For the life of me, I haven't been able to find a question that matches what I'm trying to do, so I'll explain what my use-case is here. If you know of a topic that already covers the answer to this, please feel free to direct me to that one. :)
I have a piece of code that uploads a file to Amazon S3 periodically (every 20 seconds). The file is a log file being written by another process, so this function is effectively a means of tailing the log so that someone can read its contents in semi-real-time without having to have direct access to the machine that the log resides on.
Up until recently, I've simply been using the S3 PutObject method (using a File as input) to do this upload. But in AWS SDK 1.9, this no longer works because the S3 client rejects the request if the content size actually uploaded is greater than the content-length that was promised at the start of the upload. This method reads the size of the file before it starts streaming the data, so given the nature of this application, the file is very likely to have increased in size between that point and the end of the stream. This means that I need to now ensure I only send N bytes of data regardless of how big the file is.
I don't have any need to interpret the bytes in the file in any way, so I'm not concerned about encoding. I can transfer it byte-for-byte. Basically, what I want is a simple method where I can read the file up to the Nth byte, then have it terminate the read even if there's more data in the file past that point. (In other words, insert EOF into the stream at a specific point.)
For example, if my file is 10000 bytes long when I start the upload, but grows to 12000 bytes during the upload, I want to stop uploading at 10000 bytes regardless of that size change. (On a subsequent upload, I would then upload the 12000 bytes or more.)
I haven't found a pre-made way to do this - the best I've found so far appears to be IOUtils.copyLarge(InputStream, OutputStream, offset, length), which can be told to copy a maximum of "length" bytes to the provided OutputStream. However, copyLarge is a blocking method, as is PutObject (which presumably calls a form of read() on its InputStream), so it seems that I couldn't get that to work at all.
I haven't found any methods or pre-built streams that can do this, so it's making me think I'd need to write my own implementation that directly monitors how many bytes have been read. That would probably then work like a BufferedInputStream where the number of bytes read per batch is the lesser of the buffer size or the remaining bytes to be read. (eg. with a buffer size of 3000 bytes, I'd do three batches at 3000 bytes each, followed by a batch with 1000 bytes + EOF.)
Does anyone know a better way to do this? Thanks.
EDIT Just to clarify, I'm already aware of a couple alternatives, neither of which are ideal:
(1) I could lock the file while uploading it. Doing this would cause loss of data or operational problems in the process that's writing the file.
(2) I could create a local copy of the file before uploading it. This could be very inefficient and take up a lot of unnecessary disk space (this file can grow into the several-gigabyte range, and the machine it's running on may be that short of disk space).
EDIT 2: My final solution, based on a suggestion from a coworker, looks like this:
private void uploadLogFile(final File logFile) {
if (logFile.exists()) {
long byteLength = logFile.length();
try (
FileInputStream fileStream = new FileInputStream(logFile);
InputStream limitStream = ByteStreams.limit(fileStream, byteLength);
) {
ObjectMetadata md = new ObjectMetadata();
md.setContentLength(byteLength);
// Set other metadata as appropriate.
PutObjectRequest req = new PutObjectRequest(bucket, key, limitStream, md);
s3Client.putObject(req);
} // plus exception handling
}
}
LimitInputStream was what my coworker suggested, apparently not aware that it had been deprecated. ByteStreams.limit is the current Guava replacement, and it does what I want. Thanks, everyone.
Complete answer rip & replace:
It is relatively straightforward to wrap an InputStream such as to cap the number of bytes it will deliver before signaling end-of-data. FilterInputStream is targeted at this general kind of job, but since you have to override pretty much every method for this particular job, it just gets in the way.
Here's a rough cut at a solution:
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
/**
* An {#code InputStream} wrapper that provides up to a maximum number of
* bytes from the underlying stream. Does not support mark/reset, even
* when the wrapped stream does, and does not perform any buffering.
