I am writing a bit torrent client and allocate space on hard drive for each file I have to download.
File can be huge and I want to overwrite some piece of it without deleting all content.
I read some other answers, but they suggest creating a temporary space and then copying changes back. That would be too heavy process.
I am sure there must be some utility.
Since you are talking about a download file, you should consider the storage of downloaded data in a temporary file(chunks). Refer : streaming & text-file
If I read you question (without python), I would say you could use OS specific commands to overwrite parts of a file.
For example in Linux, use sed or awk.
Refer : Inserting-a-line-in-a-file-at-a-specific-location
I found a solution, using OS (Linux) specific system call:
fd = os.open(path, os.O_WRONLY)
os.lseek(fd, offset, os.SEEK_SET)
os.write(fd, piece)
os.close(fd)
This did overwrite file without nullifying it.
But when had:
with open(path, 'wb') as file:
file.seek(offset)
file.write(piece)
It was deleting all other content.
Program is not portable this way but I don't need it to be.
Related
I'm running a test, and found that the file doesn't actually get written until I control-C to abort the program. Can anyone explain why that would happen?
I expected it to write at the same time, so I could read the file in the middle of the process.
import os
from time import sleep
f = open("log.txt", "a+")
i = 0
while True:
f.write(str(i))
f.write("\n")
i += 1
sleep(0.1)
Writing to disk is slow, so many programs store up writes into large chunks which they write all-at-once. This is called buffering, and Python does it automatically when you open a file.
When you write to the file, you're actually writing to a "buffer" in memory. When it fills up, Python will automatically write it to disk. You can tell it "write everything in the buffer to disk now" with
f.flush()
This isn't quite the whole story, because the operating system will probably buffer writes as well. You can tell it to write the buffer of the file with
os.fsync(f.fileno())
Finally, you can tell Python not to buffer a particular file with open(f, "w", 0) or only to keep a 1-line buffer with open(f,"w", 1). Naturally, this will slow down all operations on that file, because writes are slow.
You need to f.close() to flush the file write buffer out to the file. Or in your case you might just want to do a f.flush(); os.fsync(); so you can keep looping with the opened file handle.
Don't forget to import os.
You have to force the write, so I i use the following lines to make sure a file is written:
# Two commands together force the OS to store the file buffer to disc
f.flush()
os.fsync(f.fileno())
You will want to check out file.flush() - although take note that this might not write the data to disk, to quote:
Note:
flush() does not necessarily write the file’s data to disk. Use flush() followed by os.fsync() to ensure this behavior.
Closing the file (file.close()) will also ensure that the data is written - using with will do this implicitly, and is generally a better choice for more readability and clarity - not to mention solving other potential problems.
This is a windows-ism. If you add an explicit .close() when you're done with file, it'll appear in explorer at that time. Even just flushing it might be enough (I don't have a windows box handy to test). But basically f.write does not actually write, it just appends to the write buffer - until the buffer gets flushed you won't see it.
On unix the files will typically show up as a 0-byte file in this situation.
File Handler to be flushed.
f.flush()
The file does not get written, as the output buffer is not getting flushed until the garbage collection takes effect, and flushes the I/O buffer (more than likely by calling f.close()).
Alternately, in your loop, you can call f.flush() followed by os.fsync(), as documented here.
f.flush()
os.fsync()
All that being said, if you ever plan on sharing the data in that file with other portions of your code, I would highly recommend using a StringIO object.
I am trying to use "requests" package and retrieve info from Github, like the Requests doc page explains:
import requests
r = requests.get('https://api.github.com/events')
And this:
with open(filename, 'wb') as fd:
for chunk in r.iter_content(chunk_size):
fd.write(chunk)
I have to say I don't understand the second code block.
filename - in what form do I provide the path to the file if created? where will it be saved if not?
'wb' - what is this variable? (shouldn't second parameter be 'mode'?)
following two lines probably iterate over data retrieved with request and write to the file
Python docs explanation also not helping much.
EDIT: What I am trying to do:
use Requests to connect to an API (Github and later Facebook GraphAPI)
retrieve data into a variable
write this into a file (later, as I get more familiar with Python, into my local MySQL database)
Filename
When using open the path is relative to your current directory. So if you said open('file.txt','w') it would create a new file named file.txt in whatever folder your python script is in. You can also specify an absolute path, for example /home/user/file.txt in linux. If a file by the name 'file.txt' already exists, the contents will be completely overwritten.
Mode
The 'wb' option is indeed the mode. The 'w' means write and the 'b' means bytes. You use 'w' when you want to write (rather than read) froma file, and you use 'b' for binary files (rather than text files). It is actually a little odd to use 'b' in this case, as the content you are writing is a text file. Specifying 'w' would work just as well here. Read more on the modes in the docs for open.
The Loop
This part is using the iter_content method from requests, which is intended for use with large files that you may not want in memory all at once. This is unnecessary in this case, since the page in question is only 89 KB. See the requests library docs for more info.
