I have a stream that is being read from an audio source and I'm trying to store it into a Buffer. From the documentation that I've read, you are able to pipe the stream into one using fs.createWriteStream(~buffer~) instead of a file path.
I'm doing this currently as:
const outputBuffer = Buffer.alloc(150000)
const stream = fs.createWriteStream(outputBuffer)
but when I run it, it throws an error saying that the Path: must be a string without null bytes for the file system call.
If I'm misunderstanding the docs or missing something obvious please let me know!
The first parameter to fs.createWriteStream() is the filename to read. That is why you receive that particular error.
There is no way to read from a stream directly into an existing Buffer. There was a node EP to support this, but it more or less died off because there are some potential gotchas with it.
For now you will need to either copy the bytes manually or if you don't want node to allocate extra Buffers, you will need to manually call fs.open(), fs.read() (this is the method that allows you to pass in your Buffer instance, along with an offset), and fs.close().
Related
I am working on image upload and don't know how to properly deal with storing the received file. It would be nice to analyze the file first if it is really an image or someone just changed the extension. Luckily I use package sharp which has exactly such a feature. I currently work with two approaches.
Buffering approach
I can parse multipart form as a buffer and easily decide whether save a file or not.
const metadata = await sharp(buffer).metadata();
if (metadata) {
saveImage(buffer);
} else {
throw new Error('It is not an image');
}
Streaming approach
I can parse multipart form as a readable stream. First I need to forward the readable stream to writable and store file to disk. Afterward, I need again to create a readable stream from saved file and verify whether it is really image. Otherwise, revert all.
// save uploaded file to file system with stream
readableStream.pipe(createWriteStream('./uploaded-file.jpg'));
// verify whether it is an image
createReadStream('./uploaded-file.jpg').pipe(
sharp().metadata((err, metadata) => {
if (!metadata) {
revertAll();
throw new Error('It is not an image');
}
})
)
It was my intention to avoid using buffer because as I know it needs to store the whole file in RAM. But on the other hand, the approach using streams seems to be really clunky.
Can someone help me to understand how these two approaches differ in terms of performance and used resources? Or is there some better approach to how to deal with such a situation?
In buffer mode, all the data coming from a resource is collected into a buffer, think of it as a data pool, until the operation is completed; it is then passed back to the caller as one single blob of data. Buffers in V8 are limited in size. You cannot allocate more than a few gigabytes of data, so you may hit a wall way before running out of physical memory if you need to read a big file.
On the other hand, streams allow us to process the data as soon as it arrives from the resource. So streams execute their data without storing it all in memory. Streams can be more efficient in terms of both space (memory usage) and time (computation clock time).
I have this code running on Node.js
fs.writeFileSync (filePath, s );
let s2 = fs.readFileSync (filePath);
After the code executes 's2' is not 's'. 's' is a String whereas 's2' is a Buffer. I know, I can make them the same by adding 'utf8' as the second argument to readFileSync().
My question is why was the API written so that I need to pass'utf8' to readFileSync() but NOT to writeFileSync()? What is the benefit of that? To me it would make intuitive sense that what you write is what you get back when you read the same file.
Is there perhaps some underlying fact about character encoding or Unicode I am missing?
writeFileSync accept a string or a Buffer as its first argument for convenience. readFileSync needs to pick one or the other to return and since the file itself doesn't know what kind of data was written to it, there's no way to tell what data type was originally used in the writeFileSync call that created the file. Since raw binary data (the file contents) is not well-defined without the additional information of the encoding, the default is Buffer (which is a representation of the raw bytes), while specifying an encoding provides the missing information and the function is then able to interpret the raw data into a string.
I am trying to read UTF-8 text from a file in a memory and time efficient way. There are two ways to read directly from a file synchronously:
fs.readFileSync will read the entire file and return a buffer containing the file's entire contents
fs.readSync will read a set amount of bytes from a file and return a buffer containing just those contents
I initially just used fs.readFileSync because it's easiest, but I'd like to be able to efficiently handle potentially large files by only reading in chunks of text at a time. So I started using fs.readSync instead. But then I realized that fs.readSync doesn't handle UTF-8 decoding. UTF-8 is simple, so I could whip up some logic to manually decode it, but Node already has services for that, so I'd like to avoid that if possible.
I noticed fs.createReadStream, which returns a ReadStream that can be used for exactly this purpose, but unfortunately it seems to only be available in an asynchronous mode of operation.
Is there a way to read from a ReadStream in a synchronous way? I have a massive stack built on top of this already, and I'd rather not have to refactor it to be asynchronous.
I discovered the string_decoder module, which handles all that UTF-8 decoding logic I was worried I'd have to write. At this point, it seems like a no-brainer to use this on top of fs.readSync to get the synchronous behavior I was looking for.
You basically just keep feeding bytes to it, and as it is able to successfully decode characters, it will emit them. The Node documentation is sufficient at describing how it works.
I am writing an application server that processes images (large data). I am trying to minimize copies when sending image data back to clients. The processed images I need to send to clients are in buffers obtained from jemalloc. The ways I have thought of sending the data back to the client is:
1) Simple write call.
// Allocate buffer buf.
// Store image data in this buffer.
write(socket, buf, len);
2) I obtain the buffer through mmap instead of jemalloc, though I presume jemalloc already creates the buffer using mmap. I then make a simple call to write.
buf = mmap(file, len); // Imagine proper options.