*/
public class BoundedInputStream extends InputStream {
/** This stream's underlying #{code InputStream} */
private final InputStream data;
/** The maximum number of bytes still available from this stream */
private long bytesRemaining;
/**
* Initializes a new {#code BoundedInputStream} with the specified
* underlying stream and byte limit
* #param data the #{code InputStream} serving as the source of this
* one's data
* #param maxBytes the maximum number of bytes this stream will deliver
* before signaling end-of-data
*/
public BoundedInputStream(InputStream data, long maxBytes) {
this.data = data;
bytesRemaining = Math.max(maxBytes, 0);
}
#Override
public int available() throws IOException {
return (int) Math.min(data.available(), bytesRemaining);
}
#Override
public void close() throws IOException {
data.close();
}
#Override
public synchronized void mark(int limit) {
// does nothing
}
#Override
public boolean markSupported() {
return false;
}
#Override
public int read(byte[] buf, int off, int len) throws IOException {
if (bytesRemaining > 0) {
int nRead = data.read(
buf, off, (int) Math.min(len, bytesRemaining));
bytesRemaining -= nRead;
return nRead;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
#Override
public int read(byte[] buf) throws IOException {
return this.read(buf, 0, buf.length);
}
#Override
public synchronized void reset() throws IOException {
throw new IOException("reset() not supported");
}
#Override
public long skip(long n) throws IOException {
long skipped = data.skip(Math.min(n, bytesRemaining));
bytesRemaining -= skipped;
return skipped;
}
#Override
public int read() throws IOException {
if (bytesRemaining > 0) {
int c = data.read();
if (c >= 0) {
bytesRemaining -= 1;
}
return c;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
}
Related
i am making a java program that reads data from a binary stream (using a DataInputStream).
Sometimes during this process i need to read a data chunk, however the method (which i cannot modify) that reads it will stop before reaching the end of the chunk (it is the normal behavior, apparently it just doesn't need the last bytes, but i can't do anything about the fact that they are there). This is not a problem in itself because i know exactly how long the chunk is, i.e. i know how many bytes there are in the chunk so i can skip bytes (with the skipBytes(int) method) until the end of the chunk ; the problem is : i don't actually know how many bytes the method actually read (or left), so i don't know how many bytes i need to skip to reach the end of the chunk.
Is there any way to :
know how many bytes were read in a stream since a certain point in time ?
know how many bytes were read in a stream since it was ?
any other way i could know how many bytes my data-chunk-reading method just read (since it won't directly tell me) ?
Just in case, i made a small diagram
Thanks in advance
ImageInputStream can do what you want. It implements DataInput and it has most of the methods of InputStream. And it has getStreamPosition, seek and skipBytes methods.
However, as you correctly point out, ImageIO.read(ImageInputStream) would close the stream, preventing you from reading more than one image.
The solution is to avoid using ImageIO.read, and instead obtain an ImageReader explicitly, using ImageIO.getImageReaders. Then you can invoke an ImageReader’s read method, which does not close the stream.
Here’s how I implemented it:
public void readImages(InputStream source,
Consumer<? super BufferedImage> imageHandler)
throws IOException {
// Every image is at a byte index which is a multiple of this number.
int boundary = 5000;
try (ImageInputStream stream = ImageIO.createImageInputStream(source)) {
while (true) {
long pos = stream.getStreamPosition();
Iterator<ImageReader> readers = ImageIO.getImageReaders(stream);
if (!readers.hasNext()) {
break;
}
ImageReader reader = readers.next();
reader.setInput(stream);
BufferedImage image = reader.read(0);
imageHandler.accept(image);
pos = stream.getStreamPosition();
long bytesToSkip = boundary - (pos % boundary);
if (bytesToSkip < boundary) {
stream.skipBytes(bytesToSkip);
}
}
}
}
And here’s how I tested it:
try (InputStream source = new BufferedInputStream(
Files.newInputStream(Path.of(filename)))) {
reader.readImages(source, img -> EventQueue.invokeLater(() -> {
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, new ImageIcon(img));
}));
}
All the buffered read methods return the actual number of bytes read.
Quoting documentation for InputStream#read(byte[] b):
Returns:
the total number of bytes read into the buffer, or -1 if there is no more data because the end of the stream has been reached.
The OutputStream in Java has a method named flush(). Based on its documentation:
Flushes this output stream and forces any buffered output bytes to be written out.
How can I understand how much of a multi-byte capacity this buffer is?
Extra note: I've got my own OutputStream from an HttpURLConnection getOutputStream() method.
It depends on the kind of OutputStream you're using.
Let's start with the basics, by analyzing what flush of OutputStream proposes as a contract:
public void flush()
throws IOException
Flushes this output stream and forces any buffered output bytes to be
written out. The general contract of flush is that calling it is an
indication that, if any bytes previously written have been buffered by
the implementation of the output stream, such bytes should immediately
be written to their intended destination.
If the intended destination of this stream is an abstraction provided
by the underlying operating system, for example a file, then flushing
the stream guarantees only that bytes previously written to the stream
are passed to the operating system for writing; it does not guarantee
that they are actually written to a physical device such as a disk
drive.
The flush method of OutputStream does nothing.
