Performance
To further understand how increasing the number of threads and processes affects the time required when downloading; here is a spreadsheet of results for crawling 1000 web pages:
|
Script |
Number of threads |
Number of processes |
Time |
Comparison with sequential |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sequential |
1 |
1 |
28m59.966s |
1 |
|
Threaded |
5 |
1 |
7m11.634s |
4.03 |
|
Threaded |
10 |
1 |
3m50.455s |
7.55 |
|
Threaded |
20 |
1 |
2m45.412s |
10.52 |
|
Processes |
5 |
2 |
4m2.624s |
7.17 |
|
Processes |
10 |
2 |
2m1.445s |
14.33 |
|
Processes |
20 |
2 |
1m47.663s |
16.16 |
The last column shows the proportion of time in comparison to the base case of sequential downloading. We can see that the increase in performance is not linearly proportional to the number of threads and processes, but appears logarithmic. For example, one process and five threads leads to 4X better performance, but 20 threads only leads to 10X better performance. Each extra thread helps, but is less effective than the previously added thread. This is to be expected, considering the process...