How actually a buffer optimize the process of reading/writing?
Every time when we read a byte we access the file. I read that a buffer reduces the number of accesses the file. The question is how?. In the Buffered section of picture, when we load bytes from the file to the buffer we access the file just like in Unbuffered section of picture so where is the optimization?
I mean ... the buffer must access the file every time when reads a byte so
even if the data in the buffer is read faster this will not improve performance in the process of reading. What am I missing?
The fundamental misconception is to assume that a file is read byte by byte. Most storage devices, including hard drives and solid-state discs, organize the data in blocks. Likewise, network protocols transfer data in packets rather than single bytes.
This affects how the controller hardware and low-level software (drivers and operating system) work. Often, it is not even possible to transfer a single byte on this level. So, requesting the read of a single byte ends up reading one block and ignoring everything but one byte. Even worse, writing a single byte may imply reading an entire block, changing one bye of it, and writing the block back to the device. For network transfers, sending a packet with a payload of only one byte implies using 99% of the bandwidth for metadata rather than actual payload.
Note that sometimes, an immediate response is needed or a write is required to be definitely completed at some point, e.g. for safety. That’s why unbuffered I/O exists at all. But for most ordinary use cases, you want to transfer a sequence of bytes anyway and it should be transferred in chunks of a size suitable to the underlying hardware.
Note that even if the underlying system injects a buffering on its own or when the hardware truly transfers single bytes, performing 100 operating system calls to transfer a single byte on each still is significantly slower than performing a single operating system call telling it to transfer 100 bytes at once.
But you should not consider the buffer to be something between the file and your program, as suggested in your picture. You should consider the buffer to be part of your program. Just like you would not consider a String object to be something between your program and a source of characters, but rather a natural way to process such items. E.g. when you use the bulk read method of InputStream (e.g. of a FileInputStream) with a sufficiently large target array, there is no need to wrap the input stream in a BufferedInputStream; it would not improve the performance. You should just stay away from the single byte read method as much as possible.
As another practical example, when you use an InputStreamReader, it will already read the bytes into a buffer (so no additional BufferedInputStream is needed) and the internally used CharsetDecoder will operate on that buffer, writing the resulting characters into a target char buffer. When you use, e.g. Scanner, the pattern matching operations will work on that target char buffer of a charset decoding operation (when the source is an InputStream or ByteChannel). Then, when delivering match results as strings, they will be created by another bulk copy operation from the char buffer. So processing data in chunks is already the norm, not the exception.
This has been incorporated into the NIO design. So, instead of supporting a single byte read method and fixing it by providing a buffering decorator, as the InputStream API does, NIO’s ByteChannel subtypes only offer methods using application managed buffers.
So we could say, buffering is not improving the performance, it is the natural way of transferring and processing data. Rather, not buffering is degrading the performance by requiring a translation from the natural bulk data operations to single item operations.
As stated in your picture, buffered file contents are saved in memory and unbuffered file is not read directly unless it is streamed to program.
File is only representation on path only. Here is from File Javadoc:
An abstract representation of file and directory pathnames.
Meanwhile, buffered stream like ByteBuffer takes content (depends on buffer type, direct or indirect) from file and allocate it into memory as heap.
The buffers returned by this method typically have somewhat higher allocation and deallocation costs than non-direct buffers. The contents of direct buffers may reside outside of the normal garbage-collected heap, and so their impact upon the memory footprint of an application might not be obvious. It is therefore recommended that direct buffers be allocated primarily for large, long-lived buffers that are subject to the underlying system's native I/O operations. In general it is best to allocate direct buffers only when they yield a measureable gain in program performance.
Actually depends on the condition, if the file is accessed repeatedly, then buffered is a faster solution rather than unbuffered. But if the file is larger than main memory and it is accessed once, unbuffered seems to be better solution.
Basically for reading if you request 1 byte the buffer will read 1000 bytes and return you the first byte, for next 999 reads for 1 byte it will not read anything from the file but use its internal buffer in RAM. Only after you read all the 1000 bytes it will actually read another 1000 bytes from the actual file.
Same thing for writing but in reverse. If you write 1 byte it will be buffered and only if you have written 1000 bytes they may be written to the file.
Note that choosing the buffer size changes the performance quite a bit, see e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/a/237495/2442804 for further details, respecting file system block size, available RAM, etc.