And if you see the flush method of OutputStream, it actually does nothing:
public void flush() throws IOException {
}
The idea is that the implementation that is decorating an OutputStream will have to deal with its flush and then cascade it to other OutputStreams until it reaches the OS if that is the case.
So it does something! By means of whoever is implementing it. The concrete classes will override flush to do something like moving data to disk or sending it over the network (your case).
If you check out the flush of a BufferedOutputStream:
/**
* Flushes this buffered output stream. This forces any buffered
* output bytes to be written out to the underlying output stream.
*
* #exception IOException if an I/O error occurs.
* #see java.io.FilterOutputStream#out
*/
public synchronized void flush() throws IOException {
flushBuffer();
out.flush();
}
/** Flush the internal buffer */
private void flushBuffer() throws IOException {
if (count > 0) {
out.write(buf, 0, count);
count = 0;
}
}
You may see that it's writing the contents of its own buffer to the wrapped OutputStream. And you can see the default size of its buffer (or you could change it), see its constructors:
/**
* The internal buffer where data is stored.
*/
protected byte buf[];
/**
* Creates a new buffered output stream to write data to the
* specified underlying output stream.
*
* #param out the underlying output stream.
*/
public BufferedOutputStream(OutputStream out) {
this(out, 8192);
}
/**
* Creates a new buffered output stream to write data to the
* specified underlying output stream with the specified buffer
* size.
*
* #param out the underlying output stream.
* #param size the buffer size.
* #exception IllegalArgumentException if size <= 0.
*/
public BufferedOutputStream(OutputStream out, int size) {
super(out);
if (size <= 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Buffer size <= 0");
}
buf = new byte[size];
}
So, the default size of the BufferedInputStream buffer is 8192 bytes.
Now that you got the gist, check out the code the OutputStream that is being used for you in your HttpURLConnection to familiarize yourself with its buffer (if it has one).
In your java journey, you may end up with some native code that delegates the action of flushing to the OS. In that case you may have to check if your OS is working with some buffer and what is its size when dealing with IO. I know that this part of the answer may sound way to broad, but that is the reality of it. You need to know what you're working with in order to get the idea of what is behind it.
Check out this question:
What is the purpose of flush() in Java streams?
And this article:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/perftuning-137844.html
cheers!
I was reading Hadoop IPC implementation.
https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/ipc/Server.java
/**
* When the read or write buffer size is larger than this limit, i/o will be
* done in chunks of this size. Most RPC requests and responses would be
* be smaller.
*/
private static int NIO_BUFFER_LIMIT = 8*1024; //should not be more than 64KB.
/**
* This is a wrapper around {#link WritableByteChannel#write(ByteBuffer)}.
* If the amount of data is large, it writes to channel in smaller chunks.
* This is to avoid jdk from creating many direct buffers as the size of
* buffer increases. This also minimizes extra copies in NIO layer
* as a result of multiple write operations required to write a large
* buffer.
*
* #see WritableByteChannel#write(ByteBuffer)
*/
private int channelWrite(WritableByteChannel channel,
ByteBuffer buffer) throws IOException {
int count = (buffer.remaining() <= NIO_BUFFER_LIMIT) ?
channel.write(buffer) : channelIO(null, channel, buffer);
if (count > 0) {
rpcMetrics.incrSentBytes(count);
}
return count;
}
/**
* This is a wrapper around {#link ReadableByteChannel#read(ByteBuffer)}.
* If the amount of data is large, it writes to channel in smaller chunks.
* This is to avoid jdk from creating many direct buffers as the size of
* ByteBuffer increases. There should not be any performance degredation.
*
* #see ReadableByteChannel#read(ByteBuffer)
*/
private int channelRead(ReadableByteChannel channel,
ByteBuffer buffer) throws IOException {
int count = (buffer.remaining() <= NIO_BUFFER_LIMIT) ?
channel.read(buffer) : channelIO(channel, null, buffer);
if (count > 0) {
rpcMetrics.incrReceivedBytes(count);
}
return count;
}
The logic is,
If the buffer is small, it'll read/write channel one time. If buffer is large, it'll do it many times, and every time read/write 8kb.
I don't understand the javadocs and why it does this way.
Why "This is to avoid jdk from creating many direct buffers as the size of buffer increases."?
Does big buffer size affect read performance as well?
I understand how buffer size affects FileInputStream performance (link). But here is SocketChannel. So it's unrelated.
