Problem description:
We have a given matrix randomly filled with digits and have to create separate threads for each row of the matrix that count how many times the digits encounter in that row.
Without these sleeps in the main thread, it's not working correctly..
Here's my solution.
Also it's following here:
public class TestingMatrixThreads {
public static void main(String[] arr) throws InterruptedException {
int[][] a = new int[67][6];
// class.Count works with class.Matrix, that's why I've made it this way
Matrix m = new Matrix(a);
m.start();
Thread.sleep(1000); // Here comes the BIG question -> how to avoid these
// manually created pauses
Count c;
Thread t;
// Creating new threads for each row of the matrix
for (int i = 0; i < Matrix.matr.length; i++) {
c = new Count(i);
t = new Thread(c);
t.start();
}
//Again - the same question
System.out.println("Main - Sleep!");
Thread.sleep(50);
System.out.println("\t\t\t\t\tMain - Alive!");
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < Count.encounters.length; i++) {
System.out.println(i + "->" + Count.encounters[i]);
sum += Count.encounters[i];
}
System.out.println("Total numbers of digits: " + sum);
}
}
class Count implements Runnable {
int row;
public static int[] encounters = new int[10]; // here I store the number of each digit's(array's index) encounters
public Count(int row) {
this.row = row;
}
public synchronized static void increment(int number) {
encounters[number]++;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ", searching in row " + row + " STARTED");
for (int col = 0; col < Matrix.matr[0].length; col++) {
increment(Matrix.matr[row][col]);
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1); // If it's missing threads are starting and stopping consequently
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " stopped!");
}
}
class Matrix extends Thread {
static int[][] matr;
public Matrix(int[][] matr) {
Matrix.matr = matr;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//print();
fill();
System.out.println("matrix filled");
print();
}
public static void fill() {
for (int i = 0; i < matr.length; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < matr[0].length; j++) {
matr[i][j] = (int) (Math.random() * 10);
}
}
}
public static void print() {
for (int i = 0; i < matr.length; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < matr[0].length; j++) {
System.out.print(matr[i][j] + " ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
}
P.S. I'm sorry if this question is too stupid for you to answer, but I'm a newbie in Java programming, as well as it's my very first post in stackoverflow, so please excuse me for the bad formatting, too :)
Thank you in advance!
Change the Thread.sleep by m.join()
Doing this will make the main thread wait for the other to complete its work and then it will continu its execution.
Cheers
To answer your main question:
Thread.join();
For example:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Do stuff");
}
});
t.start();
t.join();
}
The start call, as you know, kicks off the other Thread and runs the Runnable. The join call then waits for that started thread to finish.
A more advanced way to deal with multiple threads is with an ExecutorService. This detaches the threads themselves from the tasks they do. You can have a pool of n threads and m > n tasks.
Example:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final class PrintMe implements Callable<Void> {
final String toPrint;
public PrintMe(final String toPrint) {
this.toPrint = toPrint;
}
#Override
public Void call() throws Exception {
System.out.println(toPrint);
return null;
}
}
final List<Callable<Void>> callables = new LinkedList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
callables.add(new PrintMe("I am " + i));
}
final ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
es.invokeAll(callables);
es.shutdown();
es.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.DAYS);
}
Here we have 4 threads and 10 tasks.
If you go down this route you probably need to look into the Future API to so that you can check whether the tasks completed successfully. You can also return a value from the task; in your case a Callable<Integer> would seem to be appropriate so that you can return the result of your calculation from the call method and gather up the results from the Future.
As other Answers have stated, you can do this simply using join; e.g.
Matrix m = new Matrix(a);
m.start();
m.join();
However, I just want to note that if you do that, you are not going to get any parallelism from the Matrix thread. You would be better of doing this:
Matrix m = new Matrix(a);
m.run();
i.e. executing the run() method on the main thread. You might get some parallelism by passing m to each "counter" thread, and having them all join the Matrix thread ... but I doubt that it will be worthwhile.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if you get a worthwhile speedup for any of the multi-threading you are trying here:
If the matrix is small, the overheads of creating the threads will dominate.
If the matrix is large, you are liable to run into memory contention issues.
The initialization phase takes O(N^2) computations compared with the parallelized 2nd phase that has N threads doing O(N) computations. Even if you can get a decent speedup in the 2nd phase, the 1st phase is likely to dominate.
Related
I'd like to keep a counter of executed threads, to use in the same threads that I am executing.
