How do I handle modified time with http.ServeContent()? - go

I'm trying to use ServeContent to serve files (which may be large movie files, so it will use byte ranges), but I'm not sure how to handle the modified time. If I use the following program to serve a movie, it fails if I give the actual modified time of the file as shown. I think what happens is that the first request works, but subsequent ones (of different byte ranges of the file) think it already has the file and therefore they fail and the movie doesn't play. Is there something I am doing wrong?
Note that the code works (and the movie plays properly) if I use time.Now() instead of the actual modified time of the file, but that isn't correct of course.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"net/http"
"os"
"path"
"time"
)
func main() {
http.HandleFunc("/", handler)
http.ListenAndServe(":3000", nil)
}
func handler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
filePath := "." + r.URL.Path
file, err := os.Open(filePath)
if err != nil {
fmt.Printf("%s not found\n", filePath)
w.WriteHeader(http.StatusNotFound)
fmt.Fprint(w, "<html><body style='font-size:100px'>four-oh-four</body></html>")
return
}
defer file.Close()
fileStat, err := os.Stat(filePath)
if err != nil {
fmt.Println(err)
}
fmt.Printf("serve %s\n", filePath)
_, filename := path.Split(filePath)
t := fileStat.ModTime()
fmt.Printf("time %+v\n", t)
http.ServeContent(w, r, filename, t, file)
}

According to the documentation,
If modtime is not the zero time, ServeContent includes it in a Last-Modified header in the response. If the request includes an If-Modified-Since header, ServeContent uses modtime to decide whether the content needs to be sent at all.
So, depending on whether the client sends the If-Modified-Since header, this function will behave correctly or not. This seems to be the intended behaviour, and is indeed useful in normal situations to optimize the server's bandwidth.
In your case, however, as you have to handle partial-content requests, unless the first request returns a 30X HTTP code, you have no reason to handle this mechanism for subsequent requests.
The correct way to disable this behaviour is to pass a "zero" date to ServeContent:
http.ServeContent(w, r, filename, time.Time{}, file)
You could try to parse the request range header in order to only pass a zero date if necessary.