Good question. sun.nio.ch.IOUtil is used while writing in channel, and it has the following lines in its write(..) function
int var7 = var5 <= var6?var6 - var5:0;
ByteBuffer var8 = Util.getTemporaryDirectBuffer(var7);
Here is Util.getTemporaryDirectBuffer
static ByteBuffer getTemporaryDirectBuffer(int var0) {
Util.BufferCache var1 = (Util.BufferCache)bufferCache.get();
ByteBuffer var2 = var1.get(var0);
if(var2 != null) {
return var2;
} else {
if(!var1.isEmpty()) {
var2 = var1.removeFirst();
free(var2);
}
return ByteBuffer.allocateDirect(var0);
}
}
And under a heavy load and when int var0 is in a big range it would create lots of new buffers and free(..) the old ones. Because the bufferCache has limited length (equals to IOUtil.IOV_MAX which is defined in system config. On modern Linux systems, the limit is 1024) and wouldn't store buffers of every length.
I think this is meant in This is to avoid jdk from creating many direct buffers as the size of buffer increases..
I need the advice from someone who knows Java very well and the memory issues.
I have a large file (something like 1.5GB) and I need to cut this file in many (100 small files for example) smaller files.
I know generally how to do it (using a BufferedReader), but I would like to know if you have any advice regarding the memory, or tips how to do it faster.
My file contains text, it is not binary and I have about 20 character per line.
To save memory, do not unnecessarily store/duplicate the data in memory (i.e. do not assign them to variables outside the loop). Just process the output immediately as soon as the input comes in.
It really doesn't matter whether you're using BufferedReader or not. It will not cost significantly much more memory as some implicitly seem to suggest. It will at highest only hit a few % from performance. The same applies on using NIO. It will only improve scalability, not memory use. It will only become interesting when you've hundreds of threads running on the same file.
Just loop through the file, write every line immediately to other file as you read in, count the lines and if it reaches 100, then switch to next file, etcetera.
Kickoff example:
String encoding = "UTF-8";
int maxlines = 100;
BufferedReader reader = null;
BufferedWriter writer = null;
try {
reader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream("/bigfile.txt"), encoding));
int count = 0;
for (String line; (line = reader.readLine()) != null;) {
if (count++ % maxlines == 0) {
close(writer);
writer = new BufferedWriter(new OutputStreamWriter(new FileOutputStream("/smallfile" + (count / maxlines) + ".txt"), encoding));
}
writer.write(line);
writer.newLine();
}
} finally {
close(writer);
close(reader);
}
First, if your file contains binary data, then using BufferedReader would be a big mistake (because you would be converting the data to String, which is unnecessary and could easily corrupt the data); you should use a BufferedInputStream instead. If it's text data and you need to split it along linebreaks, then using BufferedReader is OK (assuming the file contains lines of a sensible length).
Regarding memory, there shouldn't be any problem if you use a decently sized buffer (I'd use at least 1MB to make sure the HD is doing mostly sequential reading and writing).
If speed turns out to be a problem, you could have a look at the java.nio packages - those are supposedly faster than java.io,
You can consider using memory-mapped files, via FileChannels .
Generally a lot faster for large files. There are performance trade-offs that could make it slower, so YMMV.
Related answer: Java NIO FileChannel versus FileOutputstream performance / usefulness
This is a very good article:
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Programming/PerfTuning/
In summary, for great performance, you should:
Avoid accessing the disk.
Avoid accessing the underlying operating system.
Avoid method calls.
Avoid processing bytes and characters individually.
For example, to reduce the access to disk, you can use a large buffer. The article describes various approaches.
Does it have to be done in Java? I.e. does it need to be platform independent? If not, I'd suggest using the 'split' command in *nix. If you really wanted, you could execute this command via your java program. While I haven't tested, I imagine it perform faster than whatever Java IO implementation you could come up with.
You can use java.nio which is faster than classical Input/Output stream:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/io/index.html
Yes.
I also think that using read() with arguments like read(Char[], int init, int end) is a better way to read a such a large file
(Eg : read(buffer,0,buffer.length))
And I also experienced the problem of missing values of using the BufferedReader instead of BufferedInputStreamReader for a binary data input stream. So, using the BufferedInputStreamReader is a much better in this like case.
package all.is.well;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.RandomAccessFile;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
/**
* #author Naresh Bhabat
*
Following implementation helps to deal with extra large files in java.
This program is tested for dealing with 2GB input file.
There are some points where extra logic can be added in future.
Pleasenote: if we want to deal with binary input file, then instead of reading line,we need to read bytes from read file object.
It uses random access file,which is almost like streaming API.
