I'am programing in C language. Sometimes we have to read large data from files for which we normally use fread or read system calls, which means either stream I/O or system call I/O.
I want to ask, if we are reading such a large data, then calculating the block size and reading according to that, will it help us in any way reading it efficiently or not?
I know that reading through system calls can make it slow and there are other conditions, like if we have to deal with network sockets then we should use these, instead of using stream based I/O will give us optimized results. Like wise I need some tips and tricks to read large data from files and the things to be taken care of.
Also if mmap can be more advantageous than these conventional I/O , please elaborate the situations when it would be?
Platform : Linux , gcc compiler
Have you considered memory-mapping the file using mmap?
I think it is always a good idea to read in blocks. For huge files, we would obviously not want to allocate huge amount of memory in heap.
If the file is of the order of a few MBs then I think we can read the whole file at once in a char buffer and use that buffer to process your data. This would be faster than reading again and again from file.
Related
What's the most idiomatic/efficient way to read a file of arbitrary length in C?
Get the filesize of the file in bytes and issue a single fread()
Keep fread()ing a constant size buffer until getting EOF
Anything else?
Avoid using any technique which requires knowing the size of the file in advance. That leaves exactly one technique: read the file a bit at a time, in blocks of a convenient size.
Here's why you don't want to try to find the filesize in advance:
If it is not a regular file, there may not be any way to tell. For example, you might be reading directly from a console, or taking piped input from a previous data generator. If your program requires the filesize to be knowable, these useful input mechanisms will not be available to your users, who will complain or choose a different tool.
Even if you can figure out the filesize, you have no way of preventing it from changing while you are reading the file. If you are not careful about how you read the file, you might open a vulnerability which could be exploited by adversarial programs.
For example, if you allocate a buffer of the "correct" size and then read until you get an end-of-file condition, you may end up overwriting random memory. (Multiple reads may be necessary if you use an interface like read() which might read less data than requested.) Or you might find that the file has been truncated; if you don't check the amount of data read, you might end up processing uninitialised memory leading to information leakage.
In practice, you usually don't need to keep the entire file content in memory. You'll often parse the file (notably if it is textual), or at least read the file in smaller pieces, and for that you don't need it entirely in memory. For a textual file, reading it line-by-line (perhaps with some state inside your parser) is often enough (using fgets or getline).
Files exist (notably on disks or SSDs) because usually they can be much "bigger" than your computer RAM. Actually, files have been invented (more than 50 years ago) to be able to deal with data larger than memory. Distributed file systems also can be very big (and accessed remotely even from a laptop, e.g. by NFS, CIFS, etc...)
Some file systems are capable of storing petabytes of data (on supercomputers), with individual files of many terabytes (much larger than available RAM).
You'll also likely to use some databases. These routinely have terabytes of data. See also this answer (about realistic size of sqlite databases).
If you really want to read a file entirely in memory using stdio (but you should avoid doing that, because you generally want your program to be able to handle a lot of data on files; so reading the entire file in memory is generally a design error), you indeed could loop on fread (or fscanf, or even fgetc) till end-of-file. Notice that feof is useful only after some input operation.
On current laptop or desktop computers, you could prefer (for efficiency) to use buffers of a few megabytes, and you certainly can deal with big files of several hundreds of gigabytes (much larger than your RAM).
On POSIX file systems, you might do memory mapped IO with e.g. mmap(2) - but that might not be faster than read(2) with large buffers (of a few megabytes). You could use readahead(2) (Linux specific) and posix_fadvise(2) (or madvise(2) if using mmap) to tune performance by hinting your OS kernel.
If you have to code for Microsoft Windows, you could study its WinAPI and find some way to do memory mapped IO.
In practice, file data (notably if it was accessed recently) often stays in the page cache, which is of paramount importance for performance. When that is not the case, your hardware (disk, controller, ...) becomes the bottleneck and your program becomes I/O bound (in that case, no software trick could improve significantly the performance).
I am writing a function to read binary files that are organized as a succession of (key, value) pairs where keys are small ASCII strings and value are int or double stored in binary format.