Related

Sending value into Channel and Reading output when Ready

I am trying to construct a receiver and sender pattern using two channels in Golang. I am doing a task (API call), and receiving back a Response struct. My goal is that when a response is received I'd like to send it to another channel (writeChan) for additional processing.
I'd like to continuously read/listen on that receiver channel (respChan) and process anything that comes through (such as a Response). Then I'd like to spin up a thread to go and do a further operation with that Response in another goroutine.
I'd like to understand how I can chain together this pattern to allow data to flow from the API calls and concurrently write it (each Response will be written to a separate file destination which the Write() func handles.
Essentially my current pattern is the following:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
)
func main() {
var wg sync.WaitGroup
respChan := make(chan Response) // Response is a struct that contains API response metadata
defer close(respChan)
// requests is just a slice of requests to be made to an API
// This part is working well
for _, req := range requests {
wg.Add(1)
go func(r Request) {
defer wg.Done()
resp, _ := r.Get() // Make the API call and receive back a Response struct
respChan <- resp // Put the response into our channel
}(req)
}
// Now, I want to extract the responses as they become available and send them to another function to do some processing. This I am unsure of how to handle properly
writeChan := make(chan string)
defer close(writeChan)
select {
case resp := <-respChan: // receive from response channel
go func(response Response) {
signal, _ := Write(response) // Separate func to write the response to a file. Not important here in this context.
writeChan <- signal // Put the signal data into the channel which is a string file path of where the file was written (will be used for a later process)
}(resp)
case <-time.After(15 *time.Second):
fmt.Println("15 seconds have passed without receiving anything...")
}
wg.Wait()
}
Let me share with you a working example that you can benefit from. First, I'm gonna present the code, then, I'm gonna walk you through all the relevant sections.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"net/http"
"os"
"strings"
"time"
)
type Request struct {
Url string
DelayInSeconds time.Duration
}
type Response struct {
Url string
StatusCode int
}
func main() {
requests := []Request{
{"https://www.google.com", 0},
{"https://stackoverflow.com", 1},
{"https://www.wikipedia.com", 4},
}
respChan := make(chan Response)
defer close(respChan)
for _, req := range requests {
go func(r Request) {
fmt.Printf("%q - %v\n", r.Url, strings.Repeat("#", 30))
// simulate heavy work
time.Sleep(time.Second * r.DelayInSeconds)
resp, _ := http.Get(r.Url)
res := Response{r.Url, resp.StatusCode}
fmt.Println(time.Now())
respChan <- res
}(req)
}
writeChan := make(chan struct{})
defer close(writeChan)
for i := 0; i < len(requests); i++ {
select {
case res := <-respChan:
go func(r Response) {
f, err := os.Create(fmt.Sprintf("%v.txt", strings.Replace(r.Url, "https://", "", 1)))
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
defer f.Close()
f.Write([]byte(fmt.Sprintf("%q OK with %d\n", r.Url, r.StatusCode)))
writeChan <- struct{}{}
}(res)
case <-time.After(time.Second * 2):
fmt.Println("Timeout")
}
}
}
Set up
First, I've defined the two structs that will be used in the example: Request and Response. In the former, I put a DelayInSeconds to mock some heavy loads and time-consuming operations. Then, I defined the requests variable that contains all the requests that have to be done.
The writing part
Here, I range over the requests variable. For each request, I'm gonna issue an HTTP request to the target URL. The time.Sleep emulate the heavy load. Then, I write the response to the respChan channel which is unbuffered.
The reading part
Here, the major change is to wrap the select construct into a for loop. Thanks to this, we'll make sure to iterate the right times (based on the length of the requests variable).
Final notes
First of all, bear in mind that the code is oversimplified just to show off the relevant parts. Due to this, a lot of error handling is missing and some inline functions could be extrapolated into named functions. You don't need to use sync.WaitGroup to achieve what you need, the usage of channels will be enough.
Feel free to play with delays and check which files are written!
Let me know if this helps you!
Edit
As requested, I'm gonna provide you with a more accurate solution based on your needs. The new reading part will be something like the following:
count := 0
for {
// this check is need to exit the for loop and not wait indefinitely
// it can be removed based on your needs
if count == 3 {
fmt.Println("all responses arrived...")
return
}
res := <-respChan
count++
go func(r Response) {
f, err := os.Create(fmt.Sprintf("%v.txt", strings.Replace(r.Url, "https://", "", 1)))
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
defer f.Close()
f.Write([]byte(fmt.Sprintf("%q OK with %d\n", r.Url, r.StatusCode)))
writeChan <- struct{}{}
}(res)
}
Here, the execution is waiting indefinitely within the for loop. No matter how long each request takes to complete, it will be fetched as soon as it arrives. I put, at the top of the for loop, an if to exit after it processed the requests that we need. However, you can avoid it and let the code run till a cancellation signal comes in (it's up to you).
Let me know if this better meets your requirements, thanks!