Related
For example I have a file whose content is：
abcdefg
then i use the following code to read 'defg'.
ByteBuffer bb = ByteBuffer.allocate(4);
int read = channel.read(bb, 3);
assert(read == 4);
Because there's adequate data in the file so can I suppose so? Can I assume that the method returns a number less than limit of the given buffer only when there aren't enough bytes in the file?
Can I assume that the method returns a number less than limit of the given buffer only when there aren't enough bytes in the file?
The Javadoc says:
a read might not fill the buffer
and gives some examples, and
returns the number of bytes read, possibly zero, or -1 if the channel has reached end-of-stream.
This is NOT sufficient to allow you to make that assumption.
In practice, you are likely to always get a full buffer when reading from a file, modulo the end of file scenario. And that makes sense from an OS implementation perspective, given the overheads of making a system call.
But, I can also imagine situations where returning a half empty buffer might make sense. For example, when reading from a locally-mounted remote file system over a slow network link, there is some advantage in returning a partially filled buffer so that the application can start processing the data. Some future OS may implement the read system call to do that in this scenario. If assume that you will always get a full buffer, you may get a surprise when your application is run on the (hypothetical) new platform.
Another issue is that there are some kinds of stream where you will definitely get partially filled buffers. Socket streams, pipes and console streams are obvious examples. If you code your application assuming file stream behavior, you could get a nasty surprise when someone runs it against another kind of stream ... and fails.
No, in general you cannot assume that the number of bytes read will be equal to the number of bytes requested, even if there are bytes left to be read in the file.
If you are reading from a local file, chances are that the number of bytes requested will actually be read, but this is by no means guaranteed (and won't likely be the case if you're reading a file over the network).
See the documentation for the ReadableByteChannel.read(ByteBuffer) method (which applies for FileChannel.read(ByteBuffer) as well). Assuming that the channel is in blocking mode, the only guarantee is that at least one byte will be read.
Can someone with the natural gift to explain complex things in an easy and straightforward way address this question? To acquire the best performance when should I use direct ByteBuffers versus regular ByteBuffers when doing network I/O with Java NIO?
For example: Should I read into a heap buffer and parse it from there, doing many get() (byte by byte) OR should I read it into a direct buffer and parse from the direct buffer?
To acquire the best performance when should I use direct ByteBuffers versus regular ByteBuffers when doing network I/O with Java NIO?
Direct buffers have a number of advantages
The avoid an extra copy of data passed between Java and native memory.
If they are re-used, only the page used are turning into real memory. This means you can make them much larger than they need to me and they only waste virtual memory.
You can access multi-byte primitives in native byte order efficiently. (Basically one machine code instruction)
Should I read into a heap buffer and parse it from there, doing many get() (byte by byte) OR should I read it into a direct buffer and parse from the direct buffer?
If you are reading a byte at a time, you may not get much advantage. However, with a direct byte buffer you can read 2 or 4 bytes at a time and effectively parse multiple bytes at once.
[real time] [selectors]
If you are parsing real time data, I would avoid using selectors. I have found using blocking NIO or busy waiting NIO can give you the lowest latency performance (assuming you have a relatively small number of connections e.g. up to 20)
A direct buffer is best when you are just copying the data, say from a socket to a file or vice versa, as the data doesn't have to traverse the JNI/Java boundary, it just stays in JNI land. If you are planning to look at the data yourself there's no point in a direct buffer.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
In Java, what is the advantage of using BufferedWriter to append to a file?
The site that I am looking at says
"The BufferWriter class is used to write text to a character-output stream, buffering characters so as to provide for the efficient writing of single characters, arrays, and strings."
What make's it more efficient and why?
BufferedWriter is more efficient because it uses buffers rather than writing character by character. So it reduces I/O operations of the disk. Data is collected in a buffer and write to the file when the buffer is full.
This is why sometimes no data is written in the file if you didn't call flush method. That is data is collected in the buffer but program exits before writing them to the file. Calling flush method will cause the data to be written in the file even the buffer is not filled completely.
The cost of writing becomes expensive when you write character by character to the file. For reducing that cost, buffers are provided. If you are writing to Buffer, it waits for some limit and then writes the whole to the disk.
A BufferedWriter waits until the buffer (8192 bytes) is full and writes the whole buffer in one disk operation. Unbuffered each single write would result in a disk I/O which is obviously more expensive.