Conclusion
The example you are looking at is meant to handle the most general case, in which the remote file might be binary and too big to be in memory. However, we can make your code more readable and easy to understand if you are only accessing small webpages containing text:
import requests
r = requests.get('https://api.github.com/events')
with open('events.txt','w') as fd:
fd.write(r.text)
filename is a string of the path you want to save it at. It accepts either local or absolute path, so you can just have filename = 'example.html'
wb stands for WRITE & BYTES, learn more here
The for loop goes over the entire returned content (in chunks incase it is too large for proper memory handling), and then writes them until there are no more. Useful for large files, but for a single webpage you could just do:
# just W becase we are not writing as bytes anymore, just text.
with open(filename, 'w') as fd:
fd.write(r.content)
How can I securely remove a file using python? The function os.remove(path) only removes the directory entry, but I want to securely remove the file, similar to the apple feature called "Secure Empty Trash" that randomly overwrites the file.
What function securely removes a file using this method?
You can use srm to securely remove files. You can use Python's os.system() function to call srm.
You can very easily write a function in Python to overwrite a file with random data, even repeatedly, then delete it. Something like this:
import os
def secure_delete(path, passes=1):
with open(path, "ba+") as delfile:
length = delfile.tell()
with open(path, "br+") as delfile:
for i in range(passes):
delfile.seek(0)
delfile.write(os.urandom(length))
os.remove(path)
Shelling out to srm is likely to be faster, however.
You can use srm, sure, you can always easily implement it in Python. Refer to wikipedia for the data to overwrite the file content with. Observe that depending on actual storage technology, data patterns may be quite different. Furthermore, if you file is located on a log-structured file system or even on a file system with copy-on-write optimisation, like btrfs, your goal may be unachievable from user space.
After you are done mashing up the disk area that was used to store the file, remove the file handle with os.remove().
If you also want to erase any trace of the file name, you can try to allocate and reallocate a whole bunch of randomly named files in the same directory, though depending on directory inode structure (linear, btree, hash, etc.) it may very tough to guarantee you actually overwrote the old file name.
So at least in Python 3 using #kindall's solution I only got it to append. Meaning the entire contents of the file were still intact and every pass just added to the overall size of the file. So it ended up being [Original Contents][Random Data of that Size][Random Data of that Size][Random Data of that Size] which is not the desired effect obviously.
This trickery worked for me though. I open the file in append to find the length, then reopen in r+ so that I can seek to the beginning (in append mode it seems like what caused the undesired effect is that it was not actually possible to seek to 0)
So check this out:
def secure_delete(path, passes=3):
with open(path, "ba+", buffering=0) as delfile:
length = delfile.tell()
delfile.close()
with open(path, "br+", buffering=0) as delfile:
#print("Length of file:%s" % length)
for i in range(passes):
delfile.seek(0,0)
delfile.write(os.urandom(length))
#wait = input("Pass %s Complete" % i)
#wait = input("All %s Passes Complete" % passes)
delfile.seek(0)
for x in range(length):
delfile.write(b'\x00')
#wait = input("Final Zero Pass Complete")
os.remove(path) #So note here that the TRUE shred actually renames to file to all zeros with the length of the filename considered to thwart metadata filename collection, here I didn't really care to implement
Un-comment the prompts to check the file after each pass, this looked good when I tested it with the caveat that the filename is not shredded like the real shred -zu does
The answers implementing a manual solution did not work for me. My solution is as follows, it seems to work okay.
import os
def secure_delete(path, passes=1):
length = os.path.getsize(path)
with open(path, "br+", buffering=-1) as f:
for i in range(passes):
f.seek(0)
f.write(os.urandom(length))
f.close()
I'm running a test, and found that the file doesn't actually get written until I control-C to abort the program. Can anyone explain why that would happen?
I expected it to write at the same time, so I could read the file in the middle of the process.
import os
from time import sleep
f = open("log.txt", "a+")
i = 0
while True:
f.write(str(i))
f.write("\n")
i += 1
sleep(0.1)
Writing to disk is slow, so many programs store up writes into large chunks which they write all-at-once. This is called buffering, and Python does it automatically when you open a file.
When you write to the file, you're actually writing to a "buffer" in memory. When it fills up, Python will automatically write it to disk. You can tell it "write everything in the buffer to disk now" with
f.flush()
This isn't quite the whole story, because the operating system will probably buffer writes as well. You can tell it to write the buffer of the file with
os.fsync(f.fileno())
Finally, you can tell Python not to buffer a particular file with open(f, "w", 0) or only to keep a 1-line buffer with open(f,"w", 1). Naturally, this will slow down all operations on that file, because writes are slow.
You need to f.close() to flush the file write buffer out to the file. Or in your case you might just want to do a f.flush(); os.fsync(); so you can keep looping with the opened file handle.
Don't forget to import os.