Getting `panic: os: invalid use of WriteAt on file opened with O_APPEND`

I am a newbie to Go. Was starting to write my first code in which I have to download a bunch of CSV's from AWS. I don't understand why it is giving me the below error with O_APPEND mode. If I remove os.O_APPEND, I only get the last file data which is not the objective.
The objective is to download all CSV files into one file locally. I'd like to understand what I'm doing incorrectly.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"os"
"path/filepath"
"github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws"
"github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/credentials"
"github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/session"
"github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/service/s3"
"github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/service/s3/s3manager"
)
const (
AccessKeyId = "xxxxxxxxx"
SecretAccessKey = "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Region = "eu-central-1"
Bucket = "dexter-reports"
bucketKey = "Jenkins/pluginVersions/"
)
func main() {
// Load the Shared AWS Configuration
os.Setenv("AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID", AccessKeyId)
os.Setenv("AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY", SecretAccessKey)
filename := "JenkinsPluginDetais.txt"
cred := credentials.NewStaticCredentials(AccessKeyId, SecretAccessKey, "")
config := aws.Config{Credentials: cred, Region: aws.String(Region), Endpoint: aws.String("s3.amazonaws.com")}
file, err := os.OpenFile(filename, os.O_APPEND|os.O_WRONLY|os.O_CREATE, 0666)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
defer file.Close()
sess, err := session.NewSession(&config)
if err != nil {
fmt.Println(err)
}
//list Buckets
ObjectList := listBucketObjects(sess)
//loop over the obectlist. First initialize the s3 downloader via s3manager
downloader := s3manager.NewDownloader(sess)
for _, item := range ObjectList.Contents {
csvFile := filepath.Base(*item.Key)
if csvFile != "pluginVersions" {
downloadBucketObjects(downloader, file, csvFile)
}
}
}
func listBucketObjects(sess *session.Session) *s3.ListObjectsV2Output {
//create a new s3 client
svc := s3.New(sess)
resp, err := svc.ListObjectsV2(&s3.ListObjectsV2Input{
Bucket: aws.String(Bucket),
Prefix: aws.String(bucketKey),
})
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
return resp
}
func downloadBucketObjects(downloader *s3manager.Downloader, file *os.File, keyobj string) {
fileToDownload := bucketKey + keyobj
numBytes, err := downloader.Download(file,
&s3.GetObjectInput{
Bucket: aws.String(Bucket),
Key: aws.String(fileToDownload),
})
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
fmt.Println("Downloaded", file.Name(), numBytes, "bytes")
}
Firstly, I don't get it why do you even need os.O_APPEND flag in the first place. As per my understanding, you can omit os.O_APPEND.
Now, let's come to the actual problem of why it's happening:
Doc for O_APPEND (Ref: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/open.2.html):
O_APPEND
The file is opened in append mode. Before each write(2),
the file offset is positioned at the end of the file, as
if with lseek(2). The modification of the file offset and
the write operation are performed as a single atomic step.
So for every call to write the file offset is positioned at the end of the file.
But (*s3Manager.Download).Download supposedly be using WriteAt method, i.e.,
Doc for WriteAt:
$ go doc os WriteAt
package os // import "os"
func (f *File) WriteAt(b []byte, off int64) (n int, err error)
WriteAt writes len(b) bytes to the File starting at byte offset off. It
returns the number of bytes written and an error, if any. WriteAt returns a
non-nil error when n != len(b).
If file was opened with the O_APPEND flag, WriteAt returns an error.
Notice the last line, that if the file's opened with O_APPEND flag it will result in an error and it's even right because WriteAt's second argument is an offset but mixing O_APPEND's behaviour and WriteAt offset seeking might create problem resulting in unexpected results and it errors out.
Consider the definition of s3manager.Downloader:
func (d Downloader) Download(w io.WriterAt, input *s3.GetObjectInput, options ...func(*Downloader)) (n int64, err error)
The first argument is an io.WriterAt; this interface is:
type WriterAt interface {
WriteAt(p []byte, off int64) (n int, err error)
}
This means that the Download function is going to call the WriteAt method in the File you are passing it. As per the documentation for File.WriteAt
If file was opened with the O_APPEND flag, WriteAt returns an error.
So this explains why you are getting the error but raises the question "why is Download using WriteAt and not accepting an io.Writer (and calling Write)?"; the answer can be found in the documentation:
The w io.WriterAt can be satisfied by an os.File to do multipart concurrent downloads, or in memory []byte wrapper using aws.WriteAtBuffer
So, to increase performance, Downloader might make multiple simultaneous requests for parts of the file and then write these out as they are received (meaning it may not write the data in order). This also explains why calling the function multiple times with the same File results in overwritten data (when Downloader retrieves the each chunk of the file it writes it out at the appropriate position in the output file; this overwrites any data already there).
The above quote from the documentation also points to a possible solution; use an aws.WriteAtBuffer and, once the download is finished, write the data to your file (which could then be opened with O_APPEND) - something like this:
buf := aws.NewWriteAtBuffer([]byte{})
numBytes, err := downloader.Download(buf,
&s3.GetObjectInput{
Bucket: aws.String(Bucket),
Key: aws.String(fileToDownload),
})
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
_, err = file.Write(buf.Bytes())
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
An alternative would be to download into a temporary file and then append that to your output file (you may need to do this if the files are large).

