I need to read a process large text files. I currently read one line at a time and process it synchronously. I need to improve performance and realise the disk access is a bottleneck. I want to refactor to have a disk read thread putting data on a queue waiting to be processed with multiple threads doing the processing. My concern is that by only reading one line at a time I might not be able to supply the data to the processing threads fast enough. Is there a way to read multiple lines on each time? I need to make sure that I don't break any words as the processing is based on words.
Whereas your program is reading one line at a time, the runtime library is reading large blocks of data from the file and then parsing the lines from a memory buffer. So when you read the first line of the file, what really happens is that the runtime library loads a large buffer, scans it to find the end of the first line, and returns that line to you. The next time you ask for a line, the runtime library doesn't have to read, but rather just find the end of the next line.
How large that buffer is depends on the runtime library, and possibly on how you initialize the file.
In addition, the file system likely maintains an even larger buffer. Your runtime library, for example, might have a 4 kilobyte file buffer, and the operating system might be buffering the input file in 64 kilobyte blocks.
In short, you probably don't need to do anything special to optimize reading the text file. You could perhaps specify a larger file buffer, and in some cases I've seen that help. Other than that, it's not worth worrying about.
Unless you have an especially fast disk subsystem, a typical developer's machine will sustain between 50 and 100 megabytes per second if you're sequentially reading line by line. In most text processing applications, that's going to be your limiting factor.
Related
I need to implement external multithreading sort. I dont't have experience in multithreading programming and now I'm not sure if my algorithm is good anoth also I don't know how to complete it. My idea is:
Thread reads next block of data from input file
Sort it using standart algorith(std::sort)
Writes it to another file
After this I have to merge such files. How should I do this?
If I wait untill input file will be entirely processed until merge
I recieve a lot of temporary files
If I try to merge file straight after sort, I can not come up with
an algorithm to avoid merging files with quite different sizes, which
will lead to O(N^2) difficulty.
Also I suppose this is a very common task, however I cannot find good prepared algoritm in the enternet. I would be very grateful for such a link especially for it's c++ implementation.
Well, the answer isn't that simple, and it actually depends on many factors, amongst them the number of items you wish to process, and the relative speed of your storage system and CPUs.
But the question is why to use multithreading at all here. Data too big to be held in memory? So many items that even a qsort algorithm can't sort fast enough? Take advantage of multiple processors or cores? Don't know.
I would suggest that you first write some test routines to measure the time needed to read and write the input file and the output files, as well as the CPU time needed for sorting. Please note that I/O is generally A LOT slower than CPU execution (actually they aren't even comparable), and I/O may not be efficient if you read data in parallel (there is one disk head which has to move in and out, so reads are in effect serialized - even if it's a digital drive it's still a device, with input and output channels). That is, the additional overhead of reading/writing temporary files may more than eliminate any benefit from multithreading. So I would say, first try making an algorithm that reads the whole file in memory, sorts it and writes it, and put in some time counters to check their relative speed. If I/O is some 30% of the total time (yes, that little!), it's definitely not worth, because with all that reading/merging/writing of temporary files, this will rise a lot more, so a solution processing the whole data at once would rather be preferable.
Concluding, don't see why use multithreading here, the only reason imo would be if data are actually delivered in blocks, but then again take into account my considerations above, about relative I/O-CPU speeds and the additional overhead of reading/writing the temporary files. And a hint, your file accessing must be very efficient, eg reading/writing in larger blocks using application buffers, not one by one (saves on system calls), otherwise this may have a detrimental effect if the file(s) are stored on a machine other than yours (eg a server).
Hope you find my suggestions useful.
I'm thinking about ways for my application to detect a partially-written record after a program or OS crash. Since records are only ever appended to a file (never overwritten), is a crash while writing guaranteed to yield a file size that is shorter than it should be? Is this guaranteed even if the file was opened in read-write mode instead of append mode, so long as writes are always at the end of the file? This would greatly simplify crash recovery, since comparing the last record's expected size and position with the actual file size would be enough to detect a partial write.
I understand that random-access writes can be reordered by the filesystem, but I'm having trouble finding information on whether this can happen when appending. I imagine an out-of-order append would require the filesystem to create a "hole" at the tail of the (sparse) file, write blocks beyond the hole, and then fill in the blocks in between, but I'm hoping that such an approach would be so inefficient that nobody would ever implement their filesystem that way.
I suppose another problem might be a filesystem updating the directory entry's file size field before appending the new blocks to to the file, and the OS crashing in between. Does this ever happen in practice? (ext4, perhaps?) Is there a quick way to detect it? (And what happens when trying to read the unwritten blocks that should exist according to the file's size?)
Is there anything else, such as write reordering performed by a disk/flash drive, that would get in the way of using file size as a way to detect a partial append? I don't expect to be able to compensate for this sort of drive trickery in my application, but it would be good to know about.
If you want to be SURE that you're never going to lose records, you need a consistent journaling or transactional system for your files.