If implemented naively, this function makes a lot of call to fread to read very small amount of data (usually no more than 10 bytes). Even though fread internally uses a buffer to read the file, I have implemented my own buffer and I have observed speed up by a factor of 10 on both Linux and Windows. The buffer size used by fread is large enough and the function call cannot be responsible for such a slowdown. So I went and dug into the GNU implementation of fread and discovered some lock on the file, and many other things such as verifying that the file is open with read access and so on. No wonder why fread is so slow.
But what is the rationale behind fread being thread-safe where it seems that multiple thread can call fread on the same file which is mind boggling to me. These requirements make it slow as hell. What are the advantages?
Imagine you have a file where each 5 bytes can be processed in parallel (let's say, pixel by pixel in an image):
123456789A
One thread needs to pick 5 bytes "12345", the next one the next 5 bytes "6789A".
If it was not thread-safe different threads could pick-up wrong chunks. For example: "12367" and "4589A" or even worst (unexpected behaviour, repeated bytes or worst).
As suggested by nemequ:
Note that if you're on glibc you can use the _unlocked variants (*e.g., fread_unlocked). On Windows you can define _CRT_DISABLE_PERFCRIT_LOCKS
Stream I/O is already as slow as molasses. Programmers think that a read from main memory (1000x longer than a CPU cycle) is ages. A read from the physical disk or a network may as well be eternity.
I don't know if that's the #1 reason why the library implementers were ok with adding the lock overhead, but I guarantee it played a significant part.
Yes, it slows it down, but as you discovered, you can manually buffer the read and use your own handling to increase the speed when performance really matters. (That's the key--when you absolutely must read the data as fast as possible. Don't bother manually buffering in the general case.)
That's a rationalization. I'm sure you could think of more!
If my code does something like fd = open("/dev/sdXY", ...) and pwrite(fd, ...)/pread(fd, ...), do the I/O operations skip the buffers or disk cache? Suppose /dev/sdXY is a unmounted, formatted disk partition (ext4, ufs, etc.).
I ask that because there is a need to grant contiguous file storage in an application I'm working on and I read that the only way to achieve it is doing something like what I described. However, I may remove the need for contiguous storage if that would lead in lost of buffers, disk cache or some other useful feature.
I'm also confused about if I would need to re-implement low level stuff since the partition would already be formatted with a file system. I read that would be the case for RAW disks/partitions. I already know it will be needed to handle which blocks are free or in use, files and folders structures, etc., I'm already working on that.
Another question: I have only seen something about buffers when reading about fopen()/fread()/fwrite() and C++'s file streams. Is it right that only these streams and the f* family of functions have some kind of buffer, unlike open/write/read/pwrite/pread/etc? Is this buffer the same as disk cache or something different?
A last one: Is HDD cache handled by its own drive or by file system (ext4, ufs, etc.)?
The simple answer is 'it depends'. What's hard is characterizing what it depends on.
Simply using open() doesn't avoid the kernel disk buffer pool. To do that, you need special options (O_DIRECT) on Linux. However, using open() does avoid using hidden application buffers; you get to choose where the data is read from or written to without any intermediate copies. By contrast, the f* family of functions do have a 'hidden' application buffer; the data is frequently read into an I/O buffer associated with the FILE * file stream, and then copied into your application buffers.
If your /dev/sdXY device is already formatted with a file system but you want to ensure contiguous file storage for a file, you are going to have to replicate a significant portion of the file system driver to ensure you allocate the space correctly. It is unlikely to be a sensible use of your time or energy. Yes, you would need to reimplement all sorts of low-level disk space management — it would be entirely non-trivial. Further, the implementation for ext4 would be quite different from the implementation for ufs, etc — so you'd really have your work cut out for you.
I am working on an application which does sequentially write a large file (and does not read at all), and I would like to use posix_fadvise() to optimize the filesystem behavior.
The function description in the manpage suggests that the most appropriate strategy would be POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL. However, the Linux implementation description doubts that:
Under Linux, POSIX_FADV_NORMAL sets the readahead window to the default size for the backing device; POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL doubles this size, and POSIX_FADV_RANDOM disables file readahead entirely.
As I'm only writing data (overwriting files possibly too), I don't expect any readahead. Should I then stick with my POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL or rather use POSIX_FADV_RANDOM to disable it?
