I am trying to figure out if whether or not the depth of a file in a filesystem will change the amount of time it takes to execute a "cp" bash command with that file.
By depth I mean how many parent directories its contained in.
I tried running a few tests, but my results are pretty inconclusive, and when I try to logically answer, I can think of reasons of why it would be either way.
What is the purpose of this?
Provided nothing is cached, the deeper the directory tree the more data has to be read from storage to get to the file - you have to find the name of the second dir, then the third within the second and so on. On the other hand if the file is big, the time needed to do this can be negligible in comparison.
Also mere startup of a command like cp is not without its cost.
If you are interested in how file systems work read this free book: http://www.nobius.org/~dbg/practical-file-system-design.pdf
Performance is a complicated subject, especially so when hard media is involved. Without proper understanding of how this works and proper understanding of statistics, you can't perform a correct test.
Related
I need to test lines in a file against multiple values
What are the difference in terms of time between opening a file and reading line by line each time vs opening the file once placing it in an array and traversing the array each time?
To expand upon what #mpacpec said in his comment, file IO is always slower than memory read/writes. But there's more to the story. "Test lines in a file against multiple values" can be interpreted in a lot of ways, so without knowing more about what exactly you are trying to do, then no one can tell you anything more specifically. So the answer is, "It depends". It depends on the file size, what you're testing and how often, and how you're testing.
However, pragmatically speaking, based upon my understanding of what you've said, you'll have to read the whole file one way or another, and you'll have to test every line, one way or another. Do what's easiest to write/read/understand, and see if that's fast enough. If it isn't, you have a much more useful baseline from which to ask the question. Personally, I'd start with a linewise read and test loop and work from there, simply because I think that'd be easier and faster to write correctly.
Make it work, then make it fast :)
Provided in the former case you can do all the tests you need on each line (rather than re-reading file each time), then the two approaches should be roughly the same speed and I/O, CPU efficiency (ignoring second-order effects such as whether the disk IO gets distracted by other processes more easily). However, the latter case - reading whole file - may hit memory limits for large files, which may cause it to lose performance dramatically or even fail.
The main cost of processing the file line by line is loss of flexibility - for instance if you need to cross-reference the lines, it would not be easy (whilst if they are all in memory, the code to do that would be simpler and faster).
I have a computer that is running Windows XP that I am using to process a great deal of data, update monitors, and bank data. Generally it is pretty loaded with work.
One particular file that has real time data is useful to a number of users. We have two programs that need this file, one that displays the numerical data and one that plots the numerical data. Any user can run an instance of either program on their machine. These programs search for the real time data file which is updated every second. They are both written in Perl and I was asked not to change either program.
Because of the large load on the computer, I am currently running the program that does calculations and creates the real time data file on a separate computer. This program simply writes the real time file onto the overloaded computer. Because Windows doesn't have an atomic write, I created a method that writes to a different extension, deletes the old real time file, and then moves the new one to the correct name. Unfortunately, as the user load on the computer increases, the writes take longer (which isn't ideal but is live-able) but more annoyingly, the time between deleting the old real time file and moving the new file to the correct name increases a great deal, causing errors with the Perl programs. Both programs check to see if the file modify time has changed (neither check for file locks). If the file goes missing they get angry and output error messages.
I imagine a first course of action would be to move this whole process away from the overloaded computer. My other thought was to create a number of copies of the files on different machines and have different users read the file from different places (this would be a real hack though).
I am new to the world networking and file sharing but I know there is a better way to do this. Frankly this whole method is a little hacked but that's how it was when I came here.
Lastly, it's worth mentioning that this same process runs on a UNIX machine and has none of these problems. For this reason I feel the blame falls on a need for an atomic write. I have been searching the internet for any work around to this problem and have tried a number of different methods (eg my current extension switching method).
Can anyone point me in the right direction so I can solve this problem?
My code is written in Python.
os.rename() says:
os.rename(src, dst)
Rename the file or directory src to dst. If dst is a directory,
OSError will be raised. On Unix, if dst exists and is a file,
it will be replaced silently if the user has permission. The
operation may fail on some Unix flavors if src and dst are on
different filesystems. If successful, the renaming will be an
atomic operation (this is a POSIX requirement). On Windows, if
dst already exists, OSError will be raised even if it is a file;
there may be no way to implement an atomic rename when dst names
an existing file.
