Which one is better : MemoryStream.WriteTo(Stream destinationStream) or Stream.CopyTo(Stream destinationStream)??
I am talking about the comparison of these two methods without Buffer as I am doing like this :
Stream str = File.Open("SomeFile.file");
MemoryStream mstr = new MemoryStream(File.ReadAllBytes("SomeFile.file"));
using(var Ms = File.Create("NewFile.file", 8 * 1024))
{
str.CopyTo(Ms) or mstr.WriteTo(Ms);// Which one will be better??
}
Update
Here is what I want to Do :
Open File [ Say "X" Type File]
Parse the Contents
From here I get a Bunch of new Streams [ 3 ~ 4 Files ]
Parse One Stream
Extract Thousands of files [ The Stream is an Image File ]
Save the Other Streams To Files
Editing all the Files
Generate a New "X" Type File.
I have written every bit of code which is actually working correctly..
But Now I am optimizing the code to make the most efficient.
It is an historical accident that there are two ways to do the same thing. MemoryStream always had the WriteTo() method, Stream didn't acquire the CopyTo() method until .NET 4.
The MemoryStream.WriteTo() version looks like this:
public virtual void WriteTo(Stream stream)
{
// Exception throwing code elided...
stream.Write(this._buffer, this._origin, this._length - this._origin);
}
The Stream.CopyTo() implementation like this:
private void InternalCopyTo(Stream destination, int bufferSize)
{
int num;
byte[] buffer = new byte[bufferSize];
while ((num = this.Read(buffer, 0, buffer.Length)) != 0)
{
destination.Write(buffer, 0, num);
}
}
Stream.CopyTo() is more universal, it works for any stream. And helps programmers that fumble copying data from, say, a NetworkStream. Forgetting to pay attention to the return value from Read() was a very common bug. But it of course copies the bytes twice and allocates that temporary buffer, MemoryStream doesn't need it since it can write directly from its own buffer. So you'd still prefer WriteTo(). Noticing the difference isn't very likely.
MemoryStream.WriteTo: Writes the entire contents of this memory stream to another stream.
Stream.CopyTo: Reads the bytes from the current stream and writes them to the destination stream. Copying begins at the current position in the current stream.
You'll need to seek back to 0, to get the whole source stream copied.
So I think MemoryStream.WriteTo better option for this situation
If you use Stream.CopyTo, you don't need to read all the bytes into memory to start with. However:
This code would be simpler if you just used File.Copy
If you are going to load all the data into memory, you can just use:
byte[] data = File.ReadAllBytes("input");
File.WriteAllBytes("output", data);
You should have a using statement for the input as well as the output stream
If you really need processing so can't use File.Copy, using Stream.CopyTo will cope with larger files than loading everything into memory. You may not need that, of course, or you may need to load the whole file into memory for other reasons.
If you have got a MemoryStream, I'd probably use MemoryStream.WriteTo rather than Stream.CopyTo, but it probably won't make much difference which you use, except that you need to make sure you're at the start of the stream when using CopyTo.
I think Hans Passant's claim of a bug in MemoryStream.WriteTo() is wrong; it does not "ignore the return value of Write()". Stream.Write() returns void, which implies to me that the entire count bytes are written, which implies that Stream.Write() will block as necessary to complete the operation to, e.g., a NetworkStream, or throw if it ultimately fails.
That is indeed different from the write() system call in ?nix, and its many emulations in libc and so forth, which can return a "short write". I suspect Hans leaped to the conclusion that Stream.Write() followed that, which I would have expected, too, but apparently it does not.
It is conceivable that Stream.Write() could perform a "short write", without returning any indication of that, requiring the caller to check that the Position property of the Stream has actually been advanced by count. That would be a very error-prone API, and I doubt that it does that, but I have not thoroughly tested it. (Testing it would be a bit tricky: I think you would need to hook up a TCP NetworkStream with a reader on the other end that blocked forever, and write enough to fill up the wire buffers. Or something like that...)
The comments for Stream.Write() are not quite unambiguous:
Summary:
When overridden in a derived class, writes a sequence of bytes to the current
stream and advances the current position within this stream by the number
of bytes written.
Parameters: buffer:
An array of bytes. This method copies count bytes from buffer to the current stream.
Compare that to the Linux man page for write(2):
write() writes up to count bytes from the buffer pointed buf to the file referred to by the file descriptor fd.
Note the crucial "up to". That sentence is followed by explanation of some of the conditions under which a "short write" might occur, making it very explicit that it can occur.
This is really a critical issue: we need to know how Stream.Write() behaves, beyond all doubt.