Hard disk hava a minimum unit of information storage so for example if you are writing a single byte the operating system asks for the disk to store a unit of storage (I think that the minimum is 512 bytes). So you ask for writing one byte and the operating system writes much more. If you ask to store 512 bytes with 512 calls you end up doing a lot more I/O (512 disk operations) that buffering 512 bytes and issuing only one call (1 disk operation).
As the name suggests, BufferedWriter uses a buffer to reduce the costs of writes. If you are writing to file, you might know that writing 1byte or writing 4kbytes roughly costs the same. The time required to perform such write is dominated by the access time (~8ms) which is the time required by the disk to rotate and to seek the right sector.
Additionally, aggregating small writes in a bigger one allows you to reduce the overhead on the operating system, achieving better performances.
Most of the operating systems do have an internal buffer to cache writes. However, these caches tries to figure out what the application is doing, by analyzing the write patterns. If the application itself is able to perform that caching, and perform a write only when the data is ready, the result (in terms of performance) is better.
Reading Thinking in Java 4th ed. I've got some doubts about I/O operations performance:
I've read that it's better to "wrap" InputStream objects in BufferedInputStream, but in my mind I can't see any difference. Isn't i.e. file operations already buffered? What's the advantages of file buffered write?
The system's IO buffering is on a different level than the Buffered*putStream.
Each call on FileOutputStream.write(...) induces a native method call (which is typically more costly than a java-internal call), and then a context switch to the OS' kernel to do the actual writing. Even if the kernel (or the file system driver or the harddisk controller or the harddisk itself) is doing more buffering, these costs will occur.
By wrapping a BufferedOutputStream around this, we will call the native write method only much less often, thus allowing much higher throughput.
(The same is valid for other types of IO, of course, I just used FileOutputStream as an example.)
Isn't i.e. file operations already buffered?
Maybe, maybe not - depending on the OS, the HD used, the way of access (e.g. reading big consecutive blocks vs randomly accessing small blocks all over the place), etc. In the worst case, adding a BufferedInputStream probably won't harm performance noticeably. In the best case, it can improve it by magnitudes (replacing many little file accesses by one big read/write).
An InputStream will only request as much data as you request, so if you request 1000 characters one character at a time, that will turn out to be 1000 seperate disk accesses, which will become pretty slow.
A BufferedInputStream however will request data from the InputStream in larger chunks, thus reducing the need for seperate disk accesses.
The same goes for output, instead of writing every character seperately, there are fewer physical disk writes with a BufferedOutputStream.
For example I have a file whose content is：
abcdefg
then i use the following code to read 'defg'.
ByteBuffer bb = ByteBuffer.allocate(4);
int read = channel.read(bb, 3);
assert(read == 4);
Because there's adequate data in the file so can I suppose so? Can I assume that the method returns a number less than limit of the given buffer only when there aren't enough bytes in the file?
Can I assume that the method returns a number less than limit of the given buffer only when there aren't enough bytes in the file?
The Javadoc says:
a read might not fill the buffer
and gives some examples, and
returns the number of bytes read, possibly zero, or -1 if the channel has reached end-of-stream.
This is NOT sufficient to allow you to make that assumption.
In practice, you are likely to always get a full buffer when reading from a file, modulo the end of file scenario. And that makes sense from an OS implementation perspective, given the overheads of making a system call.
But, I can also imagine situations where returning a half empty buffer might make sense. For example, when reading from a locally-mounted remote file system over a slow network link, there is some advantage in returning a partially filled buffer so that the application can start processing the data. Some future OS may implement the read system call to do that in this scenario. If assume that you will always get a full buffer, you may get a surprise when your application is run on the (hypothetical) new platform.
Another issue is that there are some kinds of stream where you will definitely get partially filled buffers. Socket streams, pipes and console streams are obvious examples. If you code your application assuming file stream behavior, you could get a nasty surprise when someone runs it against another kind of stream ... and fails.
No, in general you cannot assume that the number of bytes read will be equal to the number of bytes requested, even if there are bytes left to be read in the file.
If you are reading from a local file, chances are that the number of bytes requested will actually be read, but this is by no means guaranteed (and won't likely be the case if you're reading a file over the network).
See the documentation for the ReadableByteChannel.read(ByteBuffer) method (which applies for FileChannel.read(ByteBuffer) as well). Assuming that the channel is in blocking mode, the only guarantee is that at least one byte will be read.