The problem here is that although the counter increases, it increases unevenly and from the console output I got this (I have a for loop that executes 5 threads with ExecutorService):
This is a test. N:3
This is a test. N:4
This is a test. N:4
This is a test. N:4
This is a test. N:4
As you can see instead of getting 1,2,3,4,5 I got 3,4,4,4,4.
I assume this is because the for loop is running fast enough to execute the threads, and the threads are fast enough to execute the code requesting for the counter faster than the counter can update itself (does that even make sense?).
Here is the code (it is smaller and there is no meaningful use for the counter):
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
Thread thread;
thread = new Thread()
{
public void run()
{
System.out.println("This is test. N: "+aldo );
//In here there is much more stuff, saying it because it might slow down the execution (if that is the culprit?)
return;
}
};
threadList.add(thread);
}
//later
for (int i = 0; i < threadList.size(); i++)
{
executor.execute(threadList.get(i));
aldo = aldo + 1;
}
executor.shutdown();
try
{
executor.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
}
Yes, aldo the counter ( with a few other lists, I think) are missing from the code (they are very simple).
The best way I know of doing this is by creating a custom thread class with a constructor that passes in a number. The variable holding the number can then be used later for any needed logging. Here is the code I came up with.
public static void main(String[] args) {
class NumberedThread implements Runnable {
private final int number;
public NumberedThread(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("This is test. N: " + number);
}
}
List<Thread> threadList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 1; i < 6; i++) threadList.add(new Thread(new NumberedThread(i)));
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);;
for (Thread thread : threadList) executor.execute(thread);
executor.shutdown();
try {
executor.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
}
catch (InterruptedException ignored) { }
}
You could also use a string object instead if you wanted to name the threads.
aldo is not modified by the tasks in the thread, but instead is modified in the main thread, here:
for (int i = 0; i < threadList.size(); i++) {
executor.execute(threadList.get(i));
//here...
aldo = aldo + 1;
}
Also, since you want a counter that can increase its value in several threads, then you may use an AtomicInteger rather than int.
Your code should look like this:
AtomicInteger aldo = new AtomicInteger(1);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
executor.execute( () -> {
System.out.println("This is test. N: " + aldo.getAndIncrement());
});
}
I implement a recommendation algorithm in Java program.
However, I have serious problems. The dataset is too large and it's computation is too slow. So, I need to do parallel programming in Java.
For example,
for (int i=0; i < 10000000 ; i++) { ~~~ }
I want to split this sentences such as
process 1: for (int i=0; i < 10000 ; i++)
process 2: for (int i=10001; i < 20000 ; i++)
process 3: for (int i=20001; i < 30000 ; i++)
...
I know similar methods in Python. How to do parallel programming in Java?
Hope this will help you.
public class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private final long countUntil;
MyRunnable(long countUntil) {
this.countUntil = countUntil;
}
#Override
public void run() {
long sum = 0;
for (long i = 1; i < countUntil; i++) {
sum += i;
}
System.out.println(sum);
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// We will store the threads so that we can check if they are done
List<Thread> threads = new ArrayList<Thread>();
// We will create 500 threads
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
Runnable task = new MyRunnable(10000000L + i);
Thread worker = new Thread(task);
// We can set the name of the thread
worker.setName(String.valueOf(i));
// Start the thread, never call method run() direct
worker.start();
// Remember the thread for later usage
threads.add(worker);
}
int running = 0;
do {
running = 0;
for (Thread thread : threads) {
if (thread.isAlive()) {
running++;
}
}
System.out.println("We have " + running + " running threads. ");
} while (running > 0);
}
}
i got it from here
I am learning java, and trying to summarize elements in table with multiple threads, but I am always getting wrong result.
I tried 4 different methods of threads synchronization and all of them failed. Everything is explained in the comments.
My result (bad):
Without threads: 4949937, 15ms
With threads: 4944805, 78ms
Maybe am I executing the System.out.println on summarizeT() too early? I mean before all the threads finish work. With .join() the summarizeT() method works good but. Is the .join() blocking the "main" thread until all other threads are finished?
Main class:
public class Main
{
static int size = 100000; //size of tab
static int length = 100; //each thread gets 100 elements of tab, thread 1 calculates sum from 0 to 99, thread 2 from 100 to 199 etc.
static int[] tab = new int[size];
static Random generator = new Random();
static void initialize()
{
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
tab[i] = generator.nextInt(100);
}
static int summarize() //summarize with only one thread
{
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
sum += tab[i];
return sum;
}
static int summarizeT() //summarize with more threads (size / length)
{
int threadsCounter = size/length;
int start = 0; //pointer to table from where each thread should start counting
int[] sum = new int[1]; //I am sharing the sum value between threads with table, not sure if it is best method to pass the value between them
sum[0] = 0;
Thread[] threads = new Thread[threadsCounter]; //nedeed for .join() test
for (int i = 0; i < threadsCounter; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(new MyThread(tab, start, sum));
threads[i].start();
start += length; //moving the start pointer, next thread should start counting from next 100 indexes
}
/*for (int i = 0; i < threadsCounter; i++) // adding .join() solves the problem, but is it a good solution?
