I need to append some bytes to an existing object stored in Openstack Swift, say like a log file object and constantly append new logs to it. Is this possible?
Moreover, can I change (overwrite) some bytes (specify with offset and length) to an existing object?
I believe ZeroVM (zerovm.org) would be perfect for doing this.
Disclaimer: I work for Rackspace, who owns ZeroVM. Opinions are mine and mine alone.
tl;dr: There's no append support currently in Swift.
There's a blueprint for Swift append support: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/object-append. It doesn't look very active.
user2195538 is correct. Using ZeroVM + Swift (using the ZeroCloud middleware for Swift) you could get a performance boost on large-ish objects by sending deltas to a ZeroVM app and process them in place. Of course you still have to read/update/write the file, but you can do it in place. You don't need to pipe the entire file over the network, which could/would be costly for large files.
Disclaimer: I also work for Rackspace, and I work on ZeroVM for my day job.
I'm writing a multipart downloader in Qt. Multiple QNetWorkRequest with http header "Range" are used to download a file. Now I write data received in each part(QNetworkReply) to file.part1, file.part2, etc.
Is it possible to write data to the same file simultaneously? Do I have to implement a lock for it and which is the best way to save data in my application?
Any suggestions?
Why not just merge the file parts when you are finished? You can write the parts to a QFile easily. Perhaps something about the approach or the data keeps you from doing this, but if you can, it's probably the approach I would take before dealing with treating a QFile as a shared resource.
If you want multiple concurrent replies to be able to write to and access the QFile, then yes, the QFile becomes a shared resource. As far as I know, you're going to need to lock it. At that point, you have several options. You can have the slot(s) handling the replies attempt to acquire a QSemaphore, you can use QMutex and QMutexLocker if you'd prefer to lock on a mutex. You could treat it as a multiple producer (the various QNetworkReplys) single consumer (whatever is writing to the file) problem (here's a Stack Overflow post that provides some useful links) if you want to go that route. In short, there are numerous approaches here, all of which I think are more of a hassle than simply merging the file.part's at the end if you're able to go that route.
In terms of merging to a single QFile concurrently, there may be an easier Qt way of doing it, but I've never found it. Perhaps someone else can chime in if such a method exists.
I'm not sure what you mean by "which is the best way to save data in my application?" Are you referring to saving application specific settings in a persistent manner? If so, look into QSettings. If you're referring to saving the data you're downloading, I'd probably write it to a QFile, just like you appear to be doing. Although it's hard to know for sure without knowing more about what you're downloading.
I will be creating a structure more or less of the form:
type FileState struct {
LastModified int64
Hash string
Path string
}
I want to write these values to a file and read them in on subsequent calls. My initial plan is to read them into a map and lookup values (Hash and LastModified) using the key (Path). Is there a slick way of doing this in Go?
If not, what file format can you recommend? I have read about and experimented with with some key/value file stores in previous projects, but not using Go. Right now, my requirements are probably fairly simple so a big database server system would be overkill. I just want something I can write to and read from quickly, easily, and portably (Windows, Mac, Linux). Because I have to deploy on multiple platforms I am trying to keep my non-go dependencies to a minimum.
I've considered XML, CSV, JSON. I've briefly looked at the gob package in Go and noticed a BSON package on the Go package dashboard, but I'm not sure if those apply.
My primary goal here is to get up and running quickly, which means the least amount of code I need to write along with ease of deployment.
As long as your entiere data fits in memory, you should't have a problem. Using an in-memory map and writing snapshots to disk regularly (e.g. by using the gob package) is a good idea. The Practical Go Programming talk by Andrew Gerrand uses this technique.
If you need to access those files with different programs, using a popular encoding like json or csv is probably a good idea. If you just have to access those file from within Go, I would use the excellent gob package, which has a lot of nice features.
As soon as your data becomes bigger, it's not a good idea to always write the whole database to disk on every change. Also, your data might not fit into the RAM anymore. In that case, you might want to take a look at the leveldb key-value database package by Nigel Tao, another Go developer. It's currently under active development (but not yet usable), but it will also offer some advanced features like transactions and automatic compression. Also, the read/write throughput should be quite good because of the leveldb design.
There's an ordered, key-value persistence library for the go that I wrote called gkvlite -
https://github.com/steveyen/gkvlite
JSON is very simple but makes bigger files because of the repeated variable names. XML has no advantage. You should go with CSV, which is really simple too. Your program will make less than one page.
But it depends, in fact, upon your modifications. If you make a lot of modifications and must have them stored synchronously on disk, you may need something a little more complex that a single file. If your map is mainly read-only or if you can afford to dump it on file rarely (not every second) a single csv file along an in-memory map will keep things simple and efficient.
BTW, use the csv package of go to do this.
I'm trying to start using plain text files to store data on a server, rather than storing them all in a big MySQL database. The problem is that I would likely be generating thousands of folders and hundreds of thousands of files (if I ever have to scale).
What are the problems with doing this? Does it get really slow? Is it about the same performance as using a Database?
What I mean:
Instead of having a database that stores a blog table, then has a row that contains "author", "message" and "date" I would instead have:
A folder for the specific post, then *.txt files inside that folder than has "author", "message" and "date" stored in them.
This would be immensely slower reading than a database (file writes all happen at about the same speed--you can't store a write in memory).
Databases are optimized and meant to handle such large amounts of structured data. File systems are not. It would be a mistake to try to replicate a database with a file system. After all, you can index your database columns, but it's tough to index the file system without another tool.
Databases are built for rapid data access and retrieval. File systems are built for data storage. Use the right tool for the job. In this case, it's absolutely a database.
That being said, if you want to create HTML files for the posts and then store those locales in a DB so that you can easily get to them, then that's definitely a good solution (a la Movable Type).