Given that on Windows you are forced to delete the old file before renaming the new one to it, and you are prohibited from modifying the reading scripts to tolerate the missing file for a configurable timeout (the correct solution) or do proper resource locking with the producer (another correct solution), your only workaround may be to play with the process scheduler to make the {delete, rename} operation appear atomic. Write a C program that does nothing but look for the new file, delete the old, and rename the new. Run that "pseudo-atomic rename" process at high priority and pray that it doesn't get task-switched between the delete and the rename.
Primarily this seems to be a technique used by games, where they have all the sounds in one file, textures in another etc. With these files commonly reaching the GB size.
What is the reason behind doing this over maintaining it all in subdirectories as small files - one per texture which many small games use this, with the monolithic system being favoured by larger companies?
Is there some file system overhead with lots of small files?
Are they trying to protect their property - although most just seem to be a compressed file with a new extension?
The reasons we use an "archive" system like this where I work (a game development company):
lookup speed: We rarely need to iterate over files in a directory; we're far more often looking them up directly by name. By using a custom "file allocation table" that is essentially just a sequence of hash( normalized_filename ) -> [ offset, size ], we can look up files very quickly. We can also keep this index in RAM, potentially interleave it with other index tables, etc.
(When we do need to iterate, we can either easily iterate over all files in a .arc, or we can store a list of filenames, a list of hash-of-filenames, or just a list of [ offset, size ] pairs somewhere -- maybe even as a file in the archive. This is usually faster than directory-traversal on a FS.)
metadata: It's easy for us to tuck in any file metadata we want. For example, a single bit in the "size" field indicates whether the file is compressed or not (if it is, it has a header with more details about how to decompress it). We can even vary compression on pieces of a file if we know enough about the structure of the file ahead of time (we do this for sprite archives).
size: One of the devices we use has a "file size must be a multiple of X" requirement, where X is large compared to some of our files. For example, some of our lua scripts end up being just a few hundred bytes when compiled; taking extra overhead per .luc file adds up quickly.
alignment: on the other hand, sometimes we want to waste space. To take advantage of faster streaming (e.g. background DMA) from the filesystem, some of our files do want to obey certain alignment/size requirements. We can take care of that right in the tool, and the align/size we're shooting for doesn't necessarily have to line up with the underlying FS, allowing us to waste space only where we need it.
But those are the mundane reasons. The more fun stuff:
Each .arc registers in a list, and attempts to open a file know to look in the arcs. We search already-in-RAM archives first, then archives on the device FS, then the actual device FS. This gives us a ton of flexibility:
dynamic additions to the filesystem: at any time we can stream a new file or archive to the machine in question (over the network or the like) and have it appear as part of the "logical" filesystem; this is great when the actual FS resides in ROM or on a CD, and allows us to iterate much more quickly than we could otherwise.
(Doom's .wad system is a sort of example of the above, which allows modders to more easily override assets and scripts built into the game.)
possibility of no underlying fs: It's possible to use bin2obj to embed an entire arc directly in the executable (.rodata) at link time, at which point you don't ever need to look at the device FS -- we do this for certain small demo builds and the like. We can also send levels across the network or savegame-sneakernet this way. =)
organization and load/unload: since we can load and unload and override virtual "pieces" of our filesystem at any time, we can do some performance tricks with having the number of files in the FS be very small at any given time. We can additionally specify that an entire archive be loaded into memory, index table and data; our file load code is smart enough to know that if the file is already in memory, it doesn't need to do anything to read it other than move a pointer around. Some of the higher level code can actually detect that the file is in ram and just ask for the probably-already-looks-like-a-struct pointer directly.
portability: we only need to figure out how to get a few files on each new device we use, and then the remainder of the FS code is more or less the same. =) We do change the tool output a bit occasionally (for alignment reasons), but most of the processing remains the same.
de-duplication: with smarter archives, such as our sprite archives, we can (and do) de-duplicate data. If "jump" animation's fifth frame and "kick"'s third frame are the same, we can pull apart the file and only store one copy of that frame. We can do the same for whole files.