{
try {
threads[i].join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}*/
return sum[0];
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
initialize();
long start = Calendar.getInstance().getTimeInMillis();
System.out.println("Without threads: " + summarize() + ", " + (Calendar.getInstance().getTimeInMillis() - start) + "ms");
start = Calendar.getInstance().getTimeInMillis();
System.out.println("With threads: " + summarizeT() + ", " + (Calendar.getInstance().getTimeInMillis() - start) + "ms"); //giving wrong answer
}
}
MyThread class:
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
public class MyThread extends Thread
{
int[] tab;
int[] sum;
int start;
MyThread(int tab[], int start, int sum[]) //in args: main table, starting index, value that is being shared between threads
{
this.tab = tab;
this.start = start;
this.sum = sum;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
int end = start + Main.length; //place where thread should stop counting
int temp = 0; //nedeed to sumarize the "subtable"
while (start < end)
{
temp += tab[start];
start++;
}
// Method 1
Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
try {
semaphore.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
e1.printStackTrace();
}
try
{
sum[0] += temp;
} catch (Exception e) {
} finally {
semaphore.release();
}
// Method 2
/*Object lock = new Object();
synchronized(lock)
{
sum[0] += temp;
}*/
// Method 3
/*synchronized(this)
{
sum[0] += temp;
}*/
// Method 4
//summarize(temp);
// Method 5 - no threads synchronization, works only when .join() is used, the same as other methods
//sum[0] += temp;
}
private synchronized void summarize(int value)
{
sum[0] += value;
}
}
Isn't the problem here that you create a lock object , or semaphore object, in each thread, rather than having one object that all threads synchronise on?
Each Thread creates is own Semaphore object ( for example ) so no other thread will ever contend with it. You need to create an object that ALL threads have access to and synchronise on that. You might consider synchronising on the array that you are writing the results in to itself.
There are some problems with your solution.
You should use AtomicInteger to hold results. that way you don't need to synchronize sum update.
BTW the way you synchronize is invalid. For semaphores to work you need to share same instance between all threads. And your try/catch/finally blocks are invalid. You should do acquire() and sum update in one try block, and release() in it's finally. That way you did it. It is possible that you'll do sum update even though acquire() failed.
Also you return from summarizeT() without waiting for threads to finish. You have to implement thread.join() logic or some other way to wait.
I have a problem with Threads in Java.
I would like to write a program where there is Class Main which has ArrayList of Threads of some class (Class Task) which just writes a letter and the number. Object Main just wakes one Thread from ArrayList and let it to do something while the same object(Main) sleeps another one.
But there is one problem even if I change the Main.ACTIVE to false it does not end all of the Threads some stay on, and it's random, I just would like to make them end and write:
I am saying goodbay + character - sth like that
public class Main extends Thread {
ArrayList<Thread> threads;
static boolean ACTIVE = true;
public Main() {
super();
threads = new ArrayList<Thread>();
}
public void run(){
Object monitor = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
threads.add(new Thread(new Task(i + 65, monitor)));
}
long cT = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++) {
threads.get(i).start();
}
System.out.println("BEFORE synchronized(monitor)");
synchronized(monitor){
while (System.currentTimeMillis() - cT < 1000) {
try{
monitor.notify();
Thread.sleep(50);
monitor.wait();
} catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();}
}
System.out.println("BEFORE ACTIVE= FALSE and after WHILE in Main");
ACTIVE = false;
for(int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++){
System.out.println(threads.get(i).getState());
}
}
System.out.println("LAST COMMAND IN MAIN");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().start();
//new Thread(new Task(65)).start();
}
}
And the Task Class
public class Task implements Runnable {
int nr;
char character;
Object monitor;
public Task(int literaASCII, Object monitor) {
this.nr = 0;
this.monitor = monitor;
character = (char) (literaASCII);
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (monitor) {
while (Main.ACTIVE) {
try {
System.out.println("ENTERING WHILE IN TASK");
monitor.wait();
System.out.print(nr + "" + character + ", ");
nr++;
int r = (int) ((Math.random() * 50) + 50); // <500ms,1000ms)
Thread.sleep(r);
} catch (Exception e) {e.printStackTrace();}
monitor.notify();
System.out.println("YYYYYYYYY");
}
System.out.println("AFTER WHILE IN Task");
}
System.out.println("I am saying goodbye " + character);
}
}
I would recommend that you look at the more modern concurrency classes in java.util.concurrent package, especially ExecutorService. And read "Java Concurrency In Practice."
