Related
This is a bit of a strange question. I'm writing a fuse module using the go-fuse library, and at the moment I have a "fake" file with a size of 6000 bytes, and which will output some unrelated data for all read requests. My read function looks like this:
func (f *MyFile) Read(buf []byte, off int64) (fuse.ReadResult, fuse.Status) {
log.Printf("Reading into buffer of len %d from %d\n",len(buf),off)
FillBuffer(buf, uint64(off), f.secret)
return fuse.ReadResultData(buf), fuse.OK
}
As you can see I'm outputting a log on every read containing the range of the read request. The weird thing is that when I cat the file I get the following:
2013/09/13 21:09:03 Reading into buffer of len 4096 from 0
2013/09/13 21:09:03 Reading into buffer of len 8192 from 0
So cat is apparently reading the first 4096 bytes of data, discarding it, then reading 8192 bytes, which encompasses all the data and so succeeds. I've tried with other programs too, including hexdump and vim, and they all do the same thing. Interestingly, if I do a head -c 3000 dir/fakefile it still does the two reads, even though the later one is completely unnecessary. Does anyone have any insights into why this might be happening?
I suggest you strace your cat process to see for yourself. On my system, cat reads by 64K chunks, and does a final read() to make sure it read the whole file. That last read() is necessary to make the distinction between a reading a "chunk-sized file" and a bigger file. i.e. it makes sure there is nothing left to read, as the file size could have changed between the fstat() and the read() system calls.
Is your "fake file" size being returned correctly to FUSE by stat/fstat() system calls?
why is the output of du often so different from du -b? -b is shorthand for --apparent-size --block-size=1. only using --apparent-size gives me the same result most of the time, but --block-size=1 seems to do the trick. i wonder if the output is then correct even, and which numbers are the ones i want? (i.e. actual filesize, if copied to another storage device)
Apparent size is the number of bytes your applications think are in the file. It's the amount of data that would be transferred over the network (not counting protocol headers) if you decided to send the file over FTP or HTTP. It's also the result of cat theFile | wc -c, and the amount of address space that the file would take up if you loaded the whole thing using mmap.
Disk usage is the amount of space that can't be used for something else because your file is occupying that space.
In most cases, the apparent size is smaller than the disk usage because the disk usage counts the full size of the last (partial) block of the file, and apparent size only counts the data that's in that last block. However, apparent size is larger when you have a sparse file (sparse files are created when you seek somewhere past the end of the file, and then write something there -- the OS doesn't bother to create lots of blocks filled with zeros -- it only creates a block for the part of the file you decided to write to).
Minimal block granularity example
Let's play a bit to see what is going on.
mount tells me I'm on an ext4 partition mounted at /.
I find its block size with:
stat -fc %s .
which gives:
4096
Now let's create some files with sizes 1 4095 4096 4097:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
for size in 1 4095 4096 4097; do
dd if=/dev/zero of=f bs=1 count="${size}" status=none
echo "size ${size}"
echo "real $(du --block-size=1 f)"
echo "apparent $(du --block-size=1 --apparent-size f)"
echo
done
and the results are:
size 1
real 4096 f
apparent 1 f
size 4095
real 4096 f
apparent 4095 f
size 4096
real 4096 f
apparent 4096 f
size 4097
real 8192 f
apparent 4097 f
So we see that anything below or equal to 4096 takes up 4096 bytes in fact.
Then, as soon as we cross 4097, it goes up to 8192 which is 2 * 4096.
It is clear then that the disk always stores data at a block boundary of 4096 bytes.
What happens to sparse files?
I haven't investigated what is the exact representation is, but it is clear that --apparent does take it into consideration.
This can lead to apparent sizes being larger than actual disk usage.
For example:
dd seek=1G if=/dev/zero of=f bs=1 count=1 status=none
du --block-size=1 f
du --block-size=1 --apparent f
gives:
8192 f
1073741825 f
Related: How to test if sparse file is supported
What to do if I want to store a bunch of small files?
