validate_email import validate_email
import time
import os
from multiprocessing import Pool
import itertools
def validate_map(e):
return (validate_email(e.strip(), verify=True), e)
seen_emails = set()
def unique(e):
if e in seen_emails:
return False
seen_emails.add(e)
return True
def verify_emails(email_path, good_filepath, bad_filepath):
good_emails = open(good_filepath, 'w+')
bad_emails = open(bad_filepath, 'w+')
with open(email_path, "r") as f:
for result in Pool().imap_unordered(validate_map,
itertools.ifilter(unique, f):
(good, email) = result
if good:
good_emails.write(email)
else:
bad_emails.write(email)
good_emails.close()
bad_emails.close()
if __name__ == "__main__":
os.system('cls')
verify_emails("emails.txt", "good_emails.txt", "bad_emails.txt")

You're asking the wrong question
Having looked at the validate_email package your real problem is that you're not efficiently batching your results. You should be only doing the MX lookup once per domain and then only connect to each MX server once, go through the handshake, and then check all of the addresses for that server in a single batch. Thankfully the validate_email package does the MX result caching for you, but you still need to be group the email addresses by server to batch the query to the server itself.
You need to edit the validate_email package to implement batching, and then probably give a thread to each domain using the actual threading library rather than multiprocessing.
It's always important to profile your program if it's slow and figure out where it is actually spending the time rather than trying to apply optimisation tricks blindly.
The requested solution
IO is already asynchronous if you are using buffered IO and your use case fits with the OS buffering. The only place you could potentially get some advantage is in read-ahead but Python already does this if you use the iterator access to a file (which you are doing). AsyncIO is an advantage to programs that are moving large amounts of data and have disabled the OS buffers to prevent copying the data twice.
You need to actually profile/benchmark your program to see if it has any room for improvement. If your disks aren't already throughput bound then there is a chance to improve the performance by parallel execution of the processing of each email (address?). The easiest way to check this is probably to check to see if the core running your program is maxed out (i.e. you are CPU bound and not IO bound).
If you are CPU bound then you need to look at threading. Unfortunately Python threading doesn't work in parallel unless you have non-Python work to be done so instead you'll have to use multiprocessing (I'm assuming validate_email is a Python function).
How exactly you proceed depends on where the bottleneck's in your program are and how much of a speed up you need to get to the point where you are IO bound (since you cannot actually go any faster than that you can stop optimising when you hit that point).
The emails set object is hard to share because you'll need to lock around it so it's probably best that you keep that in one thread. Looking at the multiprocessing library the easiest mechanism to use is probably Process Pools.
Using this you would need to wrap your file iterable in an itertools.ifilter which discards duplicates, and then feed this into a Pool.imap_unordered and then iterate that result and write into your two output files.
Something like:
with open(email_path) as f:
for result in Pool().imap_unordered(validate_map,
itertools.ifilter(unique, f):
(good, email) = result
if good:
good_emails.write(email)
else:
bad_emails.write(email)
The validate_map function should be something simple like:
def validate_map(e):
return (validate_email(e.strip(), verify=True), e)
The unique function should be something like:
seen_emails = set()
def unique(e):
if e in seen_emails:
return False
seen_emails.add(e)
return True
ETA: I just realised that validate_email is a library which actually contacts SMTP servers. Given that it's not busy in Python code you can use threading. The threading API though is not as convenient as the multiprocessing library but you can use multiprocessing.dummy to have a thread based Pool.
If you are CPU bound then it's not really worth having more threads/processes than cores but since your bottleneck is network IO you can benefit from many more threads/processes. Since processes are expensive you want to swap to threads and then crank up the number running in parallel (although you should be polite not to DOS-attack the servers you are connecting to).
Consider from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool as ThreadPool and then call ThreadPool(processes=32).imap_unordered().

Python Requests: Don't wait for request to finish

In Bash, it is possible to execute a command in the background by appending &. How can I do it in Python?
while True:
data = raw_input('Enter something: ')
requests.post(url, data=data) # Don't wait for it to finish.
print('Sending POST request...') # This should appear immediately.