How to make concurrent GET requests from url pool

I completed the suggested go-tour, watched some tutorials and gopher-conferences on YouTube. And that's pretty much it.
I have a project which requires me to send get requests and store the results in files. But amount of URL's is around 80 million.
I'm testing with 1000 URLs only.
Problem: I think I couldn't managed to make it concurrent, although I've followed some guidelines. I don't know what's wrong. But maybe I'm wrong and it's concurrent, just did not seem fast to me, the speed felt like sequential requests.
Here is the code I've written:
package main
import (
"bufio"
"io/ioutil"
"log"
"net/http"
"os"
"sync"
"time"
)
var wg sync.WaitGroup // synchronization to wait for all the goroutines
func crawler(urlChannel <-chan string) {
defer wg.Done()
client := &http.Client{Timeout: 10 * time.Second} // single client is sufficient for multiple requests
for urlItem := range urlChannel {
req1, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", "http://"+urlItem, nil) // generating the request
req1.Header.Add("User-agent", "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i586; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/74.0") // changing user-agent
resp1, respErr1 := client.Do(req1) // sending the prepared request and getting the response
if respErr1 != nil {
continue
}
defer resp1.Body.Close()
if resp1.StatusCode/100 == 2 { // means server responded with 2xx code
text1, readErr1 := ioutil.ReadAll(resp1.Body) // try to read the sourcecode of the website
if readErr1 != nil {
log.Fatal(readErr1)
}
f1, fileErr1 := os.Create("200/" + urlItem + ".txt") // creating the relative file
if fileErr1 != nil {
log.Fatal(fileErr1)
}
defer f1.Close()
_, writeErr1 := f1.Write(text1) // writing the sourcecode into our file
if writeErr1 != nil {
log.Fatal(writeErr1)
}
}
}
}
func main() {
file, err := os.Open("urls.txt") // the file containing the url's
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
defer file.Close() // don't forget to close the file
urlChannel := make(chan string, 1000) // create a channel to store all the url's
scanner := bufio.NewScanner(file) // each line has another url
for scanner.Scan() {
urlChannel <- scanner.Text()
}
close(urlChannel)
_ = os.Mkdir("200", 0755) // if it's there, it will create an error, and we will simply ignore it
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go crawler(urlChannel)
}
wg.Wait()
}
My question is: why is this code not working concurrently? How can I solve the problem I've mentioned above. Is there something that I'm doing wrong for making concurrent GET requests?
Here's some code to get you thinking. I put the URLs in the code so it is self-sufficient, but you'd probably be piping them to stdin in practice. There's a few things I'm doing here that I think are improvements, or at least worth thinking about.
Before we get started, I'll point out that I put the complete url in the input stream. For one thing, this lets me support http and https both. I don't really see the logic behind hard coding the scheme in the code rather than leaving it in the data.
First, it can handle arbitrarily sized response bodies (your version reads the body into memory, so it is limited by some number of concurrent large requests filling memory). I do this with io.Copy().
[edited]
text1, readErr1 := ioutil.ReadAll(resp1.Body) reads the entire http body. If the body is large, it will take up lots of memory. io.Copy(f1,resp1.Body) would instead copy the data from the http response body directly to the file, without having to hold the whole thing in memory. It may be done in one Read/Write or many.
http.Response.Body is an io.ReadCloser because the HTTP protocol expects the body to be read progressively. http.Response does not yet have the entire body, until it is read. That's why it's not just a []byte. Writing it to the filesystem progressively while the data "streams" in from the tcp socket means that a finite amount of system resources can download an unlimited amount of data.
But there's even more benefit. io.Copy will call ReadFrom() on the file. If you look at the linux implementation (for example): https://golang.org/src/os/readfrom_linux.go , and dig a bit, you'll see it actually uses copy_file_range That system call is cool because
The copy_file_range() system call performs an in-kernel copy between two file descriptors without the additional cost of transferring data from the kernel to user space and then back into the kernel.
*os.File knows how to ask the kernel to deliver data directly from the tcp socket to the file without your program even having to touch it.
See https://golang.org/pkg/io/#Copy.
Second, I make sure to use all the url components in the filename. URLs with different query strings go to different files. The fragment probably doesn't differentiate response bodies, so including that in the path may be ill considered. There's no awesome heuristic for turning URLs into valid file paths - if this were a serious task, I'd probably store the data in files based on a shasum of the url or something - and create an index of results stored in a metadata file.
Third, I handle all errors. req1, _ := http.NewRequest(... might seem like a convenient shortcut, but what it really means is that you won't know the real cause of any errors - at best. I usually add some descriptive text to the errors when percolating up, to make sure I can easily tell which error I'm returning.