We ported a PC game to a system with much slower FS access recently. We didn't change the data format, and it turns out iterating through a dir on the raw device FS to load a hundred small XML files was absolutely killing our load times. The solution we used was to take each dir, make it into its own subdir.arc, and stick it in the master game.arc compressed. When the dir was needed (something like opendir was called) we decompressed the entire subdir.arc into RAM, added it to the filesystem, then iterated through it super-quickly.
It's the ability to throw something like this together in a few hours, and to ease the pain of porting across systems, that makes stuff like this worthwhile.
File systems do have an overhead. Usually, a file takes disk space rounded up to some power of 2 (e.g. up to 4 KB), so many small files would waste space. Some modern file systems try to mitigate that, but AFAIK it's not widespread yet. Additionally, file systems are often quite slow when accessing multiple files. E.g. it is usually considerably faster to copy one 400 MB file than 4000 100 KB files.
File systems come in handy when you have to modify files, because they handle changing file sizes much better than any simple home-grown solution. However, that's certainly not the case for constant game data.
On Apple systems, the most common way is to use, as you suggest, directories. They are called Bundles, and are in the Finder represented as just one file, but if you explore them more, they're actually directories. This makes writing code and conserving memory when loading individual items out of this bundle very easy. :-) Also, this makes taking incremental backups of gigantic databases easy, as for instance your iPhoto database is just a bundle, so you just backup changed and new files
On Windows, however, I believe this is much harder to do, it will look like a directory "no matter what" (I'm sure smart people have found a solution that will make Explorer see certain directories as a single file, but it's not common).
From a games developer point of view, you're not dealing with so small files that disk space overhead is something you're very much concerned with, so I doubt #doublep's suggestion, since it makes for such a hassle, but it makes it much easier with a single file if users are to copy an entire game over somewhere, then it's easy to check if the entire set is correct.
And, of course, it's harder to read for people that shouldn't have access to it. But it's also harder to modify, which means harder to patch, and harder to write extensions. Someone that uses extensions a lot, prefers the directory structure: The Sims.
Were I the games developer, I'd love to go for individual files. Then again, I'd be using bundles as I'd be writing for the Mac ;-)
Cheers
Nik
I can think of multiple reasons.
As doublep suggested, files occupy more space on the disc than they require. So an archive saves space. 10k files (of any size) should save you 20MB when packed into an archive. Not exactly a large amount of space nowadays, but still.
The other reason I can think of is disc fragmentation. I suspect a heavily fragmented disc will perform worse when accessing thousands of separate files on a fragmented space. But I'm no expert in this field, so I'd appreciate if someone more experienced verified this.
Finally, I think this may also have something to do with restricting access to separate game files. You can have a bunch of Lua scripts exposed, mess with them and break something. Or you could have the outro cinematic/sound/text/whatever exposed and get spoiled by accessing it. I do that myself as well: I encrypt images with a multipass XOR key, pack text files and config variables into a monolithic file (zipped for extra security) and only leave music freely accessible. This way, the game's secrets will remain undiscovered for a bit longer :).
Or there may be another reason I never thought about :D.
As you know games, especially with larger companies try to squeeze as much performance as they can. One technique is to have all the data in one large file and just DMA it to memory (think of it as a memcpy from CD to RAM). Since all the files are in one large one there will be no disk seeks and you can have a large number of files (which may cause large amount of seeks) all loaded quicky because of the technique.
Many file storage systems use hashes to avoid duplication of the same file content data (among other reasons), e.g., Git and Dropbox both use SHA256. The file names and dates can be different, but as long as the content gets the same hash generated, it never gets stored more than once.
It seems this would be a sensible thing to do in a OS file system in order to save space. Are there any file systems for Windows or *nix that do this, or is there a good reason why none of them do?
This would, for the most part, eliminate the need for duplicate file finder utilities, because at that point the only space you would be saving would be for the file entry in the file system, which for most users is not enough to matter.
Edit: Arguably this could go on serverfault, but I feel developers are more likely to understand the issues and trade-offs involved.
ZFS supports deduplication since last month: http://blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/en_US/entry/zfs_dedup
Though I wouldn't call this a "common" filesystem (afaik, it is currently only supported by *BSD), it is definitely one worth looking at.
It would save space, but the time cost is prohibitive. The products you mention are already io bound, so the computational cost of hashing is not a bottleneck. If you hashed at the filesystem level, all io operations which are already slow will get worse.