Here's a hacky way to do it:
try:
requests.get("http://127.0.0.1:8000/test/",timeout=0.0000000001)
except requests.exceptions.ReadTimeout:
pass
Edit: for those of you that observed that this will not await a response - that is my understanding of the question "fire and forget... do not wait for it to finish". There are much more thorough and complete ways to do it with threads or async if you need response context, error handling, etc.

I use multiprocessing.dummy.Pool. I create a singleton thread pool at the module level, and then use pool.apply_async(requests.get, [params]) to launch the task.
This command gives me a future, which I can add to a list with other futures indefinitely until I'd like to collect all or some of the results.
multiprocessing.dummy.Pool is, against all logic and reason, a THREAD pool and not a process pool.
Example (works in both Python 2 and 3, as long as requests is installed):
from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool
import requests
pool = Pool(10) # Creates a pool with ten threads; more threads = more concurrency.
# "pool" is a module attribute; you can be sure there will only
# be one of them in your application
# as modules are cached after initialization.
if __name__ == '__main__':
futures = []
for x in range(10):
futures.append(pool.apply_async(requests.get, ['http://example.com/']))
# futures is now a list of 10 futures.
for future in futures:
print(future.get()) # For each future, wait until the request is
# finished and then print the response object.
The requests will be executed concurrently, so running all ten of these requests should take no longer than the longest one. This strategy will only use one CPU core, but that shouldn't be an issue because almost all of the time will be spent waiting for I/O.

Elegant solution from Andrew Gorcester. In addition, without using futures, it is possible to use the callback and error_callback attributes (see
doc) in order to perform asynchronous processing:
def on_success(r: Response):
if r.status_code == 200:
print(f'Post succeed: {r}')
else:
print(f'Post failed: {r}')
def on_error(ex: Exception):
print(f'Post requests failed: {ex}')
pool.apply_async(requests.post, args=['http://server.host'], kwargs={'json': {'key':'value'},
callback=on_success, error_callback=on_error))

According to the doc, you should move to another library :
Blocking Or Non-Blocking?
With the default Transport Adapter in place, Requests does not provide
any kind of non-blocking IO. The Response.content property will block
until the entire response has been downloaded. If you require more
granularity, the streaming features of the library (see Streaming
Requests) allow you to retrieve smaller quantities of the response at
a time. However, these calls will still block.
If you are concerned about the use of blocking IO, there are lots of
projects out there that combine Requests with one of Python’s
asynchronicity frameworks.
Two excellent examples are
grequests and
requests-futures.

Simplest and Most Pythonic Solution using threading
A Simple way to go ahead and send POST/GET or to execute any other function without waiting for it to finish is using the built-in Python Module threading.
import threading
import requests
def send_req():
requests.get("http://127.0.0.1:8000/test/")
for x in range(100):
threading.Thread(target=send_req).start() # start's a new thread and continues.
Other Important Features of threading
You can turn these threads into daemons using thread_obj.daemon = True
You can go ahead and wait for one to complete executing and then continue using thread_obj.join()
You can check if a thread is alive using thread_obj.is_alive() bool: True/False
You can even check the active thread count as well by threading.active_count()
Official Documentation

If you can write the code to be executed separately in a separate python program, here is a possible solution based on subprocessing.
Otherwise you may find useful this question and related answer: the trick is to use the threading library to start a separate thread that will execute the separated task.
A caveat with both approach could be the number of items (that's to say the number of threads) you have to manage. If the items in parent are too many, you may consider halting every batch of items till at least some threads have finished, but I think this kind of management is non-trivial.
For more sophisticated approach you can use an actor based approach, I have not used this library myself but I think it could help in that case.

from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool
import requests
pool = Pool()
def on_success(r):
print('Post succeed')
def on_error(ex):
print('Post requests failed')
def call_api(url, data, headers):
requests.post(url=url, data=data, headers=headers)
def pool_processing_create(url, data, headers):
pool.apply_async(call_api, args=[url, data, headers],
callback=on_success, error_callback=on_error)

