My process creates a log file and appends a new line at the end of the file by using a, e.g:
fopen("log.txt", "a");
The order of the writes is not critical, but I need to ensure that fopen always succeeds. My question is, can the call above be executed from multiple processes at the same time on Windows, Linux and macOS without any race-condition?
If not, what is the most common and easy way to ensure I can write to the log file? There is file-lokcing, but also a file-lock (aka log.txt.lock) possible. Could anyone share some insights or resources which go more into detail?
If you do not use any synchronization between processes, you'll highly likely have moment when several processes will try to write to the file and the best you can get is mesh of input strings.
In order to synchronize any work in several processes (multiprocessing module). Use Lock. It will prevent several processes to do some work simultaneously.
It will look something like this:
import multiprocessing
# create lock in main process and "send" it to child processes.
lock = multiprocessing.Lock()
# ...
# in child Process
with lock:
do_some_work()
If you need more detailed example, feel free to ask.
Also you can check example in official docs
Related
I'd like to read and write a file atomically in Ruby between multiple independent Ruby processes (not threads).
I found atomic_write from ActiveSupport. This writes to a temp file, then moves it over the original and sets all permissions. However, this does not prevent the file from being read while it is being written.
I have not found any atomic_read. (Are file reads already atomic?)
Do I need to implement my own separate 'lock' file that I check for before reads and writes? Or is there a better mechanism already present in the file system for flagging a file as 'busy' that I could check before any read/write?
The motivation is dumb, but included here because you're going to ask about it.
I have a web application using Sinatra and served by Thin which (for its own reasons) uses a JSON file as a 'database'. Each request to the server reads the latest version of the file, makes any necessary changes, and writes out changes to the file.
This would be fine if I only had a single instance of the server running. However, I was thinking about having multiple copies of Thin running behind an Apache reverse proxy. These are discrete Ruby processes, and thus running truly in parallel.
Upon further reflection I realize that I really want to make the act of read-process-write atomic. At which point I realize that this basically forces me to process only one request at a time, and thus there's no reason to have multiple instances running. But the curiosity about atomic reads, and preventing reads during write, remains. Hence the question.
You want to use File#flock in exclusive mode. Here's a little demo. Run this in two different terminal windows.
filename = 'test.txt'
File.open(filename, File::RDWR) do |file|
file.flock(File::LOCK_EX)
puts "content: #{file.read}"
puts 'doing some heavy-lifting now'
sleep(10)
end
Take a look at transaction and open_and_lock_file methods in "pstore.rb" (Ruby stdlib).
YAML::Store works fine for me. So when I need to read/write atomically I (ab)use it to store data as a Hash.
I'm running multiple processes in parallel and each of these processes read the same file in parallel. It looks like some of the processes see a corrupted version of the file if I increase the number of processes to > 15 or so. What is the recommended way of handling such a scenario?
More details:
The file being read in parallel is actually a perl script. The multiple jobs are python processes, and each of them launch this perl script independently with different input parameters. When the number of jobs is increased, some of these jobs give errors that the perl script has invalid syntax (which is not true). Hence, I suspect that some of these jobs read in corrupted versions of the perl script.
I'm running all of this on a 32core machine.
If any process is also writing to the file, then you need to enforce some synchronization, for example with a global named mutex.
If there is no asynchronous writing going on, I would not expect to see corruption during the reads. Are you opening the files with "r" access? If you're still encountering troubles, it might be worth experimenting with reducing read buffer size. Or call out to a native win32 API for the file access.
Good luck!
Specifically, if the following events take place in the given order:
Process 1 opens a file in append mode.
Process 2 opens the same file in append mode.
Process 2 gets an exclusive lock using flock(2) on the file descriptor.
Process 1 attempts to write to the file.
What happens?
Will the write return immediately with a code indicating failure? Will it hang until the lock is released, then write and return success? Does the behavior vary by kernel? It seems odd that the documentation doesn't cover this case.
(I could write a couple processes to test it on my system, but I don't know whether my test would be representative of the general case, and if anyone does know, I can anticipate this answer saving a lot of other people a lot of time.)
The write proceeds as normal. flock provides advisory locking. Locking a file exclusively only prevents others from getting a shared or exclusive lock on the same file. Calls other than flock are not affected.
If I'm writing a simple text log file from multiple processes, can they overwrite/corrupt each other's entries?
(Basically, this question Is file append atomic in UNIX? but for Windows/NTFS.)
You can get atomic append on local files. Open the file with FILE_APPEND_DATA access (Documented in WDK). When you omit FILE_WRITE_DATA access then all writes will ignore the the current file pointer and be done at the end-of file. Or you may use FILE_WRITE_DATA access and for append writes specify it in overlapped structure (Offset = FILE_WRITE_TO_END_OF_FILE and OffsetHigh = -1 Documented in WDK).
The append behavior is properly synchronized between writes via different handles. I use that regularly for logging by multiple processes. I do write BOM at every open to offset 0 and all other writes are appended. The timestamps are not a problem, they can be sorted when needed.
Even if append is atomic (which I don't believe it is), it may not give you the results you want. For example, assuming a log includes a timestamp, it seems reasonable to expect more recent logs to be appended after older logs. With concurrency, this guarantee doesn't hold - if multiple processes are waiting to write to the same file, any one of them might get the write lock - not just the oldest one waiting. Thus, logs can be written out of sequence.
If this is not desirable behaviour, you can avoid it by publishing logs entries from all processes to a shared queue, such as a named pipe. You then have a single process that writes from this queue to the log file. This avoids the conccurrency issues, ensures that logs are written in order, and works when file appends are not atomic, since the file is only written to directly by one process.
From this MSDN page on creating and opening Files:
An application also uses CreateFile to specify whether it wants to share the file for reading, writing, both, or neither. This is known as the sharing mode. An open file that is not shared (dwShareMode set to zero) cannot be opened again, either by the application that opened it or by another application, until its handle has been closed. This is also referred to as exclusive access.
and:
If you specify an access or sharing mode that conflicts with the modes specified in the previous call, CreateFile fails.
So if you use CreateFile rather than say File.Open which doesn't have the same level of control over the file access, you should be able to open a file in such a way that it can't get corrupted by other processes.
You'll obviously have to add code to your processes to cope with the case where they can't get exclusive access to the log file.
No it isn't. If you need this there is Transactional NTFS in Windows Vista/7.
I am trying to write to a single file from multiple threads. The problem I'm running into is that I don't see anything being written to the file until the program exits.
You need to file.flush to write it out. You can also set file.sync = true to have it flush automatically.
What is the value of the sync method on your io object? It is possible that either ruby or the underlying o/s are buffering the file output.
Check out the refences on buffering and syncing within the documentation