// Store image data in this buffer.
write(socket, buf, len);
3) I obtain a buffer through mmap like before. I then use sendfile to send the data:
buf = mmap(in_fd, len); // Imagine proper options.
// Store image data in this buffer.
int rc;
rc = sendfile(out_fd, file, &offset, count);
// Deal with rc.
It seems like (1) and (2) will probably do the same thing given jemalloc probably allocates memory through mmap in the first place. I am not sure about (3) though. Will this really lead to any benefits? Figure 4 on this article on Linux zero-copy methods suggests that a further copy can be prevented using sendfile:
no data is copied into the socket buffer. Instead, only descriptors
with information about the whereabouts and length of the data are
appended to the socket buffer. The DMA engine passes data directly
from the kernel buffer to the protocol engine, thus eliminating the
remaining final copy.
This seems like a win if everything works out. I don't know if my mmaped buffer counts as a kernel buffer though. Also I don't know when it is safe to re-use this buffer. Since the fd and length is the only thing appended to the socket buffer, I assume that the kernel actually writes this data to the socket asynchronously. If it does what does the return from sendfile signify? How would I know when to re-use this buffer?
So my questions are:
What is the fastest way to write large buffers (images in my case) to a socket? The images are held in memory.
Is it a good idea to call sendfile on a mmapped file? If yes, what are the gotchas? Does this even lead to any wins?
It seems like my suspicions were correct. I got my information from this article. Quoting from it:
Also these network write system calls, including sendfile, might and
in many cases do return before the data sent over TCP by the method
call has been acknowledged. These methods return as soon as all data
is written into the socket buffers (sk buff) and is pushed to the TCP
write queue, the TCP engine can manage alone from that point on. In
other words at the time sendfile returns the last TCP send window is
not actually sent to the remote host but queued. In cases where
scatter-gather DMA is supported there is no seperate buffer which
holds these bytes, rather the buffers(sk buffs) just hold pointers to
the pages of OS buffer cache, where the contents of file is located.
This might lead to a race condition if we modify the content of the
file corresponding to the data in the last TCP send window as soon as
sendfile is returned. As a result TCP engine may send newly written
data to the remote host instead of what we originally intended to
send.
Provided the buffer from a mmapped file is even considered "DMA-able", seems like there is no way to know when it is safe to re-use it without an explicit acknowledgement (over the network) from the actual client. I might have to stick to simple write calls and incur the extra copy. There is a paper (also from the article) with more details.
Edit: This article on the splice call also shows the problems. Quoting it:
Be aware, when splicing data from a mmap'ed buffer to a network
socket, it is not possible to say when all data has been sent. Even if
splice() returns, the network stack may not have sent all data yet. So
reusing the buffer may overwrite unsent data.
For cases 1 and 2 - does the operation you marked as // Store image data in this buffer require any conversion? Is it just plain copy from the memory to buf?
If it's just plain copy, you can use write directly on the pointer obtained from jemalloc.
Assuming that img is a pointer obtained from jemalloc and size is a size of your image, just run following code:
int result;
int sent=0;
while(sent<size) {
result=write(socket,img+sent,size-sent);
if(result<0) {
/* error handling here */
break;
}
sent+=result;
}
It is working correctly for blocking I/O (the default behavior). If you need to write a data in a non-blocking manner, you should be able to rework the code on your own, but now you have the idea.
For case 3 - sendfile is for sending data from one descriptor to another. That means you can, for example, send data from file directly to tcp socket and you don't need to allocate any additional buffer. So, if the image you want to send to a client is in a file, just go for a sendfile. If you have it in memory (because you processed it somehow, or just generated), use the approach I mentioned earlier.
I have an image coming into my Node.js application via email (through cloud service provider Mandrill). The image comes in as a base64 encoded string, email.content in the example below. I'm currently writing the image to a buffer, and then a file like this:
//create buffer and write to file
var dataBuffer = new Buffer(email.content, 'base64');
var writeStream = fs.createWriteStream(tmpFileName);
writeStream.once('open', function(fd) {
console.log('Our steam is open, lets write to it');
writeStream.write(dataBuffer);
writeStream.end();
}); //writeSteam.once('open')
writeStream.on('close', function() {
fileStats = fs.statSync(tmpFileName);
This works fine and is all well and good, but am I essentially doubling the memory requirements for this section of code, since I have my image in memory (as the original string), and then create a buffer of that same string before writing the file? I'm going to be dealing with a lot of inbound images so doubling my memory requirements is a concern.
I tried several ways to write email.content directly to the stream, but it always produced an invalid file. I'm a rank amateur with modern coding, so you're welcome to tell me this concern is completely unfounded as long as you tell me why so some light will dawn on marble head.
Thanks!
Since you already have the entire file in memory, there's no point in creating a write stream. Just use fs.writeFile
fs.writeFile(tmpFileName, email.content, 'base64', callback)
#Jonathan's answer is a better way to shorten the code you already have, so definitely do that.
I will expand on your question about memory though. The fact is that Node will not write anything to a file without converting it to a Buffer first, so given when you have told us about email.content, there is nothing more you can do.
If you are really worried about this though, then you would need some way to process the value of email.content as it comes in from where ever you are getting it from, as a stream. Then as the data is being streamed into the server, you immediately write it to a file, thus not taking up any more RAM than needed.
If you elaborate more, I can try to fill in more info.