Assistance with Python multithreading

Currently, i have a list of url to grab contents from and is doing it serially. I would like to change it to grabbing them in parallel. This is a psuedocode. I will like to ask is the design sound? I understand that .start() starts the thread, however, my database is not updated. Do i need to use q.get() ? thanks
import threading
import Queue
q = Queue.Queue()
def do_database(url):
""" grab url then input to database """
webdata = grab_url(url)
try:
insert_data_into_database(webdata)
except:
....
else:
< do I need to do anything with the queue after each db operation is done?>
def put_queue(q, url ):
q.put( do_database(url) )
for myfiles in currentdir:
url = myfiles + some_other_string
t=threading.Thread(target=put_queue,args=(q,url))
t.daemon=True
t.start()

It's odd that you're putting stuff into q but never taking anything out of q. What is the purpose of q? In addition, since do_database() doesn't return anything, sure looks like the only thing q.put(do_database(url)) does is put None into q.
The usual way these things work, a description of work to do is added to a queue, and then a fixed number of threads take turns pulling things off the queue. You probably don't want to create an unbounded number of threads ;-)
Here's a pretty complete - but untested - sketch:
import threading
import Queue
NUM_THREADS = 5 # whatever
q = Queue.Queue()
END_OF_DATA = object() # a unique object
class Worker(threading.Thread):
def run(self):
while True:
url = q.get()
if url is END_OF_DATA:
break
webdata = grab_url(url)
try:
# Does your database support concurrent updates
# from multiple threads? If not, need to put
# this in a "with some_global_mutex:" block.
insert_data_into_database(webdata)
except:
#....
threads = [Worker() for _ in range(NUM_THREADS)]
for t in threads:
t.start()
for myfiles in currentdir:
url = myfiles + some_other_string
q.put(url)
# Give each thread an END_OF_DATA marker.
for _ in range(NUM_THREADS):
q.put(END_OF_DATA)
# Shut down cleanly. `daemon` is way overused.
for t in threads:
t.join()

You should do this with asynchronous programming rather than threads. Threading in Python is problematic (see: Global Interpreter Lock), and anyway you're not trying to achieve multicore performance here. You just need a way to multiplex potentially long-running I/O. For that you can use a single thread and an event-driven library such as Twisted.
Twisted comes with HTTP functionality, so you can issue many concurrent requests and react (by populating your database) when results come in. Be aware that this model of programming may take a little getting used to, but it will give you good performance if the number of requests you're making is not astronomical (i.e. if you can get it all done on one machine, which it seems is your intention).

For DB, You have to commit before your changes become effective. But, commit for every insert is not optimal. Commit after bulk changes gives much better performance.
For parallel, Python isn't born for this. For your use-case, i suppose using python with gevent would be a painless solution.
Here is a much more efficient pseudo implementation FYI:
import gevent
from gevent.monkey import patch_all
patch_all() # to use with urllib, etc
from gevent.queue import Queue
def web_worker(q, url):
grab_something
q.push(result)
def db_worker(q):
buf = []
while True:
buf.append(q.get())
if len(buf) > 20:
insert_stuff_in_buf_to_db
db_commit
buf = []
def run(urls):
q = Queue()
gevent.spawn(db_worker, q)
for url in urls:
gevent.spawn(web_worker, q, url)
run(urls)
plus, since this implementation is totally single threaded, you can safely manipulate shared data between workers like queue, db connection, global variables etc.

scan websites for content (fast)

I have thousands of websites in a database and I want to search all of the websites for a specific string. What is the fastest way to do it? I think I should get the content of each website first - this would be the way I do it:
import urllib2, re
string = "search string"
source = urllib2.urlopen("http://website1.com").read()
if re.search(word,source):
print "My search string: "+string
and search for the string. But this is very slow. How can I accelerate it in python?