Some possibilities are:
use a database instead of filesystem: Database vs File system storage
use a filesystem that supports block suballocation
Bibliography:
https://serverfault.com/questions/565966/which-block-sizes-for-millions-of-small-files
https://askubuntu.com/questions/641900/how-file-system-block-size-works
Tested in Ubuntu 16.04.
Compare (for example) du -bm to du -m.
The -b sets --apparent-size --block-size=1,
but then the m overrides the block-size to be 1M.
Similar for -bh versus -h:
the -bh means --apparent-size --block-size=1 --human-readable, and again the h overrides that block-size.
Files and folders have their real size and the size on disk.
--apparent-size is file or folder real size
size on disk is the amount of bytes the file or folder takes on disk.
Same thing when using just du.
If you encounter that apparent-size is almost always several magnitudes higher than disk usage then it means that you have a lot of (`sparse') files of files with internal fragmentation or indirect blocks.
Because by default du gives disk usage, which is the same or larger than the file size. As said under --apparent-size
print apparent sizes, rather than disk usage; although the apparent size is usually smaller, it may be
larger due to holes in (`sparse') files, internal fragmentation, indirect blocks, and the like
I have been trying for about an hour now to find an elegant solution to this problem. My goal is basically to write a bandwidth control pipe command which I could re-use in various situations (not just for network transfers, I know about scp -l 1234). What I would like to do is:
Delay for X seconds.
Read Y amount (or less than Y if there isn't enough) data from pipe.
Write the read data to standard output.
Where:
X could be 1..n.
Y could be 1 Byte up to some high value.
My problem is:
It must support binary data which Bash can't handle well.
Roads I've taken or at least thought of:
Using a while read data construct, it filters all white characters in the encoding your using.
Using dd bs=1 count=1 and looping. dd doesn't seem to have different exit codes for when there were something in if and not. Which makes it harder to know when to stop looping. This method should work if I redirect standard error to a temporary file, read it to check if something was transfered (as it's in the statistics printed on stderr) and repeat. But I suspect that it's extremely slow if used on large amounts of data and if it's possible I'd like to skip creating any temporary files.
Any ideas or suggestions on how to solve this as cleanly as possible using Bash?
may be pv -qL RATE ?
-L RATE, --rate-limit RATE
Limit the transfer to a maximum of RATE bytes per second. A
suffix of "k", "m", "g", or "t" can be added to denote kilobytes
(*1024), megabytes, and so on.
It's not much elegant but you can use some redirection trick to catch the number of bytes copied by dd and then use it as the exit condition for a while loop:
while [ -z "$byte_copied" ] || [ "$byte_copied" -ne 0 ]; do
sleep $X;
byte_copied=$(dd bs=$Y count=1 2>&1 >&4 | awk '$2 == "byte"{print $1}');
done 4>&1
However, if your intent is to limit the transfer throughput, I suggest you to use pv.
Do you have to do it in bash? Can you just use an existing program such as cstream?
cstream meets your goal of a bandwidth controlled pipe command, but doesn't necessarily meet your other criteria with regard to your specific algorithm or implementation language.
What about using head -c ?
cat /dev/zero | head -c 10 > test.out
Gives you a nice 10 bytes file.
I have a script that creates file system in a file on a linux machine. I see that to create the file system, it uses 'dd' with bs=x option, reads from /dev/zero and writes to a file. I think usually specifying ibs/obs/bs is useful to read from real hardware devices as one has specific block size constraints. In this case however, as it is reading from virtual device and writing to a file, I don't see any point behind using 'bs=x bytes' option. Is my understanding wrong here?
(Just in case if it helps, this file system is later on used to boot a qemu vm)
To understand block sizes, you have to be familiar with tape drives. If you're not interested in tape drives - for example, you don't think you're ever going to use one - then you can go back to sleep now.
Remember the tape drives from films in the 60s, 70s, maybe even 80s? The ones where the reel went spinning around, and so on? Not your Exabyte or even QIC - quarter-inch cartridge - tapes; your good old fashioned reel-to-reel half-inch tape drives? On those, block size mattered.
The data on a tape was written in blocks. Each block was separated from the next by an inter-record gap.
