Ok, so to explain; I am developing for a system that can suffer a power failure at any point in time, one point that I am testing is directly after I have written a file out using a StreamWriter. The code below:
// Write the updated file back out to the Shell directory.
using (StreamWriter shellConfigWriter =
new StreamWriter(#"D:\xxx\Shell\Config\Game.cfg.bak"))
{
for (int i = 0; i < configContents.Count; i++)
{
shellConfigWriter.WriteLine(configContents[i]);
}
shellConfigWriter.Close();
}
FileInfo gameCfgBackup = new FileInfo(#"D:\xxx\Shell\Config\Game.cfg.bak");
gameCfgBackup.CopyTo(#"D:\xxx\Shell\Config\Game.cfg", true);
Writes the contents of shellConfigWriter (a List of strings) out to a file used as a temporary store, then it is copied over the original. Now after this code has finished executing the power is lost, upon starting back up again the file Game.cfg exists and is the correct size, but is completely blank. At first I thought that this was due to Write-Caching being enabled on the hard drive, but even with it off it still occurs (albeit less often).
Any ideas would be very welcome!
Update: Ok, so after removing the .Close() statements and calling .Flush() after every write operation the files still end up blank. I could go one step further and create a backup of the original file first, before creating the new one, and then I have enough backups to do a integrity check, but I don't think it'll help to solve the underlying issue (that when I tell it to write to, flush and close a file... It doesn't!).
Keep the OS from buffering the output using the FileOptions parameter of the FileStream object's constructor:
using (Stream fs = new FileStream(#"D:\xxx\Shell\Config\Game.cfg.bak", FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write, FileShare.None, 0x1000, FileOptions.WriteThrough))
using (StreamWriter shellConfigWriter = new StreamWriter(fs))
{
for (int i = 0; i < configContents.Count; i++)
{
shellConfigWriter.WriteLine(configContents[i]);
}
shellConfigWriter.Flush();
shellConfigWriter.BaseStream.Flush();
}
First of all, you don't have to call shellConfigWriter.Close() there. The using statement will take care of it. What you might want to do instead to guard against power failure is call shellConfigWriter.Flush().
Update
Something else you might want to consider is that if a power failure can really happen at any time, it could happen in the middle of a write, such that only some of the bytes make it to a file. There's really no way to stop that.
To protect against these scenarios, a common procedure is to use state/condition flag files. You use the existence or non-existence on the file system of a zero-byte file with a particular name to tell your program where to pick up again when it resumes. Then you don't create or destroy the files that trigger a particular state until you are sure you've reached that state and completed the previous.
The downside here is that it might mean throwing a lot of work away now and then. But the benefit is that it means the functional part of your code looks like normal: there's very little extra work to do to make the system sufficiently robust.
You want to set AutoFlush = true;
Related
I have an application where I need to write binary to a file constantly. The bits of data are small, about 1K each. The computers this is running on aren't great and are running XP. I've run into the problem that when I turn on the logging the computers just get totally hosed and I watch the Task Manager and just see the memory usage going up and up until it crashes.
A coworker suggested that I just keep the packets in memory until a certain amount of time has passed and then write it all at once instead of writing each one separately - tried that, same issue.
This is the code (loggingBuffer is the List<byte[]> I'm storing the packets in while the interval passes):
if ((DateTime.Now - lastStoreTime).TotalSeconds > 10)
{
string fileName = #"C:\Storage\file";
FileMode fm = File.Exists(fileName) ? FileMode.Append : FileMode.Create;
using (BinaryWriter w = new BinaryWriter(File.Open(fileName, fm), Encoding.ASCII))
{
foreach (byte[] packetData in loggingBuffer)
{
w.Write(packetData);
}
}
loggingBuffer.Clear();
lastStoreTime= DateTime.Now;
}
Is there anything different I should be doing to accomplish this?
Seems to me that, while you're writing each 10 seconds, you could close the file in between. And cleanup all related file-writing things. Perhaps that would solved your problem.
Secondly, I'd suggest creating the BinaryWriter outside the function where you actually write the data. It'll keep things clearer. In your current code you're checking each time wether to append data or to create a new file and the write to it. If you'll do this outside the function and call it just once perhaps this will save memory too. All untested by me, that is :)
I'm compressing a log file as data is written to it, something like:
using (var fs = new FileStream("Test.gz", FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write, FileShare.None))
{
using (var compress = new GZipStream(fs, CompressionMode.Compress))
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
// Clearly this isn't what is happening in production, just
// a simply example
byte[] message = RandomBytes();
compress.Write(message, 0, message.Length);
// Flush to disk (in production we will do this every x lines,
// or x milliseconds, whichever comes first)
if (i % 20 == 0)
{
compress.Flush();
}
}
}
}
What I want to ensure is that if the process crashes or is killed, the archive is still valid and readable. I had hoped that anything since the last flush would be safe, but instead I am just ending up with a corrupt archive.
Is there any way to ensure I end up with a readable archive after each flush?
Note: it isn't essential that we use GZipStream, if something else will give us the desired result.