I don't think your issue is the program - it is the fact that you are executing an HTTP request for thousands of sites. You could investigate different solutions involving some sort of parallel processing, but regardless of how efficient you make the parsing code you are going to hit a bottleneck with the requests in your current implementation.
Here is a basic example that uses the Queue and threading modules. I would suggest reading up on the benefits of multiprocessing vs. multiple threads (such as the post mentioned by #JonathanV), but this will hopefully be somewhat helpful in understanding what is happening:
import Queue
import threading
import time
import urllib2
my_sites = [
'http://news.ycombinator.com',
'http://news.google.com',
'http://news.yahoo.com',
'http://www.cnn.com'
]
# Create a queue for our processing
queue = Queue.Queue()
class MyThread(threading.Thread):
"""Create a thread to make the url call."""
def __init__(self, queue):
super(MyThread, self).__init__()
self.queue = queue
def run(self):
while True:
# Grab a url from our queue and make the call.
my_site = self.queue.get()
url = urllib2.urlopen(my_site)
# Grab a little data to make sure it is working
print url.read(1024)
# Send the signal to indicate the task has completed
self.queue.task_done()
def main():
# This will create a 'pool' of threads to use in our calls
for _ in range(4):
t = MyThread(queue)
# A daemon thread runs but does not block our main function from exiting
t.setDaemon(True)
# Start the thread
t.start()
# Now go through our site list and add each url to the queue
for site in my_sites:
queue.put(site)
# join() ensures that we wait until our queue is empty before exiting
queue.join()
if __name__ == '__main__':
start = time.time()
main()
print 'Total Time: {0}'.format(time.time() - start)
For good resources on threading in particular, see Doug Hellmann's post here, an IBM article here (this has become my general threading setup as evidenced by the above) and the actual docs here.

Try looking into using multiprocessing to run multiple searches at the same time. Mutlithreading works too but the shared memory can turn into a curse if not managed properly. Take a look at this discussion to help you see which choice would work for you.

Understanding Asynchronous/Multiprocessing in Python

Lets say I have a function:
from time import sleep
def doSomethingThatTakesALongTime(number):
print number
sleep(10)
and then I call it in a for loop
for number in range(10):
doSomethingThatTakesALongTime(number)
How can I set this up so that it only takes 10 seconds TOTAL to print out:
$ 0123456789
Instead of taking 100 seconds. If it helps, I'm going to use the information YOU provide to do asynchronous web scraping. i.e. I have a list of sites I want to visit, but I want to visit them simultaneously, rather than wait for each one to complete.

Try to use Eventlet — the first example of documentation shows how to implement simultaneous URL fetching:
urls = ["http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/images/logo.gif",
"https://wiki.secondlife.com/w/images/secondlife.jpg",
"http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ww/beta/y3.gif"]
import eventlet
from eventlet.green import urllib2
def fetch(url):
return urllib2.urlopen(url).read()
pool = eventlet.GreenPool()
for body in pool.imap(fetch, urls):
print "got body", len(body)
I can also advise to look toward Celery for more flexible solution.

asyncoro supports asynchronous, concurrent programming. It includes asynchronous (non-blocking) socket implementation. If your implementation does not need urllib/httplib etc. (that don't have asynchronous completions), it may fit your purpose (and easy to use, as it is very similar to programming with threads). Your above problem with asyncoro:
import asyncoro
def do_something(number, coro=None):
print number
yield coro.sleep(10)
for number in range(10):
asyncoro.Coro(do_something, number)

Take a look at scrapy framework. It's intended specially for web scraping and is very good. It is asynchronus and built on twisted framework.
http://scrapy.org/

Just in case, this is the exact way to apply green threads to your example snippet:
from eventlet.green.time import sleep
from eventlet.greenpool import GreenPool
def doSomethingThatTakesALongTime(number):
print number
sleep(10)
pool = GreenPool()
for number in range(100):
pool.spawn_n(doSomethingThatTakesALongTime, number)
import timeit
print timeit.timeit("pool.waitall()", "from __main__ import pool")
# yields : 10.9335260363