My app is monitoring a "hot" folder somewhere on the local filesystem for newly added files to push to a network location. I'm running into a problem when very large files are being written into the hot folder: the file system event notifying me of changes in the hot folder will fire well before the file completes writing. When my app tries to upload the file, it mis-reads the file size as the current number of copied bytes, not the eventual total number of bytes.
Things I've tried:
NSURL getResourceValue:forKey:error: to read NSURLAllocatedFileSizeKey (same value as NSURLFileSizeKey while the file is being written).
NSFileManager attributesOfItemAtPath:error: to look at NSFileBusy (always NO).
I can't seem to find any mechanism short of repeatedly polling a file for its size to determine if the file is finished copying and can be uploaded.
There aren't great ways to do this.
If you can be certain that the writer is using NSFileCoordinator, then you can also use that to coordinate your access to the file.
Likewise, if you're sure that the writer has opted in to advisory locking, you could try to open the file for shared access by calling open() with the O_SHLOCK and O_NONBLOCK flags. If you succeed, then there are no other descriptors open for exclusive access. You can either use the file descriptor you've got or close it and then use some other API to access the file.
However, if you can't be sure of any of those, then your best bet may be to set a timer to repeatedly check the file's metadata (size, date modified, etc.). Only when you see that it has stopped changing over a reasonable time interval (2 seconds, maybe) would you attempt to access it (and cancel the timer).
You might want to do all three. Wait for the file's metadata to settle down, then use a NSFileCoordinator to read from the file. When it calls your reader block, use open() with O_SHLOCK | O_NONBLOCK to make sure there are no other processes which have exclusive access to it.
You need some form of coordinated file locking.
fcntl() and flock() are common functions for this.
Read up on it first.
Then see what options you have.
If you can control the code base of those other processes, all the better.
The problem with really large files is that what's changed or changing inside them is opaque and isn't always at the end.
Good processes should generally be doing atomic writes. (Write to a temp file then swap it out) but if these files are actually databases then you will want to look at using the db's server app for this sort of thing.
If the files are wrappers containing other files then it gets extra messy as those contents might have dependencies on one another to be in a usable state.
Related
I have to read the MFT file of a running Windows (XP or higher) and through it to reach the HD sectors that held the contents ($DATA) of a specific file that exists on the machine.
The problem is that between the time of reading the MFT until the fetching of the relevant sectors and reading them, the file system structure can vary and the locations may not be relevant anymore.
Is there a way to "freeze" the system for a certain time? Perhaps guarantee that there will not be changes for this file? Lock a specific file in order to make it not moving between sectors? (Including due to optimizations and changes in indirect)
Of course I would prefer not to copy the entire hard disk and to work statically since it's a slow operation that would disallow normal use of the system at this time. Needless to say, I don't want to use the API functions of the OS or to write a driver.
I'd simply open the file, requesting read/write access, with read share mode. If you succeed to open the file, you're guaranteed that data will not change until you close the handle. See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh449422%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
If you want to achieve that on files that are already opened and locked by different processes, that's entirely different story and I believe you have to write own filter driver.
If the file location in the system varies, it will be accordingly reflected in the MFT. So instead of trying to stop any activity for the file you can simply compare the MFT info before and after reading the file. Unless you are de-fragmenting or deleting contents of the file the file storage structure will not change. Additions to files do not affect the consistency of data that you read. So if this is your scenario, you can just go ahead with the above method.
I have a program that generates information from the contents of files, however, I believe it would be more efficient if I were able to do this as the files are being written; rather than having to then read the contents back after some delay, since I can simply generate the data as the file is writing to disk.
What method(s) are available for an application to hook into the file-write process, i.e- to process the data stream as it's being written to disk? Also, which of these (if any) are allowable for app store apps?
I've been considering using a Spotlight Importer, however this still involves reading the contents of a file after they've been written, in which case I'm relying on the file still being in the RAM cache to reduce disk access.
I am trying to watch files in a directory to determine when files are opened/accessed. I thought FileSystemWatcher would do the trick using the event Changed.
Problem is that some applications do not create a lock on the file they open/access or change either the date modified or date accessed (even after fsutil behavior set disablelastaccess 0). Notepad for example. Apparently is makes a copy of the file in memory and plays with it there until you save it. Nor does it update the Date Accessed.