Finally, I return successfully processed URLs so that I can see the final results. When scanning millions of URLS, you'd probably also want a list of which failed, but a count of successful is a good start at sending final data back for summary.
package main
import (
"bufio"
"bytes"
"fmt"
"io"
"log"
"net/http"
"net/url"
"os"
"path/filepath"
"time"
)
const urls_text = `http://danf.us/
https://farrellit.net/?3=2&#1
`
func crawler(urls <-chan *url.URL, done chan<- int) {
var processed int = 0
defer func() { done <- processed }()
client := http.Client{Timeout: 10 * time.Second}
for u := range urls {
if req, err := http.NewRequest("GET", u.String(), nil); err != nil {
log.Printf("Couldn't create new request for %s: %s", u.String(), err.Error())
} else {
req.Header.Add("User-agent", "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i586; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/74.0") // changing user-agent
if res, err := client.Do(req); err != nil {
log.Printf("Failed to get %s: %s", u.String(), err.Error())
} else {
filename := filepath.Base(u.EscapedPath())
if filename == "/" || filename == "" {
filename = "response"
} else {
log.Printf("URL Filename is '%s'", filename)
}
destpath := filepath.Join(
res.Status, u.Scheme, u.Hostname(), u.EscapedPath(),
fmt.Sprintf("?%s",u.RawQuery), fmt.Sprintf("#%s",u.Fragment), filename,
)
if err := os.MkdirAll(filepath.Dir(destpath), 0755); err != nil {
log.Printf("Couldn't create directory %s: %s", filepath.Dir(destpath), err.Error())
} else if f, err := os.OpenFile(destpath, os.O_WRONLY|os.O_CREATE|os.O_TRUNC, 0644); err != nil {
log.Printf("Couldn't open destination file %s: %s", destpath, err.Error())
} else {
if b, err := io.Copy(f, res.Body); err != nil {
log.Printf("Could not copy %s body to %s: %s", u.String(), destpath, err.Error())
} else {
log.Printf("Copied %d bytes from body of %s to %s", b, u.String(), destpath)
processed++
}
f.Close()
}
res.Body.Close()
}
}
}
}
const workers = 3
func main() {
urls := make(chan *url.URL)
done := make(chan int)
var submitted int = 0
var inputted int = 0
var successful int = 0
for i := 0; i < workers; i++ {
go crawler(urls, done)
}
sc := bufio.NewScanner(bytes.NewBufferString(urls_text))
for sc.Scan() {
inputted++
if u, err := url.Parse(sc.Text()); err != nil {
log.Printf("Could not parse %s as url: %w", sc.Text(), err)
} else {
submitted++
urls <- u
}
}
close(urls)
for i := 0; i < workers; i++ {
successful += <-done
}
log.Printf("%d urls input, %d could not be parsed. %d/%d valid URLs successful (%.0f%%)",
inputted, inputted-submitted,
successful, submitted,
float64(successful)/float64(submitted)*100.0,
)
}
When setting up a concurrent pipeline, a good guideline to follow is to always first set up and instantiate the listeners that will execute concurrently (in your case, crawlers), and then start feeding them data through the pipeline (in your case, the urlChannel).
In your example, the only thing preventing a deadlock is the fact that you've instantiated a buffered channel with the same number of rows that your test file has (1000 rows). What the code does is it puts URLs inside the urlChannel. Since there are 1000 rows inside your file, the urlChannel can take all of them without blocking. If you put more URLs inside the file, the execution will block after filling up the urlChannel.
Here is the version of the code that should work:
package main
import (
"bufio"
"io/ioutil"
"log"
"net/http"
"os"
"sync"
"time"
)
func crawler(wg *sync.WaitGroup, urlChannel <-chan string) {
defer wg.Done()
client := &http.Client{Timeout: 10 * time.Second} // single client is sufficient for multiple requests
for urlItem := range urlChannel {
req1, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", "http://"+urlItem, nil) // generating the request
req1.Header.Add("User-agent", "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i586; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/74.0") // changing user-agent
resp1, respErr1 := client.Do(req1) // sending the prepared request and getting the response
if respErr1 != nil {
continue
}
if resp1.StatusCode/100 == 2 { // means server responded with 2xx code
text1, readErr1 := ioutil.ReadAll(resp1.Body) // try to read the sourcecode of the website
if readErr1 != nil {
log.Fatal(readErr1)
}
resp1.Body.Close()
f1, fileErr1 := os.Create("200/" + urlItem + ".txt") // creating the relative file
if fileErr1 != nil {
log.Fatal(fileErr1)
}
_, writeErr1 := f1.Write(text1) // writing the sourcecode into our file
if writeErr1 != nil {
log.Fatal(writeErr1)
}
f1.Close()
}
}
}
func main() {
var wg sync.WaitGroup
file, err := os.Open("urls.txt") // the file containing the url's
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
defer file.Close() // don't forget to close the file
urlChannel := make(chan string)
_ = os.Mkdir("200", 0755) // if it's there, it will create an error, and we will simply ignore it
// first, initialize crawlers
wg.Add(10)
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
go crawler(&wg, urlChannel)
}
//after crawlers are initialized, start feeding them data through the channel
scanner := bufio.NewScanner(file) // each line has another url
for scanner.Scan() {
urlChannel <- scanner.Text()
}
close(urlChannel)
wg.Wait()
}