----+-------+-----+-------+-----+----
... | block | IRG | block | IRG | ...
----+-------+-----+-------+-----+----
Depending on the tape drive hardware and software, there were a variety of problems that could happen. For example, if the tape was written with a block size of 5120 bytes and you read the tape with a block size of 512 bytes, then the tape drive might read the first block, return you 512 bytes of it, and then discard the remaining data; the next read would start on the next block. Conversely, if the tape was written with a block size of 512 bytes and you requested blocks of 5120 bytes, you would get short reads; each read would return just 512 bytes, and if your software wasn't paying attention, you'd be reading garbage. There was also the issue that the tape drive had to get up to speed to read the block, and then slow down. The ASCII art suggests that the IRG was smaller than the data blocks; that was not necessarily the case. And it took time to read one block, overshoot the IRG, rewind backwards to get to the next block, and start forwards again. And if the tape drive didn't have the memory to buffer data - the cheaper ones did not - then you could seriously affect your tape drive performance.
War story: work prepared on newer machine with a slightly more modern tape drive. I wrote a tape using tar without a sensible block size (so it defaulted to 512 bytes). It was a large bit of software - must have been, oh, less than 100 MB in total (a long time ago, in other words). The tape wrote nicely because the machine was modern enough, and it took just a few seconds to do so. But, I had to get the material off the tape on a machine with an older tape drive, one that did not have any on-board buffer. So, it read the material, 512 bytes at a time, and the reel rocked forward, reading one block, and then rocked back all but maybe half an inch, and then read forwards to get to the next block, and then rocked back, and ... well, you could see it doing this, and since it took appreciable portions of a second to read each 512 byte block, the total time taken was horrendous. My flight was due to leave...and I needed to get that data across too. (It was long enough ago, and in a land far enough away, that last minute changes to flights weren't much of an option either.) To cut a long story short, it did get read - but if I'd used a sensible block size (such as 5120 bytes instead of the default of 512), I would have been done much, much quicker and with much less danger of missing the plane (but I did actually catch the plane, with maybe 20 minutes to spare, despite a taxi ride across Paris in the rush hour).
With more modern tape drives, there was enough memory on the drive to do buffering and getting a tape drive to stream - write continuously without reversing - was feasible. It used to be that I'd use a block size like 256 KB to get QIC tapes to stream. I've not done much with tape drives recently - let's see, not this millennium and not much for a few years before that, either; certainly not much since CD and DVD became the software distribution mechanisms of choice (when electronic download wasn't used).
But the block size really did matter in the old days. And dd provided good support for it. You could even transfer data from a tape drive that was written with, say, 4 KB block to another that you wanted to write with, say, 16 KB blocks, by specifying the ibs (input block size) separately from the obs (output block size). Darned useful!
Also, the count parameter is in terms of the (input) block size. It was useful to say 'dd bs=1024 count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/my/file/of/zeroes' to copy 1 MB of zeroes around. Or to copy 1 MB of a file.
The importance of dd is vastly diminished; it was an essential part of the armoury for anybody who worked with tape drives a decade or more ago.
The block size is the number of bytes that are read and written at a time. Presumably there is a count= option, and that is specified in units of the block size. If there is a skip= or seek= option, those will also be in block size units. However if you are reading and writing a regular file, and there are no disk errors, then the block size doesn't really matter as long as you can scale those parameters accordingly and they are still integers. However certain sizes may be more efficient than others.
For reading from /dev/zero, it doesn't matter. ibs/obs/bs specify how many bytes will be read at a time. It's helpful to choose a number based on the way bytes are read/written in the operating system. For instance, Linux usually reads from a hard drive in 4096 byte chunks. If you have at least some idea about how the underlying hardware reads/writes, it might be a good idea to specify ibs/obs/bs. By the way, if you specify bs, it will override whatever you specify for ibs and obs.
In addition to the great answer by Jonathan Leffler, keep in mind that the bs= option isn't always a substitute for using both ibs= and obs=, in particular for the old [ugly] days of tape drives.