How about other options, such as POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE? Or maybe do not use posix_fadvise() for writing at all?
Most of the posix_fadvise() flags (eg POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL and POSIX_FADV_RANDOM) are hints about readahead rather than writing.
There's some advice from Linus here and here about getting good sequential write performance. The idea is to break the file into large-ish (8MB) windows, then loop around doing:
Write out window N with write();
Request asynchronous write-out of window N with sync_file_range(..., SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE)
Wait for the write-out of window N-1 to complete with sync_file_range(..., SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE | SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE | SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER)
Drop window N-1 from the pagecache with posix_fadvise(..., POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED)
This way you never have more than two windows worth of data in the page cache, but you still get the kernel writing out part of the pagecache to disk while you fill the next part.
It all depends on the temporal locality of your data. If your application won't need the data soon after it was written, then you can go with POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE to avoid writing to the buffer cache (in a similar way as the O_DIRECT flag from open()).
As far as writes go I think that you can just rely on the OSes disk IO scheduler to do the right thing.
You should keep in mind that while posix_fadvise is there specifically to give the kernel hints about future file usage patterns the kernel also has other data to help it out.
If you don't open the file for reading then it would only need to read blocks in when they were partially written. If you were to truncate the file to 0 then it doesn't even have to do that (you said that you were overwriting).
I'm writing a program where performance is quite important, but not critical. Currently I am reading in text from a FILE* line by line and I use fgets to obtain each line. After using some performance tools, I've found that 20% to 30% of the time my application is running, it is inside fgets.
Are there faster ways to get a line of text? My application is single-threaded with no intentions to use multiple threads. Input could be from stdin or from a file. Thanks in advance.
You don't say which platform you are on, but if it is UNIX-like, then you may want to try the read() system call, which does not perform the extra layer of buffering that fgets() et al do. This may speed things up slightly, on the other hand it may well slow things down - the only way to find out is to try it and see.
Use fgets_unlocked(), but read carefully what it does first
Get the data with fgetc() or fgetc_unlocked() instead of fgets(). With fgets(), your data is copied into memory twice, first by the C runtime library from a file to an internal buffer (stream I/O is buffered), then from that internal buffer to an array in your program
Read the whole file in one go into a buffer.
Process the lines from that buffer.
That's the fastest possible solution.
You might try minimizing the amount of time you spend reading from the disk by reading large amounts of data into RAM then working on that. Reading from disk is slow, so minimize the amount of time you spend doing that by reading (ideally) the entire file once, then working on it.
Sorta like the way CPU cache minimizes the time the CPU actually goes back to RAM, you could use RAM to minimize the number of times you actually go to disk.
Depending on your environment, using setvbuf() to increase the size of the internal buffer used by file streams may or may not improve performance.
This is the syntax -
setvbuf (InputFile, NULL, _IOFBF, BUFFER_SIZE);
Where InputFile is a FILE* to a file just opened using fopen() and BUFFER_SIZE is the size of the buffer (which is allocated by this call for you).
You can try various buffer sizes to see if any have positive influence. Note that this is entirely optional, and your runtime may do absolutely nothing with this call.
If the data is coming from disk, you could be IO bound.
If that is the case, get a faster disk (but first check that you're getting the most out of your existing one...some Linux distributions don't optimize disk access out of the box (hdparm)), stage the data into memory (say by copying it to a RAM disk) ahead of time, or be prepared to wait.
If you are not IO bound, you could be wasting a lot of time copying. You could benefit from so-called zero-copy methods. Something like memory map the file and only access it through pointers.
That is a bit beyond my expertise, so you should do some reading or wait for more knowledgeable help.
BTW-- You might be getting into more work than the problem is worth; maybe a faster machine would solve all your problems...
NB-- It is not clear that you can memory map the standard input either...
If the OS supports it, you can try asynchronous file reading, that is, the file is read into memory whilst the CPU is busy doing something else. So, the code goes something like:
start asynchronous read
loop:
wait for asynchronous read to complete
if end of file goto exit
start asynchronous read
do stuff with data read from file
goto loop
exit:
If you have more than one CPU then one CPU reads the file and parses the data into lines, the other CPU takes each line and processes it.