Getting IP addresses from big nfcapd binary files

I need to get information about source IPs and destination IPs from nfcapd binary file. The problem is in file's size. I know that it is not desirable to open and read very large (more than 1 GB) files with io or os package.
Here is my hacking and draft start:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
"os"
"github.com/tehmaze/netflow/netflow5"
"log"
"io"
"bytes"
)
type Message interface {}
func main() {
startTime := time.Now()
getFile := os.Args[1]
processFile(getFile)
endTime := time.Since(startTime)
log.Printf("Program executes in %s", endTime)
}
func processFile(fileName string) {
file, err := os.Open(fileName)
// Check if file is not empty. If it is, then exit from program
if err != nil {
fmt.Println(err)
os.Exit(1)
}
// Useful to close file after getting information about it
defer file.Close()
Read(file)
}
func Read(r io.Reader) (Message, error) {
data := [2]byte{}
if _, err := r.Read(data[:]); err != nil {
return nil, err
}
buffer := bytes.NewBuffer(data[:])
mr := io.MultiReader(buffer, r)
return netflow5.Read(mr)
}
I want to split file into chunks with 24 flows and process it concurrently after reading with netflow package. But I do not imagine how to do it without losing any data during division.
Please fix me if I missed something in code or description. I spend a lot of time in searching my solution on the web and thinking about another possible implementations.
Any help and/or advice will be highly appreciated.
File has the following properties (command file -I <file_name> in terminal):
file_name: application/octet-stream; charset=binary
The output of file after command nfdump -r <file_name> has this structure:
Date first seen Duration Proto Src IP Addr:Port Dst IP Addr:Port Packets Bytes Flows
Every property is on own column.
UPDATE 1:
Unfortunately, it is impossible to parse file with netflow package due to difference in binary file structure after saving it on disk via nfcapd. This answer was given by one of the nfdump contributors.
The only way now is to run nfdump from terminal in go program like pynfdump.
Another possible solution in the future is to use gopacket.
IO is is almost always going to be the limiting factor when parsing a file, and unless there is heavy computation involved, reading a single file serially is going to be the fastest way to process it.
Wrap the file in a bufio.Reader and give it to the Read function:
file, err := os.Open(fileName)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal((err)
}
defer file.Close()
packet, err := netflow5.Read(bufio.NewReader(file))
Once it's parsed, you can then split up the records if you need to handle the chunks separately.