NTFS has single instance storage.
NetApp has supported deduplication (that's what its called in the storage industry) in the WAFL filesystem (yeah, not your common filesystem) for a few years now. This is one of the most important features found in the enterprise filesystems today (and NetApp stands out because they support this on their primary storage also as compared to other similar products which support it only on their backup or secondary storage; they are too slow for primary storage).
The amount of data which is duplicate in a large enterprise with thousands of users is staggering. A lot of those users store the same documents, source code, etc. across their home directories. Reports of 50-70% data deduplicated have been seen often, saving lots of space and tons of money for large enterprises.
All of this means that if you create any common filesystem on a LUN exported by a NetApp filer, then you get deduplication for free, no matter what the filesystem created in that LUN. Cheers. Find out how it works here and here.
btrfs supports online de-duplication of data at the block level. I'd recommend duperemove as an external tool is needed.
It would require a fair amount of work to make this work in a file system. First of all, a user might be creating a copy of a file, planning to edit one copy, while the other remains intact -- so when you eliminate the duplication, the hard link you created that way would have to give COW semantics.
Second, the permissions on a file are often based on the directory into which that file's name is placed. You'd have to ensure that when you create your hidden hard link, that the permissions were correctly applied based on the link, not just the location of the actual content.
Third, users are likely to be upset if they make (say) three copies of a file on physically separate media to ensure against data loss from hardware failure, then find out that there was really only one copy of the file, so when that hardware failed, all three copies disappeared.
This strikes me as a bit like a second-system effect -- a solution to a problem long after the problem ceased to exist (or at least matter). With hard drives current running less than $100US/terabyte, I find it hard to believe that this would save most people a whole dollar worth of hard drive space. At that point, it's hard to imagine most people caring much.
There are file systems that do deduplication, which is sort of like this, but still noticeably different. In particular, deduplication is typically done on a basis of relatively small blocks of a file, not on complete files. Under such a system, a "file" basically just becomes a collection of pointers to de-duplicated blocks. Along with the data, each block will typically have some metadata for the block itself, that's separate from the metadata for the file(s) that refer to that block (e.g., it'll typically include at least a reference count). Any block that has a reference count greater than 1 will be treated as copy on write. That is, any attempt at writing to that block will typically create a copy, write to the copy, then store the copy of the block to the pool (so if the result comes out the same as some other block, deduplication will coalesce it with the existing block with the same content).
Many of the same considerations still apply though--most people don't have enough duplication to start with for deduplication to help a lot.
At the same time, especially on servers, deduplication at a block level can serve a real purpose. One really common case is dealing with multiple VM images, each running one of only a few choices of operating systems. If we look at the VM image as a whole, each is usually unique, so file-level deduplication would do no good. But they still frequently have a large chunk of data devoted to storing the operating system for that VM, and it's pretty common to have many VMs running only a few operating systems. With block-level deduplication, we can eliminate most of that redundancy. For a cloud server system like AWS or Azure, this can produce really serious savings.
How can I write a program that can recover files in FAT32?
This is pretty complex, but FAT32 is very good documented:
I wrote a tool for direct FAT32 access once using only those ressources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/154997/
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspx
But I've never actually tried to recover files. If you will successfully recover a file depends on several factors:
The file must still "exist" physically on the hard disk
You must know where the file starts
You must know what you are looking for (Headers..)
It depends on what happened to the files you're trying to recover. The data may still be on the partition, or it could be overwritten by now. There are a lot of pre-written solutions. A simple google search should give you a plethora of software that can try to recover the data, but it's not 100% sure to get them back. If you really want to recover them yourself, you'll need to write something the read the raw partition and ignore missing file markers.
here is a program (written by Thomas Tempelman. This guy is great.) that might help you out. You can make a copy of the partition, ignoring corrupt bits, then operate on the copy so you don't mess anything up, and you may also be able to recover the data directly with it.
I think you are referring to data carving, that is, reading the physical device and reconstructing previously unlinked files based on some knowledge (e.g. when you find two letters, PK, it's highly probable than a zip archive is following, same for JFIF for JPEG).
In this case, I suggest you to study the source code of PhotoRec a great (in my opinion, the best) Open Source tool for data carving.