The CopyTo method creates a buffer, populates its with data from the original stream and then calls the Write method passing the created buffer as a parameter. The WriteTo uses the memoryStream's internal buffer to write. That is the difference. What is better - it is up to you to decide which method you prefer.
Creating a MemoryStream from a HttpInputStream in Vb.Net:
Dim filename As String = MyFile.PostedFile.FileName
Dim fileData As Byte() = Nothing
Using binaryReader = New BinaryReader(MyFile.PostedFile.InputStream)
binaryReader.BaseStream.Position = 0
fileData = binaryReader.ReadBytes(MyFile.PostedFile.ContentLength)
End Using
Dim memoryStream As MemoryStream = New MemoryStream(fileData)
Related
This is a follow up question to this question:
Difference between file path and file stream?
I didn't fully understand everything answered in the linked question.
I am using the Microsoft.SqlServer.Dac.BacPackage which contains a Load method with 2 overloads - one that receives a string path and one that receives a Stream.
This is the documentation of the Load method:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.sqlserver.dac.bacpackage.load?view=sql-dacfx-150
What exactly is the difference between the two? Am I correct in assuming that the overloading of the string path saves all the file in the memory first, while the stream isn't? Are there other differences?
No, the file will not usually be fully loaded all at once.
A string path parameter normally means it will just open the file as a FileStream and pass it to the other version of the function. There is no reason why the stream should fully load the file into memory unless requested.
A Stream parameter means you open the file and pass the resulting Stream. You could also pass any other type of Stream, such as a network stream, a zip or decryption stream, a memory-backed stream, anything really.
Short answer:
The fact that you have two methods, one that accepts a filename and one that accepts a stream is just for convenience. Internally, the one with the filename will open the file as a stream and call the other method.
Longer answer
You can consider a stream as a sequence of bytes. The reason to use a stream instead of a byte[] or List<byte>, is, that if the sequence is really, really large, and you don't need to have access to all bytes at once, it would be a waste to put all bytes in memory before processing them.
For instance, if you want to calculate the checksum for all bytes in a file: you don't need to put all data in memory before you can start calculating the sum. In fact, anything that efficiently can deliver you the bytes one by one would suffice.
That is the reason why people would want to read a file as a stream.
The reason why people want a stream as input for their data, is that they want to give the caller the opportunity to specify the source of their data: callers can provide a stream that reads from a file, but also a stream with data from the internet, or from a database, or from a textBox, the procedure does not care, as long as it can read the bytes one by one or sometimes per chunk of bytes:
using (Stream fileStream = File.Open(fileName)
{
ProcessInputData(fileStream);
}
Or:
byte[] bytesToProcess = ...
using (Stream memoryStream = new MemoryStream(bytesToProcess))
{
ProcessInputData(memoryStream);
}
Or:
string operatorInput = this.textBox1.Text;
using (Stream memoryStream = new MemoryStream(operatorInput))
{
ProcessInputData(memoryStream);
}
Conclusioin
Methods use streams in their interface to indicate that they don't need all data in memory at once. One-by-one, or per chunk is enough. The caller is free to decide where the data comes from.
FileStream.Read() returns the amount of bytes read, but... is there any situation other than having reached the end of file, that it will read less bytes than the number of bytes requested and not throw an exception?
the documentation says:
The Read method returns zero only after reaching the end of the stream. Otherwise, Read always reads at least one byte from the stream before returning. If no data is available from the stream upon a call to Read, the method will block until at least one byte of data can be returned. An implementation is free to return fewer bytes than requested even if the end of the stream has not been reached.
But this doesn't quite explain in what situations data would be unavailable and cause the method to block until it can read again. I mean, shouldn't most situations where data is unavailable force an exception?
What are real situations where comparing the number of bytes read against the number of expected bytes could differ (assuming that we're already checking for end of file when we mention number of bytes expected)?
EDIT: A bit more information, reason why I'm asking this is because I've come across a bit of code where the developer pretty much did something like this:
bytesExpected = (remainingBytesInFile > 94208 ? 94208 : remainingBytesInFile
while (bytesRead < bytesExpected)
{
bytesRead += fileStream.Read(buffer, bytesRead, bytesExpected - bytesRead)
}
Now, I can't see any advantage to having this while at all, I'd expect it to throw an exception if it can't read the number of bytes expected (bearing in mind it's already taking into account that there are those many bytes left to read)
What would the reason one could possibly have for something like this? I'm sure I'm missing something
The documentation is for Stream.Read, from which FileStream is derived. Since FileStream is a stream, it should obey the stream contract. Not all streams do, but unless you have a very good reason, you should stick to that.
