I'm creating my custom binary file extension.
I use the RIFF standard for encoding data. And it seems to work pretty well.
But there are some additional requirements:
Binary files could be large up to 500 MB.
Real-time saving data into the binary file in intervals when data on the application has changed.
Application could run on the browser.
The problem I face is when I want to save data it needs to read everything from memory and rewrite the whole binary file.
This won't be a problem when data is small. But when it's getting larger, the Real-time saving feature seems to be unscalable.
So main requirement of this binary file could be:
Able to partially read the binary file (Cause file is huge)
Able to partially write changed data into the file without rewriting the whole file.
Streaming protocol like .m3u8 is not an option, We can't split it into chunks and point it using separate URLs.
Any guidance on how to design a binary file system that scales in this scenario?
There is an answer from a random user that has been deleted here.
It seems great to me.
You can claim your answer back and I'll delete this one.
He said:
If we design the file to be support addition then we able to add whatever data we want without needing to rewrite the whole file.
This idea gives me a very great starting point.
So I can append more and more changes at the end of the file.
Then obsolete old chunks of data in the middle of the file.
I can then reuse these obsolete data slots later if I want to.
The downside is that I need to clean up the obsolete slot when I have a chance to rewrite the whole file.
I would like to know if anybody has any experience writing data directly to disk without a file system - in a similar way that data would be written to a magnetic tape. In particular I would like to know if/how data is written in blocks, and whether a certain blocksize needs to be specified (like it does when writing to tape), and if there is a disk equivalent of a tape file mark, which separates the archives written to a tape.
We are creating a digital archive for over 1 PB of data, and we want redundancy built in to the system in as many levels as possible (by storing multiple copies using different storage media, and storage formats). Our current system works with tapes, and we have a mechanism for storing the block offset of each archive on each tape so we can restore it.
We'd like to extend the system to work with disk volumes without having to change much of the logic. Another advantage of not having a file system is that the solution would be portable across Operating Systems.
Note that the ability to browse the files on disk is not important in this application, since we are considering this for an archival copy of data which is not accessed independently. Also note that we would already have an index of the files stored in the application database, which we also write to the end of the tape/disk when it is almost full.
EDIT 27/05/2020: It seems that accessing the disk device as a raw/character device is what I'm looking for.
When writing to a file in Windows 7, Windows will cache the writes by default. When it completes the writes, does Windows preserve the order of writes, or can the writes happen out of order?
I have an existing application that writes continuously to a binary file. Every 20 seconds, it writes a block of data, updates the file's Table of Contents, and calls _commit() to flush the data to disk.
I am wondering if it is necessary to call commit, or if we can rely on Windows 7 to get the data to disk properly.
If the computer goes down, I'm not too worried about losing the most recent 20 seconds worth of data, but I am concerned about making the file invalid. If the file's Table of Contents is updated, but the data isn't present, then the file will not be correct. If the data is updated, but the Table of Contents isn't, then there will be extra data at the end of the file, but since it's not referenced by the Table of Contents, it is ignored when reading the file, and we have a correct file.
The writes will not necessarily happen in order. In particular if there are multiple disk I/Os outstanding, the filesystem/disk driver may reorder the I/O operations to reduce head motion. That means that there is no guarantee that data that is written to disk will be written in the order it was written to the file.
Having said that, flushing the file to disk will stall until the I/O is complete - that may mean several dozen milliseconds (or even longer) of inactivity when you application could be doing something more useful.
I'm a part of a team writing an application for embedded systems. The application often suffers from data corruption caused by power shortage. I thought that implementing some kind of transactions would stop this from happening. One scenario would include copying the area of a file before writing to some additional storage (transaction log). What are other possibilities?
Databases use a variety of techniques to assure that the state is properly persisted.
The DBMS often retains a replicated control file -- several synchronized copies on several devices. Two is enough. More if your're paranoid. The control file provides a few key parameters used to locate the other files and their expected states. The control file can include a "database version number".
Each file has a "version number" in several forms. A lot of times it's in plain form plus in some XOR-complement so that the two version numbers can be trivially checked to have the correct relationship, and match the control file version number.
All transactions are written to a transaction journal. The transaction journal is then written to the database files.
Before writing to database files, the original data block is copied to a "before image journal", or rollback segment, or some such.
When the block is written to the file, the sequence numbers are updated, and the block is removed from the transaction journal.
You can read up on RDBMS techniques for reliability.
There's a number of ways to do this; generally the only assumption required is that small writes (<4k) are atomic. For example, here's how CouchDB does it:
A 4k header contains, amongst other things, the file offset of the root of the BTree containing all the data.
The file is append-only. When updates are required, write the update to the end of the file, followed by any modified BTree nodes, up to and including the root. Then, flush the data, and write the new address of the root node to the header.
If the program dies while writing an update but before writing the header, the extra data at the end of the file is discarded. If it fails after writing the header, the write is complete and all is well. Because the file is append-only, these are the only failure scenarios. This also has the advantage of providing multi-version concurrency control with no read locks.
When the file grows too long, simply read out all the 'live' data and write it to a new file, then delete the original.
You can avoid implementing such transaction logs yourself by using existing transaction managers around file-systems, e.g. XADisk.
The old link is no longer available, a github repo is here.
Previously, I asked the question.
