What is the actual impact of calling socket.recv with a bufsize that is not a power of 2?
Question:
To read data from a socket in python, you call socket.recv, which has this signature:
socket.recv(bufsize[, flags])
The python docs for socket.recv vaguely state:
Note: For best match with hardware and network realities, the value of
bufsize should be a relatively small
power of 2, for example, 4096.
Question: What does “best match with hardware and network realities” mean? What is the actual impact of setting bufsize to a non-power-of-two?
I’ve seen many other recommendations to make this read a power of 2. I’m also well aware of reasons when it is often useful to have array lengths as powers of two (bitshift/masking operations on the length, optimal FFT array size, etc), but these are application dependent. I just am not seeing the general reason for it with socket.recv. Certainly not to the point of the specific recommendation in the python documentation. I also don’t see any power-of-two optimizations in the underlying python code to make it a python-specific recommendation
For example… if you have a protocol where the incoming packet length is exactly known, it is obviously preferrable to only read “at most” what is needed for the packet you are dealing with, otherwise you could potentially eat into the next packet and that would be irritating. If the packet I’m currently processing only has 42 bytes pending, I’m only going to set bufsize to 42.
What am I missing? When I have to choose an arbitrary buffer/array size I usually (always?) make the length a power of two, just in case. This is just a habit developed over many years. Are the python docs also just a victim of habit?
This isn’t exclusive to python, but since I’m specifically referencing the python docs I’ll tag it as such.
UPDATE: I just checked the size of the buffer at the kernel level on my system (or at least I think I did… I did cat /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default) and it was 124928. Not a power of two. rmem_max was 131071, also clearly not a power of two.
In looking into this more I really cannot see any benefit in the power of two recommendation(s) yet. I’m about ready to call it as a bogus recommendation…
I also added tcp and C tags since they are also relevant.
Answers:
In regards to: “if you have a protocol where the incoming packet length is exactly known, it is obviously preferrable to only read “at most” what is needed for the packet you are dealing with, otherwise you could potentially eat into the next packet and that would be irritating.”
This may be preferable for the application developer, but is probably inefficient for the underlying network stack. First, it ties up socket buffer space that can be used for additional network I/Os. Second, each recv() you make means dipping into a system call/kernel space and there is a performance penalty for the transition. It is always preferable to get as much data as you can out of kernel space and into user space with as few system calls as possible and do your message parsing there. This adds more complexity to the application code and message handling but is probably the most efficient.
That said, given the speed of today’s processors and amount of available memory, this may not be an issue for most applications, but this was a common recommendation for network applications back in the “old days”.
I am not sure about the power of 2 recommendation from a user-space application. I have seen these types requirements for drivers due to alignment and page size issues, etc. but its not clear what effect this has from user space unless it somehow aids in copying data out of kernel buffers into user buffers. Maybe somebody with more OS development knowledge could comment.
I’m pretty sure the ‘power of 2’ advice is based on an error in editing, and should not be taken as a requirement.
That specific piece of advice was added to the Python 2.5 documentation (and backported to Python 2.4.3 docs), in response to Python issue #756104. The reporter was using an unreasonably large buffer size for socket.recv(), which prompted the update.
It was Tim Peters that introduced the ‘power of 2’ concept:
I expect you’re the only person in history to try passing such
a large value to recv() — even if it worked, you’d almost
certainly run out of memory trying to allocate buffer space for
1.9GB. sockets are a low-level facility, and it’s common to
pass a relatively small power of 2 (for best match with
hardware and network realities).
(Bold emphasis mine). I’ve worked with Tim and he has a huge amount of experience with network programming and hardware, so generally speaking I’d take him on his word when making a remark like that. He was particularly ‘fond’ of the Windows 95 stack, he called it his canary in a coalmine for its ability to fail under stress. But note that he says it is common, not that it is required to use a power of 2.
It was that wording that then led to the documentation update:
This is a documentation bug; something the user should be
“warned” about.
This caught me once, and two different persons asked about
this in #python, so maybe we should put something like the
following in the recv() docs.
“””
For best match with hardware and network realities, the
value of “buffer” should be a relatively small power of 2,
for example, 4096.
“””
If you think the wording is right, just assign the bug to
me, I’ll take care of it.
No one challenged the ‘power of 2’ assertion here, but the editor moved from it is common to should be in the space of a few replies.
To me, those proposing the documentation update were more concerned with making sure you use a small buffer, and not whether or not it is a power of 2. That’s not to say it is not good advice however; any low-level buffer that interacts with the kernel benefits with alignment with the kernel data structures.
But although there may well be an esoteric stack where buffers with a size that is a power of 2 matters even more, I doubt Tim Peters ever meant for his experience (that it is common practice) to be cast in such iron-clad terms. Just ignore it if a different buffer size makes more sense for your specific use cases.