In a typical file stream, you'll only get a return value smaller than count when you reach the end of file (and it's a pretty simple way of checking for the end of file).
However, in a NetworkStream, for example, you keep reading in a loop until the method returns zero - signalling the end of stream. The same works for file streams - you know you're at the end of the file when Read returns zero.
Most importantly, FileStream isn't just for what you'd consider files - it's also for pseudo-files like standard input/output pipes and COM ports, for example (try opening a file stream on PRN, for example). In that case, you're not reading a file with a fixed length, and the behaviour is the same as with NetworkStream.
Finally, don't forget that FileStream isn't sealed. It's perfectly fine for you to implement a virtualized file system, for example - and it's perfectly fine if your virtualized file system doesn't support seeking, or checking the length of file.
EDIT:
To address your edit, this is exactly how you're supposed to read any stream. Nothing wrong with it. If there's nothing else to read in a stream, the Read method will simply return 0, and you know the stream is over. The only thing is, it seems that he tries to fill his buffer to full, one buffer at a time - this only makes sense if you explicitly need to partition the file by 94208 bytes, and pass that byte[] for further processing somewhere.
If that's not the case, you don't really need to fill the full buffer - you just keep reading (and probably writing on some other side) until Read returns 0. And indeed, by default, FileStream will always fill the whole buffer unless it's built around a pipe handle - but since that's a possibility, you shouldn't rely on the "real file" behaviour, so as long as you need those byte[] for something non-stream (e.g. parsing messages), this is entirely fine. If you're only using the stream as an actual stream, and you're streaming the data somewhere else, it doesn't have a point, really - you only need one while to read the file.
Your expectations would only apply to the case when the stream is reading data off of a no-latency source. Other I/O sources can be slow, which is why the Read method might will not always be able to return immediately. That doesn't mean that there is an error (so no exception), just that it has to wait for data to arrive.
Examples: network stream, file stream on slow disk, etc.
(UPDATE, HDD example) To give an example specific to files (since your case is FileStream, although Read is defined on Stream and so all implementations should fulfill the requirements): mechanical hard-drives go to "sleep" when not active (specially on battery-powered devices, read laptops). Spinning up can take a second or so. That is not an IOException, but your read would have to wait for a second before any data is read.
Simple answer is that on a FileStream it probably never happens.
However keep in mind that the Read method is inherited from Stream which serves as base for many other streams like NetworkStream and in this case you may not be able to read has many bytes as you requested simple because they havent been received from the network yet.
So like the documentation says it all depends on the implementation of the specific type of stream - FileStream, NetworkStream, etc.
I'm new to programming in general (My understanding of programming concepts is still growing.). So this question is about learning, so please provide enough info for me to learn but not so much that I can't, thank you.
(I would also like input on how to make the code reusable with in the project.)
The goal of the project I'm working on consists of:
Read binary file.
I have known offsets I need to read to find a particular chunk of data from within this file.
First offset is first 4 bytes(Offset for end of my chunk).
Second offset is 16 bytes from end of file. I read for 4 bytes.(Gives size of chunk in hex).
Third offset is the 4 bytes following previous, read for 4 bytes(Offset for start of chunk in hex).
Locate parts in the chunk to modify by searching ASCII text as well as offsets.
Now I have the start offset, end offset and size of my chunk.
This should allow me to read bytes from file into a byte array and know the size of the array ahead of time.
(Questions: 1. Is knowing the size important? Other than verification. 2. Is reading part of a file into a byte array in order to change bytes and overwrite that part of the file the best method?)
So far I have managed to read the offsets from the file using BinaryReader on a MemoryStream. I then locate the chunk of data I need and read that into a byte array.
I'm stuck in several ways:
What are the best practices for binary Reading / Writing?
What's the best storage convention for the data that is read?
When I need to modify bytes how do I go about that.
Should I be using FileStream?
Since you want to both read and write, it makes sense to use the FileStream class directly (using FileMode.Open and FileAccess.ReadWrite). See FileStream on MSDN for a good overall example.
You do need to know the number of bytes that you are going to be reading from the stream. See the FileStream.Read documentation.
Fundamentally, you have to read the bytes into memory at some point if you're going to use and later modify their contents. So you will have to make an in-memory copy (using the Read method is the right way to go if you're reading a variable-length chunk at a time).
As for best practices, always dispose your streams when you're done; e.g.:
using (var stream = File.Open(FILE_NAME, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.ReadWrite))
{
//Do work with the FileStream here.