The bs= option reserves the right for dd to write the data as soon as it's read. This can cause you to no longer have identically sized blocks on the output. Here is GNU's take on this, but the behavior dates back as far as I can remember (80's):
(bs=) Set both input and output block sizes to bytes. This makes dd read and write bytes per block, overriding any ‘ibs’ and ‘obs’ settings. In addition, if no data-transforming conv option is specified, input is copied to the output as soon as it’s read, even if it is smaller than the block size.
For instance, back in the QIC days on an old Sun system, if you did this:
tar cvf /dev/rst0c /bla
It would work, but cause an enormous amount of back and forth thrashing while the drive wrote a small block, and tried to backup and read to reposition itself properly for the next write.
If you swapped this with:
tar cvf - /bla | dd ibs=16K obs=16K of=/dev/rst0c
You'd get the QIC drive writing much larger chunks and not thrashing quite so much.
However, if you made the mistake of this:
tar cvf - /bla | dd bs=16K of=/dev/rst0c
You'd run the risk of having precisely the same thrashing you had before depending upon how much data was available at the time of each read.
Specifying both ibs= and obs= precludes this from happening.
How can I quickly create a large file on a Linux (Red Hat Linux) system?
dd will do the job, but reading from /dev/zero and writing to the drive can take a long time when you need a file several hundreds of GBs in size for testing... If you need to do that repeatedly, the time really adds up.
I don't care about the contents of the file, I just want it to be created quickly. How can this be done?
Using a sparse file won't work for this. I need the file to be allocated disk space.
dd from the other answers is a good solution, but it is slow for this purpose. In Linux (and other POSIX systems), we have fallocate, which uses the desired space without having to actually writing to it, works with most modern disk based file systems, very fast:
For example:
fallocate -l 10G gentoo_root.img
This is a common question -- especially in today's environment of virtual environments. Unfortunately, the answer is not as straight-forward as one might assume.
dd is the obvious first choice, but dd is essentially a copy and that forces you to write every block of data (thus, initializing the file contents)... And that initialization is what takes up so much I/O time. (Want to make it take even longer? Use /dev/random instead of /dev/zero! Then you'll use CPU as well as I/O time!) In the end though, dd is a poor choice (though essentially the default used by the VM "create" GUIs). E.g:
dd if=/dev/zero of=./gentoo_root.img bs=4k iflag=fullblock,count_bytes count=10G
truncate is another choice -- and is likely the fastest... But that is because it creates a "sparse file". Essentially, a sparse file is a section of disk that has a lot of the same data, and the underlying filesystem "cheats" by not really storing all of the data, but just "pretending" that it's all there. Thus, when you use truncate to create a 20 GB drive for your VM, the filesystem doesn't actually allocate 20 GB, but it cheats and says that there are 20 GB of zeros there, even though as little as one track on the disk may actually (really) be in use. E.g.:
truncate -s 10G gentoo_root.img
fallocate is the final -- and best -- choice for use with VM disk allocation, because it essentially "reserves" (or "allocates" all of the space you're seeking, but it doesn't bother to write anything. So, when you use fallocate to create a 20 GB virtual drive space, you really do get a 20 GB file (not a "sparse file", and you won't have bothered to write anything to it -- which means virtually anything could be in there -- kind of like a brand new disk!) E.g.:
fallocate -l 10G gentoo_root.img
Linux & all filesystems
xfs_mkfile 10240m 10Gigfile
Linux & and some filesystems (ext4, xfs, btrfs and ocfs2)
fallocate -l 10G 10Gigfile
OS X, Solaris, SunOS and probably other UNIXes
mkfile 10240m 10Gigfile
HP-UX
prealloc 10Gigfile 10737418240
Explanation
Try mkfile <size> myfile as an alternative of dd. With the -n option the size is noted, but disk blocks aren't allocated until data is written to them. Without the -n option, the space is zero-filled, which means writing to the disk, which means taking time.
mkfile is derived from SunOS and is not available everywhere. Most Linux systems have xfs_mkfile which works exactly the same way, and not just on XFS file systems despite the name. It's included in xfsprogs (for Debian/Ubuntu) or similar named packages.