Goroutines broke the program

The problem is this: There is a web server. I figured that it would be beneficial to use goroutines in page loading, so I went ahead and did: called loadPage function as a goroutine. However, when doing this, the server simply stops working without errors. It prints a blank, white page. The problem has to be in the function itself- something there is conflicting with the goroutine somehow.
These are the relevant functions:
func loadPage(w http.ResponseWriter, path string) {
s := GetFileContent(path)
w.Header().Add("Content-Type", getHeader(path))
w.Header().Add("Content-Length", GetContentLength(path))
fmt.Fprint(w, s)
}
func GetFileContent(path string) string {
cont, err := ioutil.ReadFile(path)
e(err)
aob := len(cont)
s := string(cont[:aob])
return s
}
func GetFileContent(path string) string {
cont, err := ioutil.ReadFile(path)
e(err)
aob := len(cont)
s := string(cont[:aob])
return s
}
func getHeader(path string) string {
images := []string{".jpg", ".jpeg", ".gif", ".png"}
readable := []string{".htm", ".html", ".php", ".asp", ".js", ".css"}
if ArrayContainsSuffix(images, path) {
return "image/jpeg"
}
if ArrayContainsSuffix(readable, path) {
return "text/html"
}
return "file/downloadable"
}
func ArrayContainsSuffix(arr []string, c string) bool {
length := len(arr)
for i := 0; i < length; i++ {
s := arr[i]
if strings.HasSuffix(c, s) {
return true
}
}
return false
}
The reason why this happens is because your HandlerFunc which calls "loadPage" is called synchronously with the request. When you call it in a go routine the Handler is actually returning immediately, causing the response to be sent immediately. That's why you get a blank page.
You can see this in server.go (line 1096):
serverHandler{c.server}.ServeHTTP(w, w.req)
if c.hijacked() {
return
}
w.finishRequest()
The ServeHTTP function calls your handler, and as soon as it returns it calls "finishRequest". So your Handler function must block as long as it wants to fulfill the request.
Using a go routine will actually not make your page any faster. Synchronizing a singe go routine with a channel, as Philip suggests, will also not help you in this case as that would be the same as not having the go routine at all.
The root of your problem is actually ioutil.ReadFile, which buffers the entire file into memory before sending it.
If you want to stream the file you need to use os.Open. You can use io.Copy to stream the contents of the file to the browser, which will used chunked encoding.
That would look something like this:
f, err := os.Open(path)
if err != nil {
http.Error(w, "Not Found", http.StatusNotFound)
return
}
n, err := io.Copy(w, f)
if n == 0 && err != nil {
http.Error(w, "Error", http.StatusInternalServerError)
return
}
If for some reason you need to do work in multiple go routines, take a look at sync.WaitGroup. Channels can also work.
If you are trying to just serve a file, there are other options that are optimized for this, such as FileServer or ServeFile.
In the typical web framework implementations in Go, the route handlers are invoked as Goroutines. I.e. at some point the web framework will say go loadPage(...).
So if you call a Go routine from inside loadPage, you have two levels of Goroutines.
The Go scheduler is really lazy and will not execute the second level if it's not forced to. So you need to enforce it through synchronization events. E.g. by using channels or the sync package. Example:
func loadPage(w http.ResponseWriter, path string) {
s := make(chan string)
go GetFileContent(path, s)
fmt.Fprint(w, <-s)
}
The Go documentation says this:
If the effects of a goroutine must be observed by another goroutine,
use a synchronization mechanism such as a lock or channel
communication to establish a relative ordering.
Why is this actually a smart thing to do? In larger projects you may deal with a large number of Goroutines that need to be coordinated somehow efficiently. So why call a Goroutine if it's output is used nowhere? A fun fact: I/O operations like fmt.Printf do trigger synchronization events too.

Resources