There is absolutely no guarantee that a write will have been fulfilled unless you either set O_DIRECT [which you probably do not want to do], or you use markers to indicate aht "this has been fully committed", that are only written when the file is closed. You can either do that in the mainfile, or, for example, have a file that records, externally, "last written record". If you open & close that file, it should be safe as long as the APP is what is crashing - if the OS crashes [or is otherwise abruptly stopped - e.g. power cut, disk unplugged, etc], all bets are off.
Write reordering and write caching is/can be done at all levels - the C library, the OS, the filesystem module and the hard disk/controller itself are all ABLE to reorder writes.
I have one writer which creates and sometimes updates a file with some status information. The readers are implemented in lua (so I got only io.open) and possibly bash (cat, grep, whatever). I am worried about what would happen if the status information is updated (which means a complete file rewrite) while a reader has an open handle to the file: what can happen? I have also read that if the write/read operation is below 4KB, it is atomic: that would be perfectly fine for me, as the status info can fit well in such dimension. Can I make this assumption?
A read or write is atomic under 4Kbytes only for pipes, not for disk files (for which the atomic granularity may be the file system block size, usually 512 bytes).
In practice you could avoid bothering about such issues (assuming your status file is e.g. less than 512 bytes), and I believe that if the writer is opening and writing quickly that file (in particular, if you avoid open(2)-ing a file and keeping the opened file handle for a long time -many seconds-, then write(2)-ing later -once, a small string- inside it), you don't need to bother.
If you are paranoid, but do assume that readers are (like grep) opening a file and reading it quickly, you could write to a temporary file and rename(2)-ing it when written (and close(2)-ed) in totality.
As Duck suggested, locking the file in both readers and writers is also a solution.
I may be mistaken, in which case someone will correct me, but I don't think the external readers are going to pay any attention to whether the file is being simultaneously updated. They are are going to print (or possibly eof or error out) whatever is there.
In any case, why not avoid the whole mess and just use file locks. Have the writer flock (or similar) and the readers check the lock. If they get the lock they know they are ok to read.
I am building a driver and i want to read some files.
Is there any way to use "ZwReadFile()" or a similar function to read the
contents of the files line by line so that i can process them in a loop.
The documentation in MSDN states that :-
ZwReadFile begins reading from the given ByteOffset or the current file position into the given Buffer. It terminates the read operation under one of the following conditions:
The buffer is full because the number of bytes specified by the Length parameter has been read. Therefore, no more data can be placed into the buffer without an overflow.
The end of file is reached during the read operation, so there is no more data in the file to be transferred into the buffer.
Thanks.
No, there is not. You'll have to create a wrapper to achieve what you want.
However, given that kernel mode code has the potential to crash the system rather than the process it runs in, you have to make sure that problems such as those known from usermode with very long lines etc will not cause issues.
If the amount of data is (and will stay) below the threshold of what registry values can hold, you should use that instead. In particular REG_MULTI_SZ which has the properties you are looking for ("line-wise" storage of data).
In this situation unless performance is a critical (like 'realtime') then I would pass the filtering to a user mode service or application. Send the file name to the application to process. A user mode application is easier to test and easier to debug. It wont blue screen or hang your box either.
I have a program which reads data from 2 text files and then save the result to another file. Since there are many data to be read and written which cause a performance hit, I want to parallize the reading and writing operations.
My initial thought is, use 2 threads as an example, one thread read/write from the beginning, and another thread read/write from the middle of the file. Since my files are formatted as lines, not bytes(each line may have different bytes of data), seek by byte does not work for me. And the solution I could think of is use getline() to skip over the previous lines first, which might be not efficient.
Is there any good way to seek to a specified line in a file? or do you have any other ideas to parallize file reading and writing?
Environment: Win32, C++, NTFS, Single Hard Disk
Thanks.
-Dbger
Generally speaking, you do NOT want to parallelize disk I/O. Hard disks do not like random I/O because they have to continuously seek around to get to the data. Assuming you're not using RAID, and you're using hard drives as opposed to some solid state memory, you will see a severe performance degradation if you parallelize I/O(even when using technologies like those, you can still see some performance degradation when doing lots of random I/O).
To answer your second question, there really isn't a good way to seek to a certain line in a file; you can only explicitly seek to a byte offset using the read function(see this page for more details on how to use it.
Queuing multiple reads and writes won't help when you're running against one disk. If your app also performed a lot of work in CPU then you could do your reads and writes asynchronously and let the CPU work while the disk I/O occurs in the background. Alternatively, get a second physical hard drive: read from one, write to the other. For modestly sized data sets that's often effective and quite a bit cheaper than writing code.
This isn't really an answer to your question but rather a re-design (which we all hate but can't help doing). As already mentioned, trying to speed up I/O on a hard disk with multiple threads probably won't help.
However, it might be possible to use another approach depending on data sensitivity, throughput needs, data size, etc. It would not be difficult to create a structure in memory that maintains a picture of the data and allows easy/fast updates of the lines of text anywhere in the data. You could then use a dedicated thread that simply monitors that structure and whose job it is to write the data to disk. Writing data sequentially to disk can be extremely fast; it can be much faster than seeking randomly to different sections and writing it in pieces.