Most Linux systems also have fallocate, which only works on certain file systems (such as btrfs, ext4, ocfs2, and xfs), but is the fastest, as it allocates all the file space (creates non-holey files) but does not initialize any of it.
truncate -s 10M output.file
will create a 10 M file instantaneously (M stands for 10241024 bytes, MB stands for 10001000 - same with K, KB, G, GB...)
EDIT: as many have pointed out, this will not physically allocate the file on your device. With this you could actually create an arbitrary large file, regardless of the available space on the device, as it creates a "sparse" file.
For e.g. notice no HDD space is consumed with this command:
### BEFORE
$ df -h | grep lvm
/dev/mapper/lvm--raid0-lvm0
7.2T 6.6T 232G 97% /export/lvm-raid0
$ truncate -s 500M 500MB.file
### AFTER
$ df -h | grep lvm
/dev/mapper/lvm--raid0-lvm0
7.2T 6.6T 232G 97% /export/lvm-raid0
So, when doing this, you will be deferring physical allocation until the file is accessed. If you're mapping this file to memory, you may not have the expected performance.
But this is still a useful command to know. For e.g. when benchmarking transfers using files, the specified size of the file will still get moved.
$ rsync -aHAxvP --numeric-ids --delete --info=progress2 \
root#mulder.bub.lan:/export/lvm-raid0/500MB.file \
/export/raid1/
receiving incremental file list
500MB.file
524,288,000 100% 41.40MB/s 0:00:12 (xfr#1, to-chk=0/1)
sent 30 bytes received 524,352,082 bytes 38,840,897.19 bytes/sec
total size is 524,288,000 speedup is 1.00
Where seek is the size of the file you want in bytes - 1.
dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1 count=1 seek=1048575
Examples where seek is the size of the file you want in bytes
#kilobytes
dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1 count=0 seek=200K
#megabytes
dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1 count=0 seek=200M
#gigabytes
dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1 count=0 seek=200G
#terabytes
dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1 count=0 seek=200T
From the dd manpage:
BLOCKS and BYTES may be followed by the following multiplicative suffixes: c=1, w=2, b=512, kB=1000, K=1024, MB=1000*1000, M=1024*1024, GB =1000*1000*1000, G=1024*1024*1024, and so on for T, P, E, Z, Y.
To make a 1 GB file:
dd if=/dev/zero of=filename bs=1G count=1
I don't know a whole lot about Linux, but here's the C Code I wrote to fake huge files on DC Share many years ago.
#include < stdio.h >
#include < stdlib.h >
int main() {
int i;
FILE *fp;
fp=fopen("bigfakefile.txt","w");
for(i=0;i<(1024*1024);i++) {
fseek(fp,(1024*1024),SEEK_CUR);
fprintf(fp,"C");
}
}
You can use "yes" command also. The syntax is fairly simple:
#yes >> myfile
Press "Ctrl + C" to stop this, else it will eat up all your space available.
To clean this file run:
#>myfile
will clean this file.
I don't think you're going to get much faster than dd. The bottleneck is the disk; writing hundreds of GB of data to it is going to take a long time no matter how you do it.
But here's a possibility that might work for your application. If you don't care about the contents of the file, how about creating a "virtual" file whose contents are the dynamic output of a program? Instead of open()ing the file, use popen() to open a pipe to an external program. The external program generates data whenever it's needed. Once the pipe is open, it acts just like a regular file in that the program that opened the pipe can fseek(), rewind(), etc. You'll need to use pclose() instead of close() when you're done with the pipe.
If your application needs the file to be a certain size, it will be up to the external program to keep track of where in the "file" it is and send an eof when the "end" has been reached.
One approach: if you can guarantee unrelated applications won't use the files in a conflicting manner, just create a pool of files of varying sizes in a specific directory, then create links to them when needed.
For example, have a pool of files called:
/home/bigfiles/512M-A
/home/bigfiles/512M-B
/home/bigfiles/1024M-A
/home/bigfiles/1024M-B
Then, if you have an application that needs a 1G file called /home/oracle/logfile, execute a "ln /home/bigfiles/1024M-A /home/oracle/logfile".