You have to force the write, so I i use the following lines to make sure a file is written:
# Two commands together force the OS to store the file buffer to disc
f.flush()
os.fsync(f.fileno())
You will want to check out file.flush() - although take note that this might not write the data to disk, to quote:
Note:
flush() does not necessarily write the file’s data to disk. Use flush() followed by os.fsync() to ensure this behavior.
Closing the file (file.close()) will also ensure that the data is written - using with will do this implicitly, and is generally a better choice for more readability and clarity - not to mention solving other potential problems.
This is a windows-ism. If you add an explicit .close() when you're done with file, it'll appear in explorer at that time. Even just flushing it might be enough (I don't have a windows box handy to test). But basically f.write does not actually write, it just appends to the write buffer - until the buffer gets flushed you won't see it.
On unix the files will typically show up as a 0-byte file in this situation.
File Handler to be flushed.
f.flush()
The file does not get written, as the output buffer is not getting flushed until the garbage collection takes effect, and flushes the I/O buffer (more than likely by calling f.close()).
Alternately, in your loop, you can call f.flush() followed by os.fsync(), as documented here.
f.flush()
os.fsync()
All that being said, if you ever plan on sharing the data in that file with other portions of your code, I would highly recommend using a StringIO object.
I'm querying a database and archiving the results using Python, and I'm trying to compress the data as I write it to the log files. I'm having some problems with it, though.
My code looks like this:
log_file = codecs.open(archive_file, 'w', 'bz2')
for id, f1, f2, f3 in cursor:
log_file.write('%s %s %s %s\n' % (id, f1 or 'NULL', f2 or 'NULL', f3))
However, my output file has a size of 1,409,780. Running bunzip2 on the file results in a file with a size of 943,634, and running bzip2 on that results in a size of 217,275. In other words, the uncompressed file is significantly smaller than the file compressed using Python's bzip codec. Is there a way to fix this, other than running bzip2 on the command line?
I tried Python's gzip codec (changing the line to codecs.open(archive_file, 'a+', 'zip')) to see if it fixed the problem. I still get large files, but I also get a gzip: archive_file: not in gzip format error when I try to uncompress the file. What's going on there?
EDIT: I originally had the file opened in append mode, not write mode. While this may or may not be a problem, the question still holds if the file's opened in 'w' mode.
As other posters have noted, the issue is that the codecs library doesn't use an incremental encoder to encode the data; instead it encodes every snippet of data fed to the write method as a compressed block. This is horribly inefficient, and just a terrible design decision for a library designed to work with streams.
The ironic thing is that there's a perfectly reasonable incremental bz2 encoder already built into Python. It's not difficult to create a "file-like" class which does the correct thing automatically.
import bz2
class BZ2StreamEncoder(object):
def __init__(self, filename, mode):
self.log_file = open(filename, mode)
self.encoder = bz2.BZ2Compressor()
def write(self, data):
self.log_file.write(self.encoder.compress(data))
def flush(self):
self.log_file.write(self.encoder.flush())
self.log_file.flush()
def close(self):
self.flush()
self.log_file.close()
log_file = BZ2StreamEncoder(archive_file, 'ab')
A caveat: In this example, I've opened the file in append mode; appending multiple compressed streams to a single file works perfectly well with bunzip2, but Python itself can't handle it (although there is a patch for it). If you need to read the compressed files you create back into Python, stick to a single stream per file.
The problem seems to be that output is being written on every write(). This causes each line to be compressed in its own bzip block.
I would try building a much larger string (or list of strings if you are worried about performance) in memory before writing it out to the file. A good size to shoot for would be 900K (or more) as that is the block size that bzip2 uses
The problem is due to your use of append mode, which results in files that contain multiple compressed blocks of data. Look at this example:
>>> import codecs
>>> with codecs.open("myfile.zip", "a+", "zip") as f:
>>> f.write("ABCD")
On my system, this produces a file 12 bytes in size. Let's see what it contains:
>>> with codecs.open("myfile.zip", "r", "zip") as f:
>>> f.read()
'ABCD'
Okay, now let's do another write in append mode:
>>> with codecs.open("myfile.zip", "a+", "zip") as f:
>>> f.write("EFGH")
The file is now 24 bytes in size, and its contents are:
>>> with codecs.open("myfile.zip", "r", "zip") as f:
>>> f.read()
'ABCD'
What's happening here is that unzip expects a single zipped stream. You'll have to check the specs to see what the official behavior is with multiple concatenated streams, but in my experience they process the first one and ignore the rest of the data. That's what Python does.
I expect that bunzip2 is doing the same thing. So in reality your file is compressed, and is much smaller than the data it contains. But when you run it through bunzip2, you're getting back only the first set of records you wrote to it; the rest is discarded.
I'm not sure how different this is from the codecs way of doing it but if you use GzipFile from the gzip module you can incrementally append to the file but it's not going to compress very well unless you are writing large amounts of data at a time (maybe > 1 KB). This is just the nature of the compression algorithms. If the data you are writing isn't super important (i.e. you can deal with losing it if your process dies) then you could write a buffered GzipFile class wrapping the imported class that writes out larger chunks of data.