An option is to let Windows handle the compression. Just enable compression on the folder where you're storing your log files. There are some performance considerations you should be aware of when copying the compressed files, and I don't know how well NT compression performs in comparision to GZipStream or other compression options. You'll probably want to compare compression ratios and CPU load.
There's also the option of opening a compressed file, if you don't want to enable compression on the entire folder. I haven't tried this, but you might want to look into it: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/netfxbcl/thread/1b63b4a4-b197-4286-8f3f-af2498e3afe5
Good news: GZip is a streaming format. Therefore corruption at the end of the stream cannot affect the beginning which was already written.
So even if your streaming writes are interrupted at an arbitrary point, most of the stream is still good. You can write yourself a little tool that reads from it and just stops at the first exception it sees.
If you want an error-free solution I'd recommend splitting the log into one file every x seconds (maybe x = 1 or 10?). Write into a file with extensions ".gz.tmp" and rename to ".gz" after the file was completely written and closed.
Yes, but it's more involved than just flushing. Take a look at gzlog.h and gzlog.c in the zlib distribution. It does exactly what you want, efficiently adding short log entries to a gzip file, and always leaving a valid gzip file behind. It also has protection against crashes or shutdowns during the process, still leaving a valid gzip file behind and not losing any log entries.
I recommend not using GZIPStream. It is buggy and does not provide the necessary functionality. Use DotNetZip instead as your interface to zlib.
I am trying to delete/open/edit some files in my C# .Net application.Sometimes i get exception stating the file/directory is being accessed by another process.Is there a way to check if a file/directory is being accessed by process and try to release the file from that process?
No. The only way to do this is to try to access the file, and handle the IOException.
Realistically this is the only safe way anyway. Suppose there was a IsFileInUse() method, and you called it, and it returned "nope, nobody's using that file," and you went ahead and accessed the file. The problem is that in the meantime some other process might have locked or deleted the file. So you'd need to put exception handling around your attempt to access the file anyway. The "test by acquiring" model is the only one that is 100% reliable.
If a file is in use by another process, .NET doesn't provide a way of determining which other process that might be. I believe this would require some pretty low-level unmanaged code though I could be wrong. It is a very low-level operation, if it is possible at all, to "release the file from that process" because that would violate the other process' expectations -- e.g. it thinks it is allowed to write to the file but you have deleted the file and garbaged the handle. I believe you would need to terminate the other process if it's not willing to give up its lock voluntarily.
First, I suppose there are 2 things that may help you:
consider using FileAccess and FileShare flags when opening files
if data from the file is needed only withing the scope of the function use the construction
using(FileStream stream = File.Open(...)) { <file operations> }
this will ensure that file is closed immediately after exiting 'using' block, and not when FileStream object is collected by GC.
Second, there is an unsafe way to get processes that use the file. It is based on debugging features provided by windows. The main idea is to get all system handles and iterate through them to find which are the files handle and additional information. This is done using functions that I'm not sure are documented. If you are interested use google to find more information, but I do not think it is not a good way.
public bool IsInUse(string path)
{
bool IsFree = true;
try
{
//Just opening the file as open/create
using (FileStream fs = new FileStream(path, FileMode.OpenOrCreate))
{
//we can check by using
fs.CanRead // or
fs.CanWrite
}
}
catch (IOException ex)
{
IsFree = false;
}
return IsFree;
}
string path = "D:\\test.doc";
bool IsFileFree = IsInUse(path);
In the past I've always used a FileStream object to write or rewrite an entire file after which I would immediately close the stream. However, now I'm working on a program in which I want to keep a FileStream open in order to allow the user to retain access to the file while they are working in between saves. ( See my previous question).
I'm using XmlSerializer to serialize my classes to a from and XML file. But now I'm keeping the FileStream open to be used to save (reserialized) my class instance later. Are there any special considerations I need to make if I'm reusing the same File Stream over and over again, versus using a new file stream? Do I need to reset the stream to the beginning between saves? If a later save is smaller in size than the previous save will the FileStream leave the remainder bytes from the old file, and thus create a corrupted file? Do I need to do something to clear the file so it will behave as if I'm writing an entirely new file each time?
Your suspicion is correct - if you reset the position of an open file stream and write content that's smaller than what's already in the file, it will leave trailing data and result in a corrupt file (depending on your definition of "corrupt", of course).
If you want to overwrite the file, you really should close the stream when you're finished with it and create a new stream when you're ready to re-save.
I notice from your linked question that you are holding the file open in order to prevent other users from writing to it at the same time. This probably wouldn't be my choice, but if you are going to do that, then I think you can "clear" the file by invoking stream.SetLength(0) between successive saves.
There are various ways to do this; if you are re-opening the file, perhaps set it to truncate:
using(var file = new FileStream(path, FileMode.Truncate)) {
// write
}
If you are overwriting the file while already open, then just trim it after writing:
file.SetLength(file.Position); // assumes we're at the new end
I would try to avoid delete/recreate, since this loses any ACLs etc.
Another option might be to use SetLength(0) to truncate the file before you start rewriting it.