If it's on a separate filesystem, you will have to use a symbolic link.
The A/B/etc files can be used to ensure there's no conflicting use between unrelated applications.
The link operation is about as fast as you can get.
The GPL mkfile is just a (ba)sh script wrapper around dd; BSD's mkfile just memsets a buffer with non-zero and writes it repeatedly. I would not expect the former to out-perform dd. The latter might edge out dd if=/dev/zero slightly since it omits the reads, but anything that does significantly better is probably just creating a sparse file.
Absent a system call that actually allocates space for a file without writing data (and Linux and BSD lack this, probably Solaris as well) you might get a small improvement in performance by using ftrunc(2)/truncate(1) to extend the file to the desired size, mmap the file into memory, then write non-zero data to the first bytes of every disk block (use fgetconf to find the disk block size).
This is the fastest I could do (which is not fast) with the following constraints:
The goal of the large file is to fill a disk, so can't be compressible.
Using ext3 filesystem. (fallocate not available)
This is the gist of it...
// include stdlib.h, stdio.h, and stdint.h
int32_t buf[256]; // Block size.
for (int i = 0; i < 256; ++i)
{
buf[i] = rand(); // random to be non-compressible.
}
FILE* file = fopen("/file/on/your/system", "wb");
int blocksToWrite = 1024 * 1024; // 1 GB
for (int i = 0; i < blocksToWrite; ++i)
{
fwrite(buf, sizeof(int32_t), 256, file);
}
In our case this is for an embedded linux system and this works well enough, but would prefer something faster.
FYI the command dd if=/dev/urandom of=outputfile bs=1024 count = XX was so slow as to be unusable.
Shameless plug: OTFFS provides a file system providing arbitrarily large (well, almost. Exabytes is the current limit) files of generated content. It is Linux-only, plain C, and in early alpha.
See https://github.com/s5k6/otffs.
So I wanted to create a large file with repeated ascii strings. "Why?" you may ask. Because I need to use it for some NFS troubleshooting I'm doing. I need the file to be compressible because I'm sharing a tcpdump of a file copy with the vendor of our NAS. I had originally created a 1g file filled with random data from /dev/urandom, but of course since it's random, it means it won't compress at all and I need to send the full 1g of data to the vendor, which is difficult.
So I created a file with all the printable ascii characters, repeated over and over, to a limit of 1g in size. I was worried it would take a long time. It actually went amazingly quickly, IMHO:
cd /dev/shm
date
time yes $(for ((i=32;i<127;i++)) do printf "\\$(printf %03o "$i")"; done) | head -c 1073741824 > ascii1g_file.txt
date
Wed Apr 20 12:30:13 CDT 2022
real 0m0.773s
user 0m0.060s
sys 0m1.195s
Wed Apr 20 12:30:14 CDT 2022
Copying it from an nfs partition to /dev/shm took just as long as with the random file (which one would expect, I know, but I wanted to be sure):
cp ascii1gfile.txt /home/greygnome/
uptime; free -m; sync; echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; free -m; date; dd if=/home/greygnome/ascii1gfile.txt of=/dev/shm/outfile bs=16384 2>&1; date; rm -f /dev/shm/outfile
But while doing that I ran a simultaneous tcpdump:
tcpdump -i em1 -w /dev/shm/dump.pcap
I was able to compress the pcap file down to 12M in size! Awesomesauce!
Edit: Before you ding me because the OP said, "I don't care about the contents," know that I posted this answer because it's one of the first replies to "how to create a large file linux" in a Google search. And sometimes, disregarding the contents of a file can have unforeseen side effects.
Edit 2: And fallocate seems to be unavailable on a number of filesystems, and creating a 1GB compressible file in 1.2s seems pretty decent to me (aka, "quickly").
You could use https://github.com/flew-software/trash-dump
you can create file that is any size and with random data
heres a command you can run after installing trash-dump (creates a 1GB file)
$ trash-dump --filename="huge" --seed=1232 --noBytes=1000000000
BTW I created it