Your problem is for starters that ACTIVE should be marked as volatile. Any variable that is shared by multiple threads needs to somehow be synchronized or marked as volatile so that it will have a memory barrier around its reading and writing.
Another thing you can do from a boolean standpoint is to use the AtomicBoolean class instead of a volatile boolean.
Instead of a static volatile boolean, you might instead consider to have a volatile boolean for each Task object so that Main has more fine grained control over the individual tasks and you are using a static "global" variable. You could even add a task.shutdown() method to set the active flag.
Lastly, as #duffmo mentioned, you should always consider using one of the thread-pools ExecutorService if you always just want to have one thread running. Something like Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1). But I can't quite tell if you only want one thread all of the time. If you used an ExecutorService then main would just do:
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
List<Future> futures = new ArrayList<Future>();
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
// the monitor would not be needed
threadPool.submit(new Task(i + 65));
}
threadPool.shutdown();
for (Future future : futures) {
// this waits for the working task to finish
future.get();
}
But if you need your background task to stop and start like it is currently doing with the monitor then this model might not work.
Now naswer is
0A, 0B, 0C, 0D, 0E, 0F, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
LAST COMMAND IN MAIN
I added sleep after starting threads
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class Main extends Thread {
ArrayList<Thread> threads;
volatile static boolean ACTIVE = true;
public Main() {
super();
threads = new ArrayList<Thread>();
}
public void run(){
Object monitor = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
threads.add(new Thread(new Task(i + 65, monitor)));
}
long cT = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++) {
threads.get(i).start();
}
try{Thread.sleep(50);}catch(Exception e){e.printStackTrace();}
// System.out.println("BEFORE synchronized(monitor)");
synchronized(monitor){
while (System.currentTimeMillis() - cT < 1000) {
try{
monitor.notify();
Thread.sleep(500);
monitor.wait();}catch(Exception e){e.printStackTrace();}
}
// System.out.println("BEFORE ACTIVE= FALSE and after WHILE in Main");
ACTIVE = false;
for(int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++){
System.out.println(threads.get(i).getState());
}
}
System.out.println("LAST COMMAND IN MAIN");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().start();
//new Thread(new Task(65)).start();
}
}
and the TASK
public class Task implements Runnable {
int nr;
char character;
Object monitor;
public Task(int literaASCII, Object monitor) {
this.nr = 0;
this.monitor = monitor;
character = (char) (literaASCII);
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (monitor) {
while (Main.ACTIVE) {
try {
// System.out.println("ENTERING WHILE IN TASK");
monitor.wait();
System.out.print(nr + "" + character + ", ");
nr++;
int r = (int) ((Math.random() * 50) + 50); // <500ms,1000ms)
Thread.sleep(r);
} catch (Exception e) {e.printStackTrace();}
monitor.notify();
// System.out.println("YYYYYYYYY");
}
System.out.println("AFTER WHILE IN Task");
}
System.out.println("I am saying goodbye " + character);
}
}
I have some thread-related questions, assuming the following code. Please ignore the possible inefficiency of the code, I'm only interested in the thread part.
//code without thread use
public static int getNextPrime(int from) {
int nextPrime = from+1;
boolean superPrime = false;
while(!superPrime) {
boolean prime = true;
for(int i = 2;i < nextPrime;i++) {
if(nextPrime % i == 0) {
prime = false;
}
}
if(prime) {
superPrime = true;
} else {
nextPrime++;
}
}
return nextPrime;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
for(int i = 0;i < 10000;i++) {
list.add(primeStart);
primeStart = getNextPrime(primeStart);
}
}
If I'm running the code like this and it takes about 56 seconds. If, however, I have the following code (as an alternative):
public class PrimeRunnable implements Runnable {
private int from;
private int lastPrime;
public PrimeRunnable(int from) {
this.from = from;
}
public boolean isPrime(int number) {
for(int i = 2;i < from;i++) {
if((number % i) == 0) {
return false;
}
}
lastPrime = number;
return true;
}
public int getLastPrime() {
return lastPrime;
}
public void run() {
while(!isPrime(++from))
;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
for(int i = 0;i < 10000;i++) {
PrimeRunnable pr = new PrimeRunnable(primeStart);
Thread t = new Thread(pr);
t.start();
t.join();
primeStart = pr.getLastPrime();
list.add(primeStart);
}
}
The whole operation takes about 7 seconds. I am almost certain that even though I only create one thread at a time, a thread doesn't always finish when another is created. Is that right? I am also curious: why is the operation ending so fast?