Recently ran into the same requirement. In fact, previously, I used to create a new FileStream within a using statement and overwrite the previous file. Seems like the simple and effective thing to do.
using (var stream = new FileStream(path, FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write)
{
ProtoBuf.Serializer.Serialize(stream , value);
}
However, I ran into locking issues where some other process is locking the target file. In my attempt to thwart this I retried the write several times before pushing the error up the stack.
int attempt = 0;
while (true)
{
try
{
using (var stream = new FileStream(path, FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write)
{
ProtoBuf.Serializer.Serialize(stream , value);
}
break;
}
catch (IOException)
{
// could be locked by another process
// make up to X attempts to write the file
attempt++;
if (attempt >= X)
{
throw;
}
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
That seemed to work for almost everyone. Then that problem machine came along and forced me down the path of maintaining a lock on the file the entire time. So in lieu of retrying to write the file in the case it's already locked, I'm now making sure I get and hold the stream open so there are no locking issues with later writes.
int attempt = 0;
while (true)
{
try
{
_stream = new FileStream(path, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.ReadWrite, FileShare.Read);
break;
}
catch (IOException)
{
// could be locked by another process
// make up to X attempts to open the file
attempt++;
if (attempt >= X)
{
throw;
}
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
Now when I write the file the FileStream position must be reset to zero, as Aaronaught said. I opted to "clear" the file by calling _stream.SetLength(0). Seemed like the simplest choice. Then using our serializer of choice, Marc Gravell's protobuf-net, serialize the value to the stream.
_stream.SetLength(0);
ProtoBuf.Serializer.Serialize(_stream, value);
This works just fine most of the time and the file is completely written to the disk. However, on a few occasions I've observed the file not being immediately written to the disk. To ensure the stream is flushed and the file is completely written to disk I also needed to call _stream.Flush(true).
_stream.SetLength(0);
ProtoBuf.Serializer.Serialize(_stream, value);
_stream.Flush(true);
Based on your question I think you'd be better served closing/re-opening the underlying file. You don't seem to be doing anything other than writing the whole file. The value you can add by re-writing Open/Close/Flush/Seek will be next to 0. Concentrate on your business problem.
My application use "FileSystemWatcher()" to raise an event when a TXT file is created by an "X" application and then read its content.
the "X" application create a file (my application detect it successfully) but it take some time to fill the data on it, so the this txt file cannot be read at the creation time, so im
looking for something to wait until the txt file come available to reading. not a static delay but something related to that file.
any help ? thx
Create the file like this:
myfile.tmp
Then when it's finished, rename it to
myfile.txt
and have your filewatcher watch for the .txt extension
The only way I have found to do this is to put the attempt to read the file in a loop, and exit the loop when I don't get an exception. Hopefully someone else will come up with a better way...
bool FileRead = false;
while (!FileRead)
{
try
{
// code to read file, which you already know
FileRead = true;
}
catch(Exception)
{
// do nothing or optionally cause the code to sleep for a second or two
}
}
You could track the file's Changed event, and see if it's available for opening on change. If the file is still locked, just watch for the next change event.
You can open and read a locked file like this
using (var stream = new FileStream(#"c:\temp\file.txt", FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.ReadWrite)) {
using (var file = new StreamReader(stream)) {
while (!file.EndOfStream) {
var line = file.ReadLine();
Console.WriteLine(line);
}
}
}
However, make sure your file writer flushes otherwise you may not see any changes.
The application X should lock the file until it closes it. Is application X also a .NET application and can you modify it? In that case you can simply use the FileInfo class with the proper value for FileShare (in this case FileShare.Read).
If you have no control over application X, the situation becomes a little more complex. But then you can always attempt to open the file exclusively via the same FileInfo.Open method. Provide FileShare.None in that case. It will attempt to open the file exclusively and will fail if the file is still in use. You can perform this action inside a loop until the file is closed by application X and ready to be read.
We have a virtual printer for creating pdf documents, and I do something like this to access that document after it's sent to the printer:
using (FileSystemWatcher watcher = new FileSystemWatcher(folder))
{
if(!File.Exists(docname))
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
watcher.WaitForChanged(WatcherChangeTypes.Created, i * 1000);
}
So I wait for a total of 6 seconds (some documents can take a while to print but most come very fast, hence the increasing wait time) before deciding that something has gone awry.
After this, I also read in a for loop, in just the same way that I wait for it to be created. I do this just in case the document has been created, but not released by the printer yet, which happens nearly every time.
You can use the same class to be notified when file changes.
The Changed event is raised when changes are made to the size, system attributes, last write time, last access time, or security permissions of a file or directory in the directory being monitored.
So I think you can use that event to check if file is readable and open it if it is.
If you have a DB at your disposal I would recommend using a DB table as a queue with the file names and then monitor that instead. nice and transactional.
You can check if file's size has changed. Although this will require you to poll it's value with some frequency.
Also, if you want to get the data faster, you can .Flush() while writing, and make sure to .Close() stream as soon as you will finish writing to it.