How can I monitor a directory of files and be notified when a file is simply opened/accessed by any program (e.g. Notepad)? Files may be opened from another computer, not necessarily on the computer running the "watcher".
I found lots of similar questions but did not see one focusing on file "access".
This is quite normal. Updating an existing file is quite dangerous since it can cause irretrievable data loss. A disk error (like disk full) while writing is very bad news. The common algorithm used:
rename the original file
write a new file using the original name
no error: delete the renamed file
error: delete the new file, rename original file back
Clearly this doesn't cause a Changed event to be raised, no file was changed.
Sorry, I didn't read the question well enough. There is no notification whatsoever for an app just opening a file for reading. FSW can only detect changes to the file system. There is no ready alternative either, this requires a custom file system filter driver that snoops on driver requests. Like the kind that SysInternals' ProcMon utility uses. I'm not aware of such a driver ready for use in a C# program, you can't write them in C# either. This just isn't a common requirement.
I'm running a very computationally intensive scientific job that spits out results every now and then. The job is basically to just simulate the same thing a whole bunch of times, so it's divided among several computers, which use different OSes. I'd like to direct the output from all these instances to the same file, since all the computers can see the same filesystem via NFS/Samba. Here are the constraints:
Must allow safe concurrent appends. Must block if some other instance on another computer is currently appending to the file.
Performance does not count. I/O for each instance is only a few bytes per minute.
Simplicity does count. The whole point of this (besides pure curiosity) is so I can stop having every instance write to a different file and manually merging these files together.
Must not depend on the details of the filesystem. Must work with an unknown filesystem on an NFS or Samba mount.
The language I'm using is D, in case that matters. I've looked, there's nothing in the standard lib that seems to do this. Both D-specific and general, language-agnostic answers are fully acceptable and appreciated.
Over NFS you face some problems with client side caching and stale data. I have written an OS independent lock module to work over NFS before. The simple idea of creating a [datafile].lock file does not work well over NFS. The basic idea to work around it is to create a lock file [datafile].lock which if present means file is NOT locked and a process that wants to acquire a lock renames the file to a different name like [datafile].lock.[hostname].[pid]. The rename is an atomic enough operation that works well enough over NFS to guarantee exclusivity of the lock. The rest is basically a bunch of fail safe, loops, error checking and lock retrieval in case the process dies before releasing the lock and renaming the lock file back to [datafile].lock
The classic solution is to use a lock file, or more accurately a lock directory. On all common OSs creating a directory is an atomic operation so the routine is:
try to create a lock directory with a fixed name in a fixed location
if the create failed, wait a second or so and try again - repeat until success
write your data to the real data file
delete the lock directory
This has been used by applications such as CVS for many years across many platforms. The only problem occurs in the rare cases when your app crashes while writing and before removing the lock.
Why not just build a simple server which sits between the file and the other computers?
Then if you ever wanted to change the data format, you would only have to modify the server, and not all of the clients.
In my opinion building a server would be much easier than trying to use a Network file system.
Lock File with a twist
Like other answers have mentioned, the easiest method is to create a lock file in the same directory as the datafile.
Since you want to be able to access the same file over multiple PC the best solution I can think of is to just include the identifier of the machine currently writing to the data file.
So the sequence for writing to the data file would be:
Check if there is a lock file present
If there is a lock file, see if I'm the one owning it by checking that its content has my identifier.
If that's the case, just write to the data file then delete the lock file.
If that's not the case, just wait a second or a small random length of time and try the whole cycle again.
If there is no lock file, create one with my identifier and try the whole cycle again to avoid race condition (re-check that the lock file is really mine).
Along with the identifier, I would record a timestamp in the lock file and check whether it's older than a given timeout value.
If the timestamp is too old, then assume that the lock file is stale and just delete it as it would mea one of the PC writing to the data file may have crashed or its connection may have been lost.
Another solution
If you are in control the format of the data file, could be to reserve a structure at the beginning of the file to record whether it is locked or not.
If you just reserve a byte for this purpose, you could assume, for instance, that 00 would mean the data file isn't locked, and that other values would represent the identifier of the machine currently writing to it.
Issues with NFS
OK, I'm adding a few things because Jiri Klouda correctly pointed out that NFS uses client-side caching that will result in the actual lock file being in an undetermined state.
A few ways to solve this issue:
mount the NFS directory with the noac or sync options. This is easy but doesn't completely guarantee data consistency between client and server though so there may still be issues although in your case it may be OK.