When I'm joining a thread, do other threads keep running in the background, or is the joined thread the only one that's running?
By putting the join() in the loop, you're starting a thread, then waiting for that thread to stop before running the next one. I think you probably want something more like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
// Make thread-safe list for adding results to
List list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList());
// Pull thread pool count out into a value so you can easily change it
int threadCount = 10000;
Thread[] threads = new Thread[threadCount];
// Start all threads
for(int i = 0;i < threadCount;i++) {
// Pass list to each Runnable here
// Also, I added +i here as I think the intention is
// to test 10000 possible numbers>5 for primeness -
// was testing 5 in all loops
PrimeRunnable pr = new PrimeRunnable(primeStart+i, list);
Thread[i] threads = new Thread(pr);
threads[i].start(); // thread is now running in parallel
}
// All threads now running in parallel
// Then wait for all threads to complete
for(int i=0; i<threadCount; i++) {
threads[i].join();
}
}
By the way pr.getLastPrime() will return 0 in the case of no prime, so you might want to filter that out before adding it to your list. The PrimeRunnable has to absorb the work of adding to the final results list. Also, I think PrimeRunnable was actually broken by still having incrementing code in it. I think this is fixed, but I'm not actually compiling this.
public class PrimeRunnable implements Runnable {
private int from;
private List results; // shared but thread-safe
public PrimeRunnable(int from, List results) {
this.from = from;
this.results = results;
}
public void isPrime(int number) {
for(int i = 2;i < from;i++) {
if((number % i) == 0) {
return;
}
}
// found prime, add to shared results
this.results.add(number);
}
public void run() {
isPrime(from); // don't increment, just check one number
}
}
Running 10000 threads in parallel is not a good idea. It's a much better idea to create a reasonably sized fixed thread pool and have them pull work from a shared queue. Basically every worker pulls tasks from the same queue, works on them and saves the results somewhere. The closest port of this with Java 5+ is to use an ExecutorService backed by a thread pool. You could also use a CompletionService which combines an ExecutorService with a result queue.
An ExecutorService version would look like:
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
// Make thread-safe list for adding results to
List list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList());
int threadCount = 16; // Experiment with this to find best on your machine
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threadCount);
int workCount = 10000; // See how # of work is now separate from # of threads?
for(int i = 0;i < workCount;i++) {
// submit work to the svc for execution across the thread pool
exec.execute(new PrimeRunnable(primeStart+i, list));
}
// Wait for all tasks to be done or timeout to go off
exec.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.DAYS);
}
Hope that gave you some ideas. And I hope the last example seemed a lot better than the first.
You can test this better by making the exact code in your first example run with threads. Sub your main method with this:
private static int currentPrime;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
for (currentPrime = 0; currentPrime < 10000; currentPrime++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
getNextPrime(currentPrime);
}});
t.run();
t.join();
}
}
This will run in the same time as the original.
To answer your "join" question: yes, other threads can be running in the background when you use "join", but in this particular case you will only have one active thread at a time, because you are blocking the creation of new threads until the last thread is done executing.
JesperE is right, but I don't believe in only giving hints (at least outside a classroom):
Note this loop in the non-threaded version:
for(int i = 2;i < nextPrime;i++) {
if(nextPrime % i == 0) {
prime = false;
}
}
As opposed to this in the threaded version:
for(int i = 2;i < from;i++) {
if((number % i) == 0) {
return false;
}
}
The first loop will always run completely through, while the second will exit early if it finds a divisor.
You could make the first loop also exit early by adding a break statement like this:
for(int i = 2;i < nextPrime;i++) {
if(nextPrime % i == 0) {
prime = false;
break;
}
}
Read your code carefully. The two cases aren't doing the same thing, and it has nothing to do with threads.
When you join a thread, other threads will run in the background, yes.
Running a test, the second one doesn't seem to take 9 seconds--in fact, it takes at least as long as the first (which is to be expected, threding can't help the way it's implemented in your example.
Thread.join will only return when the thread.joined terminates, then the current thread will continue, the one you called join on will be dead.
For a quick reference--think threading when starting one iteration does not depend on the result of the previous one.