But if you store these things on a file system, how can you find out your latest post? Most prolific author? Most controversial author? All of those things are trivial with a database, and very hard with a file system. Stick with the database, you'll be glad you did.
It is really depends:
What is file size
What durability requirements do you have?
How many updates do you perform?
What is file system?
It is not obvious that MySQL would be faster:
I did once such comparison for small object in order to use it as sessions storage for CppCMS. With one index (Key Only) and Two indexes (primary key and secondary timeout).
File System: XFS ext3
-----------------------------
Writes/s: 322 20,000
Data Base \ Indexes: Key Only Key+Timeout
-----------------------------------------------
Berkeley DB 34,400 1,450
Sqlite No Sync 4,600 3,400
Sqlite Delayed Commit 20,800 11,700
As you can see, with simple Ext3 file system was faster or as fast as Sqlite3 for storing data because it does not give you (D) of ACID.
On the other hand... DB gives you many, many important features you probably need, so
I would not recommend using files as storage unless you really need it.
Remember, DB is not always the bottle neck of the system
Forget about long-winded answers, here's the simplest reasons why storing data in plaintext files is a bad idea:
It's near-impossible to query. How would you sort blog posts by date? You'd have to read all the files and compare their date, or maintain your own index file (basically, write your own database system.)
It's a nightmare to backup. tar cjf won't cut it, and if you try you may end up with an inconsistent snapshot.
There's probably a dozen other good reasons not to use files, it's hard to monitor performance, very hard to debug, near impossible to recover in case of error, there's no tools to handle them, etc...
I think the key here is that there will be NO indexing on your data. SO to retrieve anything in say a search would be rediculously slow compared to an indexed database. Also, IO operations are expensive, a database could be (partially) in memory, which makes the data available much faster.
You don't really say why you won't use a database yourself... But in the scenario you are describing I would definitely use a DB over folder any day, for a couple of reasons. First of all, the blog scenario seems very simple but it is very easy to imagine that you, someday, would like to expand it with more functionality such as search, more post details, categories etc.
I think that growing the model would be harder to do in a folder structure than in a DB.
Also, databases are usually MUCH faster that file access due to indexing and memory caching.
IIRC Fudforum used the file-storage for speed reasons, it can be a lot faster to grab a file than to search a DB index, retrieve the data from the DB and send it to the user. You're trading the filesystem interface with the DB and DB-library interfaces.
However, that doesn't mean it will be faster or slower. I think you'll find writing is quicker on the filesystem, but reading faster on the DB for general issues. If, like fudforum, you have relatively immutable data that you want to show several posts in one, then a file-basd approach may be a lot faster: eg they don't have to search for every related post, they stick it all in 1 text file and display it once. If you can employ that kind of optimisation, then your file-based approach will work.
Also, mail servers work in the file-based approach too, the Maildir format stores each email message as a file in a directory, not in a database.
one thing I would say though, you'll be better storing everything in 1 file, not 3. The filesystem is better at reading (and caching) a single file than it is with multiple ones. So if you want to store each message as 3 parts, save them all in a single file, read it to get any of the parts and just display the one you want to show.
...and then you want to search all posts by an author and you get to read a million files instead of a simple SQL query...
Databases are NOT faster. Think about it: In the end they store the data in the filesystem as well. So the question if a database is faster depends strongly on the access path.
If you have only one access path, which correlates with your file structure the file system might be way faster then a database. Just make sure you have some caching available for the filesystem.
Of course you do loose all the nice things of a database:
- transactions
- flexible ways to index data, and therefore access data in a flexible way reasonably fast.
- flexible (though ugly) query language
- high recoverability.
The scaling really depends on the filesystem used. AFAIK most file system have some kind of upper limit for number of files (totally or per directory), though on the new ones this is often very high. For hundreds and thousands of files with some directory structure to keep directories to a reasonable size it should be possible to find a well performing file system.
#Eric's comment:
It depends on what you need. If you only need the content of exact on file per query, and you can determine the location and name of the file in a deterministic way the direct access is faster than what a database does, which is roughly:
access a bunch of index entries, in order to
access a bunch of table rows (rdbms typically read blocks that contain multiple rows), in order to
pick a single row from the block.
If you look at it: you have indexes and additional rows in memory, which make your caching inefficient, where is the the speedup of a db supposed to come from?
Databases are great for the general case. But if you have a special case, there is almost always a special solution that is better in some sense.
if you are preferred to go away with RDBMS, why dont u try the other open source key value or document DBs (Non- relational Dbs)..
From ur posting i understand that u r not goin to follow any ACID properties of relational db.. it would be better to adapt other key value dbs (mongodb,coutchdb or hyphertable) instead of your own file system implementation.. it will give better performance than the existing approaches..
Note: I am not also expert in this.. just started working on MongoDB and find useful in similar scenarios. just wanted to share in case u r not aware of these approaches
I'm trying to read through the documentation on Berkeley DB XML, and I think I could really use a developer's blog post or synopsis of when they had a problem that found the XML layer atop Berkeley DB was the exact prescription for.
Maybe I'm not getting it, but it seems like they're both in-process DBs, and ultimately you will parse your XML into objects or data, so why not start by storing your data parsed, rather than as XML?
Ultimately I want my data stored in some reasonable format.
If that data started as XML and I want to retrieve it/them using XQuery, without the XML layer, I have to write a lot of code to do the XQuery by myself, and perhaps even worse to know my XML well enough to be able to have a reasonable storage system for it.
Conversely, so long as the performance of the system allows, I can forget about that part of the back end, and just worry about my XML document and up (i.e. to the user) level and leave the rest as a black box. It gives me the B-DB storage goodness, but I get to use it from a document-centric perspective.