The problem is the demands of our file structure are very high.
For instance, we're trying to create a container with up to 4500 files and 500mb data.
The file structure of this container consists of
SQLite DB (under 1mb)
Text based xml-like file
Images inside a dynamic folder structure that make up the rest of the 4,500ish files
After the initial creation the images files are read only with the exception of deletion.
The small db is used regularly when the container is accessed.
Tar, Zip and the likes are all too slow (even with 0 compression). Slow is subjective I know, but to untar a container of this size is over 20 seconds.
Any thoughts?
As you seem to be doing arbitrary file system operations on your container (say, creation, deletion of new files in the container, overwriting existing files, appending), I think you should go for some kind of file system. Allocate a large file, then create a file system structure in it.
There are several options for the file system available: for both Berkeley UFS and Linux ext2/ext3, there are user-mode libraries available. It might also be possible that you find a FAT implementation somewhere. Make sure you understand the structure of the file system, and pick one that allows for extending - I know that ext2 is fairly easy to extend (by another block group), and FAT is difficult to extend (need to append to the FAT).
Alternatively, you can put a virtual disk format yet below the file system, allowing arbitrary remapping of blocks. Then "free" blocks of the file system don't need to appear on disk, and you can allocate the virtual disk much larger than the real container file will be.
Three things.
1) What Timothy Walters said is right on, I'll go in to more detail.
2) 4500 files and 500Mb of data is simply a lot of data and disk writes. If you're operating on the entire dataset, it's going to be slow. Just I/O truth.
3) As others have mentioned, there's no detail on the use case.
If we assume a read only, random access scenario, then what Timothy says is pretty much dead on, and implementation is straightforward.
In a nutshell, here is what you do.
You concatenate all of the files in to a single blob. While you are concatenating them, you track their filename, the file length, and the offset that the file starts within the blob. You write that information out in to a block of data, sorted by name. We'll call this the Table of Contents, or TOC block.
Next, then, you concatenate the two files together. In the simple case, you have the TOC block first, then the data block.
When you wish to get data from this format, search the TOC for the file name, grab the offset from the begining of the data block, add in the TOC block size, and read FILE_LENGTH bytes of data. Simple.
If you want to be clever, you can put the TOC at the END of the blob file. Then, append at the very end, the offset to the start of the TOC. Then you lseek to the end of the file, back up 4 or 8 bytes (depending on your number size), take THAT value and lseek even farther back to the start of your TOC. Then you're back to square one. You do this so you don't have to rebuild the archive twice at the beginning.
If you lay out your TOC in blocks (say 1K byte in size), then you can easily perform a binary search on the TOC. Simply fill each block with the File information entries, and when you run out of room, write a marker, pad with zeroes and advance to the next block. To do the binary search, you already know the size of the TOC, start in the middle, read the first file name, and go from there. Soon, you'll find the block, and then you read in the block and scan it for the file. This makes it efficient for reading without having the entire TOC in RAM. The other benefit is that the blocking requires less disk activity than a chained scheme like TAR (where you have to crawl the archive to find something).
I suggest you pad the files to block sizes as well, disks like work with regular sized blocks of data, this isn't difficult either.
Updating this without rebuilding the entire thing is difficult. If you want an updatable container system, then you may as well look in to some of the simpler file system designs, because that's what you're really looking for in that case.
As for portability, I suggest you store your binary numbers in network order, as most standard libraries have routines to handle those details for you.
Working on the assumption that you're only going to need read-only access to the files why not just merge them all together and have a second "index" file (or an index in the header) that tells you the file name, start position and length. All you need to do is seek to the start point and read the correct number of bytes. The method will vary depending on your language but it's pretty straight forward in most of them.
The hardest part then becomes creating your data file + index, and even that is pretty basic!
An ISO disk image might do the trick. It should be able to hold that many files easily, and is supported by many pieces of software on all the major operating systems.
First, thank-you for expanding your question, it helps a lot in providing better answers.
Given that you're going to need a SQLite database anyway, have you looked at the performance of putting it all into the database? My experience is based around SQL Server 2000/2005/2008 so I'm not positive of the capabilities of SQLite but I'm sure it's going to be a pretty fast option for looking up records and getting the data, while still allowing for delete and/or update options.
Usually I would not recommend to put files inside the database, but given that the total size of all images is around 500MB for 4500 images you're looking at a little over 100K per image right? If you're using a dynamic path to store the images then in a slightly more normalized database you could have a "ImagePaths" table that maps each path to an ID, then you can look for images with that PathID and load the data from the BLOB column as needed.
The XML file(s) could also be in the SQLite database, which gives you a single 'data file' for your app that can move between Windows and OSX without issue. You can simply rely on your SQLite engine to provide the performance and compatability you need.
How you optimize it depends on your usage, for example if you're frequently needing to get all images at a certain path then having a PathID (as an integer for performance) would be fast, but if you're showing all images that start with "A" and simply show the path as a property then an index on the ImageName column would be of more use.
I am a little concerned though that this sounds like premature optimization, as you really need to find a solution that works 'fast enough', abstract the mechanics of it so your application (or both apps if you have both Mac and PC versions) use a simple repository or similar and then you can change the storage/retrieval method at will without any implication to your application.
Check Solid File System - it seems to be what you need.