To read data from a socket in python, you call socket.recv, which has this signature:
socket.recv(bufsize[, flags])
The python docs for socket.recv vaguely state:
Note: For best match with hardware and network realities, the value of
bufsize should be a relatively small
power of 2, for example, 4096.
Question: What does “best match with hardware and network realities” mean? What is the actual impact of setting bufsize to a non-power-of-two?
I’ve seen many other recommendations to make this read a power of 2. I’m also well aware of reasons when it is often useful to have array lengths as powers of two (bitshift/masking operations on the length, optimal FFT array size, etc), but these are application dependent. I just am not seeing the general reason for it with socket.recv. Certainly not to the point of the specific recommendation in the python documentation. I also don’t see any power-of-two optimizations in the underlying python code to make it a python-specific recommendation
For example… if you have a protocol where the incoming packet length is exactly known, it is obviously preferrable to only read “at most” what is needed for the packet you are dealing with, otherwise you could potentially eat into the next packet and that would be irritating. If the packet I’m currently processing only has 42 bytes pending, I’m only going to set bufsize to 42.
What am I missing? When I have to choose an arbitrary buffer/array size I usually (always?) make the length a power of two, just in case. This is just a habit developed over many years. Are the python docs also just a victim of habit?
This isn’t exclusive to python, but since I’m specifically referencing the python docs I’ll tag it as such.
UPDATE: I just checked the size of the buffer at the kernel level on my system (or at least I think I did… I did cat /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default) and it was 124928. Not a power of two. rmem_max was 131071, also clearly not a power of two.
In looking into this more I really cannot see any benefit in the power of two recommendation(s) yet. I’m about ready to call it as a bogus recommendation…
I also added tcp and C tags since they are also relevant.
In regards to: “if you have a protocol where the incoming packet length is exactly known, it is obviously preferrable to only read “at most” what is needed for the packet you are dealing with, otherwise you could potentially eat into the next packet and that would be irritating.”
This may be preferable for the application developer, but is probably inefficient for the underlying network stack. First, it ties up socket buffer space that can be used for additional network I/Os. Second, each recv() you make means dipping into a system call/kernel space and there is a performance penalty for the transition. It is always preferable to get as much data as you can out of kernel space and into user space with as few system calls as possible and do your message parsing there. This adds more complexity to the application code and message handling but is probably the most efficient.
That said, given the speed of today’s processors and amount of available memory, this may not be an issue for most applications, but this was a common recommendation for network applications back in the “old days”.
I am not sure about the power of 2 recommendation from a user-space application. I have seen these types requirements for drivers due to alignment and page size issues, etc. but its not clear what effect this has from user space unless it somehow aids in copying data out of kernel buffers into user buffers. Maybe somebody with more OS development knowledge could comment.
I’m pretty sure the ‘power of 2’ advice is based on an error in editing, and should not be taken as a requirement.
That specific piece of advice was added to the Python 2.5 documentation (and backported to Python 2.4.3 docs), in response to Python issue #756104. The reporter was using an unreasonably large buffer size for socket.recv(), which prompted the update.
It was Tim Peters that introduced the ‘power of 2’ concept:
I expect you’re the only person in history to try passing such
a large value to recv() — even if it worked, you’d almost
certainly run out of memory trying to allocate buffer space for
1.9GB. sockets are a low-level facility, and it’s common to
pass a relatively small power of 2 (for best match with
hardware and network realities).
(Bold emphasis mine). I’ve worked with Tim and he has a huge amount of experience with network programming and hardware, so generally speaking I’d take him on his word when making a remark like that. He was particularly ‘fond’ of the Windows 95 stack, he called it his canary in a coalmine for its ability to fail under stress. But note that he says it is common, not that it is required to use a power of 2.
It was that wording that then led to the documentation update:
This is a documentation bug; something the user should be
“warned” about.This caught me once, and two different persons asked about
this in #python, so maybe we should put something like the
following in the recv() docs.“””
For best match with hardware and network realities, the
value of “buffer” should be a relatively small power of 2,
for example, 4096.
“””If you think the wording is right, just assign the bug to
me, I’ll take care of it.
No one challenged the ‘power of 2’ assertion here, but the editor moved from it is common to should be in the space of a few replies.
To me, those proposing the documentation update were more concerned with making sure you use a small buffer, and not whether or not it is a power of 2. That’s not to say it is not good advice however; any low-level buffer that interacts with the kernel benefits with alignment with the kernel data structures.
But although there may well be an esoteric stack where buffers with a size that is a power of 2 matters even more, I doubt Tim Peters ever meant for his experience (that it is common practice) to be cast in such iron-clad terms. Just ignore it if a different buffer size makes more sense for your specific use cases.