Open the lock file or data file using the O_DIRECT, the O_SYNC or O_DSYNC attributes. This is supposed to disable caching altogether.
This will lower performance but will ensure consistency.
You may be able to use flock() to lock the data file but its implementation is spotty and you will need to check if your particular OS actually uses the NFS locking service. It may do nothing at all otherwise.
If the data file is locked, then another client opening it for writing will fail.
Oh yeah, and it doesn't seem to work on SMB shares, so it's probably best to just forget about it.
Don't use NFS and just use Samba instead: there is a good article on the subject and why NFS is probably not the best answer to your usage scenario.
You will also find in this article various methods for locking files.
Jiri's solution is also a good one.
Basically, if you want to keep things simple, don't use NFS for frequently-updated files that are shared amongst multiple machines.
Something different
Use a small database server to save your data into and bypass the NFS/SMB locking issues altogether or keep your current multiple data files system and just write a small utility to concatenate the results.
It may still be the safest and simplest solution to your problem.
I don't know D, but I thing using a mutex file to do the jobe might work. Here's some pseudo-code you might find useful:
do {
// Try to create a new file to use as mutex.
// If it's already created, it will throw some kind of error.
mutex = create_file_for_writing('lock_file');
} while (mutex == null);
// Open your log file and write results
log_file = open_file_for_reading('the_log_file');
write(log_file, data);
close_file(log_file);
close_file(mutex);
// Free mutex and allow other processes to create the same file.
delete_file(mutex);
So, all processes will try to create the mutex file but only the one who wins will be able to continue. Once you write your output, close and delete the mutex so other processes can do the same.
It's a very common scenario: some process wants to drop a file on a server every 30 minutes or so. Simple, right? Well, I can think of a bunch of ways this could go wrong.
For instance, processing a file may take more or less than 30 minutes, so it's possible for a new file to arrive before I'm done with the previous one. I don't want the source system to overwrite a file that I'm still processing.
On the other hand, the files are large, so it takes a few minutes to finish uploading them. I don't want to start processing a partial file. The files are just tranferred with FTP or sftp (my preference), so OS-level locking isn't an option.
Finally, I do need to keep the files around for a while, in case I need to manually inspect one of them (for debugging) or reprocess one.
I've seen a lot of ad-hoc approaches to shuffling upload files around, swapping filenames, using datestamps, touching "indicator" files to assist in synchronization, and so on. What I haven't seen yet is a comprehensive "algorithm" for processing files that addresses concurrency, consistency, and completeness.
So, I'd like to tap into the wisdom of crowds here. Has anyone seen a really bulletproof way to juggle batch data files so they're never processed too early, never overwritten before done, and safely kept after processing?
The key is to do the initial juggling at the sending end. All the sender needs to do is:
Store the file with a unique filename.
As soon as the file has been sent, move it to a subdirectory called e.g. completed.
Assuming there is only a single receiver process, all the receiver needs to do is:
Periodically scan the completed directory for any files.
As soon as a file appears in completed, move it to a subdirectory called e.g. processed, and start working on it from there.
Optionally delete it when finished.
On any sane filesystem, file moves are atomic provided they occur within the same filesystem/volume. So there are no race conditions.
Multiple Receivers
If processing could take longer than the period between files being delivered, you'll build up a backlog unless you have multiple receiver processes. So, how to handle the multiple-receiver case?
Simple: Each receiver process operates exactly as before. The key is that we attempt to move a file to processed before working on it: that, and the fact the same-filesystem file moves are atomic, means that even if multiple receivers see the same file in completed and try to move it, only one will succeed. All you need to do is make sure you check the return value of rename(), or whatever OS call you use to perform the move, and only proceed with processing if it succeeded. If the move failed, some other receiver got there first, so just go back and scan the completed directory again.
If the OS supports it, use file system hooks to intercept open and close file operations. Something like Dazuko. Other operating systems may let you know about file operations in anoter way, for example Novell Open Enterprise Server lets you define epochs, and read list of files modified during an epoch.
Just realized that in Linux, you can use inotify subsystem, or the utilities from inotify-tools package
File transfers is one of the classics of system integration. I'd recommend you to get the Enterprise Integration Patterns book to build your own answer to these questions -- to some extent, the answer depends on the technologies and platforms you are using for endpoint implementation and for file transfer. It's a quite comprehensive collection of workable patterns, and fairly well written.