I am trying to use Nifi to get a file from SFTP server. Potentially the file can be big , so my question is how to avoid getting the file while it is being written. I am planning to use ListSFTP+FetchSFTP but also okay with GetSFTP if it can avoid copying partially written files.
thank you
In addition to Andy's solid answer you can also be a bit more flexible by using the ListSFTP/FetchSFTP processor pair by doing some metadata based routing.
After ListSFTP each flowfile will have attributes such as 'file.lastModifiedTime' and others. You can read about them here https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/components/org.apache.nifi/nifi-standard-nar/1.3.0/org.apache.nifi.processors.standard.ListSFTP/index.html
You can put a RouteOnAttribute process in between the List and Fetch to detect objects that at least based on the reported last modified time are 'too new'. You could route those to a processor that is just a slow pass through to intentionally wait a bit. You can then run those back through the first router until they are 'old enough'. Now, this is admittedly a power user approach but it does give you a lot of flexibility and control. The approach I'm mentioning here is not fool proof as the source system may not report the last mod time correctly, it may not mean the source file is doing being written, etc.. But it gives you additional options IF you cannot do the definitely correct thing above that Andy talks about.
If you have control over the process which writes the file in, a common pattern to solve this is to initially write the file with a specific naming structure, such as beginning with .. After the successful write operation, the file is renamed without the . and it is picked up by the processor. Both GetSFTP and ListSFTP have a processor property called Ignore Dotted Files which is set to true by default and means those processors will not operate on or return files beginning with the dot character.
There is a minimum file age property you can use. The last modification time gets updated as the file is being written. Setting this value to something other than 0 will help fix the problem:
I have a flow, pretty big, which takes a csv and then eventually converts it to sql statements (via avro, json).
For a file of 5GB, flowfile_repo (while processing) went up to 24 GB and content_repo to 18 GB.
content_repo max 18 GB
flowfile_repo max 26 GB
Is there a way to predict how much space would I need for processing N files ?
Why it takes so much space ?
The flow file repo is check-pointed every 2 minutes by default, and is storing the state of every flow file as well as the attributes of every flow file. So it really depends how many flow files and how many attributes per flow file are being written during that 2 min window, as well as how many processors the flow files are passing through and how many of them are modifying the attributes.
The content repo is storing content claims, where each content claim contains the content of one or more flow files. Periodically there is a clean up thread that runs and determines if a content claim can be cleaned up. This is based on whether or not you have archiving enabled. If you have it disabled, then a content claim can be cleaned up when no active flow files reference any of the content in that claim.
The flow file content also follows a copy-on-write pattern, meaning the content is immutable and when a processor modifies the content it is actually writing a new copy. So if you had a 5GB flow file and it passed through a processor that modified the content like ReplaceText, it would write another 5GB to the content repo, and the original one could be removed based on the logic above about archiving and whether or not any flow files reference that content.
If you are interested in more info, there is an in depth document about how all this works here:
https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/nifi-in-depth.html
I am using PStore to store the results of some computer simulations. Unfortunately, when the file becomes too large (more than 2GB from what I can see) I am not able to write the file to disk anymore and I receive the following error;
Errno::EINVAL: Invalid argument - <filename>
I am aware that this is probably a limitation of IO but I was wondering whether there is a workaround. For example, to read large JSON files, I would first split the file and then read it in parts. Probably the definitive solution should be to switch to a proper database in the backend, but because of some limitations of the specific Ruby (Sketchup) I am using this is not always possible.
I am going to assume that your data has a field that could be used as a crude key.
Therefore I would suggest that instead of dumping data into one huge file, you could put your data into different files/buckets.
For example, if your data has a name field, you could take the first 1-4 chars of the name, create a file with those chars like rojj-datafile.pstore and add the entry there. Any records with a name starting 'rojj' go in that file.
A more structured version is to take the first char as a directory, then put the file inside that, like r/rojj-datafile.pstore.
Obviously your mechanism for reading/writing will have to take this new file structure into account, and it will undoubtedly end up slower to process the data into the pstores.
I want to be able to (programmatically) move (or copy and truncate) a file that is constantly in use and being written to. This would cause the file being written to would never be too big.
Is this possible? Either Windows or Linux is fine.
To be specific what I'm trying to do is log video with FFMPEG and create hour long videos.
It is possible in both Windows and Linux, but it would take cooperation between the applications involved. If the application that is writing the new data to the file is not aware of what the other application is doing, it probably would not work (well ... there is some possibility ... back to that in a moment).
In general, to get this to work, you would have to open the file shared. For example, if using the Windows API CreateFile, both applications would likely need to specify FILE_SHARE_READ and FILE_SHARE_WRITE. This would allow both (multiple) applications to read and write the file "concurrently".
Beyond sharing the file, though, it would also be necessary to coordinate the operations between the applications. You would need to use some kind of locking mechanism (either by locking some part of the file or some shared mutex/semaphore). Note that if you use file locking, you could lock some known offset in the file to act as a "semaphore" (it can even be a byte value beyond the physical end of the file). If one application were appending to the file at the same exact time that the other application were truncating it, then it would lead to unpredictable results.
Back to the comment about both applications needing to be aware of each other ... It is possible that if both applications opened the file exclusively and kept retrying the operations until they succeeded, then perform the operation, then close the file, it would essentially allow them to work without "knowledge" of each other. However, that would probably not work very well and not be very efficient.
Having said all that, you might want to consider alternatives for efficiency reasons. For example, if it were possible to have the writing application write to new files periodically, it might be more efficient than having to "move" the data constantly out of one file to another. Also, if you needed to maintain some portion of the file (e.g., move out the first 100 MB to another file and then move the second 100 MB to the beginning) that could be a fairly expensive operation as well.
logrotate would be a good option is linux, comes stock on just about any distro. I'm sure there's a similar windows service out there somewhere
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.