}
If you're going to do a large amount of work, you should be doing the work asynchronously. (Let us know if that's the case.)
And, of course, check the FileStream.Read documentation and also the FileStream.Write documentation before using those methods.
Reading bytes is best done by pre-allocating an in-memory array of bytes with the length that you're going to read, then reading those bytes. The following will read the chunk of bytes that you're interested in, let you do work on it, and then replace the original contents (assuming the length of the chunk hasn't changed):
EDIT: I've added a helper method to do work on the chunk, per the comments on variable scope.
using (var stream = File.Open(FILE_NAME, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.ReadWrite))
{
var chunk = new byte[numOfBytesInChunk];
var offsetOfChunkInFile = stream.Position; // It sounds like you've already calculated this.
stream.Read(chunk, 0, numOfBytesInChunk);
DoWorkOnChunk(ref chunk);
stream.Seek(offsetOfChunkInFile, SeekOrigin.Begin);
stream.Write(chunk, 0, numOfBytesInChunk);
}
private void DoWorkOnChunk(ref byte[] chunk)
{
//TODO: Any mutation done here to the data in 'chunk' will be written out to the stream.
}
I use multi threading to copy file to another place.I from stream needed byte array and dispose stream.at this example i use 7 threads to copy 3gb file.1st thread can get byte array,but at 2nd thread occurs exception 'System.OutOfMemoryException'
public void Begin()
{
FileStream stream = new FileStream(pathToFile, FileMode.Open);
stream.Position = (threNmb - 1) * 536870912;
BinaryReader reader = new BinaryReader(stream);
for (long i = 0; i < (length); i++)
{
source.Add(reader.ReadByte());//gives exception at i=134217728
}
reader.Dispose();
reader.Close();
stream.Dispose();
stream.Close();
}
It looks like you're using a List<byte>. That's going to be a very inefficient way of copying data, and you're probably making it less efficient by using multiple threads. Additionally, if you're using a single list from multiple threads, your code is already broken - List<T> isn't thread-safe. Even if it were, you'd be mixing the data from the different threads, so you wouldn't be able to reassemble the original data. Oh, and by not using using statements, if an exception is thrown you're leaving file handles open. In other words, I'm advising you to completely abandon your current approach.
Instead, copying a file from one place to another (assuming you can't use File.Copy for some reason), should basically be a case of:
Open stream to read
Open stream to write
Allocate buffer (e.g. 32K)
Repeatedly:
Read from the "input" stream into the buffer, noting how much data the call actually read
Write the data you've just read into the output stream
Loop until your "Read" indicates the end of the input stream
Close both streams (with using statements)
There's no need to have everything in memory. Note that in .NET 4 this is made even easier with the Stream.CopyTo method. which does the third and fourth steps for you.
I recently came across this web page http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/readbinary.html explaining what precautions to take when reading from a filestream. The gist of it is that the following code doesnt always work:
// Bad code! Do not use!
FileStream fs = File.OpenRead(filename);
byte[] data = new byte[fs.Length];
fs.Read (data, 0, data.Length);
This is dangerous as the third argument for Read is a maximum of bytes to be read, and you should use Read's return value to check how much actually got read.
My question is should you take the same precautions when reading from a memorystream and under which circumstances might Read return before all bytes are read?
Well, I believe the current implementation of MemoryStream will always fill the buffer if it can - unless you've got some evil class derived from it. It's not guaranteed though, as far as I can see. The documentation even contains the warning:
An implementation is free to return fewer bytes than requested even if the end of the stream has not been reached.
Personally, I'd always code this defensively unless it makes things much easier. You never know when someone will change the type of stream and not notice what's happened.
Normally with a MemoryStream though, I want all the bytes at once: so I call MemoryStream.ToArray. This is guaranteed to work, and if someone changes the code to not use a MemoryStream, it will fail to compile as that member's only on MemoryStream. For general streams, I use a utility method which reads fully from a stream and returns a byte array.
I cant think of any reason for a normal MemoryStream. Unmanaged might be a different story.
Anyways, the GetBuffer() ToArray() command is always handy. :)
Yes, you should always be aware of how many bytes were actually read from a stream when calling Read. The roout cause can vary depending on the stream type, but essentially the return value will be less than the actual buffer size whenever you are trying to read beyond the end of the stream.
Here's what MSDN says about it:
...can be less than the number of
bytes requested if that number of
bytes are not currently available, or
zero if the end of the stream is
reached before any bytes are read.
and
An implementation is free to return
fewer bytes than requested even if the
end of the stream has not been
reached.
Note the term "an implementation...".