* ****************************************
Notes regarding executor framework and its readings.
Please note :ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
* for 10 threads:Total time required for reading and writing the text in
* :seconds 349.317
*
* For 100:Total time required for reading the text and writing : seconds 464.042
*
* For 1000 : Total time required for reading and writing text :466.538
* For 10000 Total time required for reading and writing in seconds 479.701
*
*
*/
public class DealWithHugeRecordsinFile extends TestCase {
static final String FILEPATH = "C:\\springbatch\\bigfile1.txt.txt";
static final String FILEPATH_WRITE = "C:\\springbatch\\writinghere.txt";
static volatile RandomAccessFile fileToWrite;
static volatile RandomAccessFile file;
static volatile String fileContentsIter;
static volatile int position = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
long currentTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis();
try {
fileToWrite = new RandomAccessFile(FILEPATH_WRITE, "rw");//for random write,independent of thread obstacles
file = new RandomAccessFile(FILEPATH, "r");//for random read,independent of thread obstacles
seriouslyReadProcessAndWriteAsynch();
} catch (IOException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
Thread currentThread = Thread.currentThread();
System.out.println(currentThread.getName());
long currentTimeMillis2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
double time_seconds = (currentTimeMillis2 - currentTimeMillis) / 1000.0;
System.out.println("Total time required for reading the text in seconds " + time_seconds);
}
/**
* #throws IOException
* Something asynchronously serious
*/
public static void seriouslyReadProcessAndWriteAsynch() throws IOException {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);//pls see for explanation in comments section of the class
while (true) {
String readLine = file.readLine();
if (readLine == null) {
break;
}
Runnable genuineWorker = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// do hard processing here in this thread,i have consumed
// some time and ignore some exception in write method.
writeToFile(FILEPATH_WRITE, readLine);
// System.out.println(" :" +
// Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
};
executor.execute(genuineWorker);
}
executor.shutdown();
while (!executor.isTerminated()) {
}
System.out.println("Finished all threads");
file.close();
fileToWrite.close();
}
/**
* #param filePath
* #param data
* #param position
*/
private static void writeToFile(String filePath, String data) {
try {
// fileToWrite.seek(position);
data = "\n" + data;
if (!data.contains("Randomization")) {
return;
}
System.out.println("Let us do something time consuming to make this thread busy"+(position++) + " :" + data);
System.out.println("Lets consume through this loop");
int i=1000;
while(i>0){
i--;
}
fileToWrite.write(data.getBytes());
throw new Exception();
} catch (Exception exception) {
System.out.println("exception was thrown but still we are able to proceeed further"
+ " \n This can be used for marking failure of the records");
//exception.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Don't use read without arguments.
It's very slow.
Better read it to buffer and move it to file quickly.
Use bufferedInputStream because it supports binary reading.
And it's all.
Unless you accidentally read in the whole input file instead of reading it line by line, then your primary limitation will be disk speed. You may want to try starting with a file containing 100 lines and write it to 100 different files one line in each and make the triggering mechanism work on the number of lines written to the current file. That program will be easily scalable to your situation.
Is there an article/algorithm on how I can read a long file at a certain rate?
Say I do not want to pass 10 KB/sec while issuing reads.
A simple solution, by creating a ThrottledInputStream.
This should be used like this:
final InputStream slowIS = new ThrottledInputStream(new BufferedInputStream(new FileInputStream("c:\\file.txt"),8000),300);
300 is the number of kilobytes per second. 8000 is the block size for BufferedInputStream.
This should of course be generalized by implementing read(byte b[], int off, int len), which will spare you a ton of System.currentTimeMillis() calls. System.currentTimeMillis() is called once for each byte read, which can cause a bit of an overhead. It should also be possible to store the number of bytes that can savely be read without calling System.currentTimeMillis().
Be sure to put a BufferedInputStream in between, otherwise the FileInputStream will be polled in single bytes rather than blocks. This will reduce the CPU load form 10% to almost 0. You will risk to exceed the data rate by the number of bytes in the block size.
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.io.IOException;
public class ThrottledInputStream extends InputStream {
private final InputStream rawStream;
private long totalBytesRead;
private long startTimeMillis;
private static final int BYTES_PER_KILOBYTE = 1024;
private static final int MILLIS_PER_SECOND = 1000;
private final int ratePerMillis;
public ThrottledInputStream(InputStream rawStream, int kBytesPersecond) {
this.rawStream = rawStream;
ratePerMillis = kBytesPersecond * BYTES_PER_KILOBYTE / MILLIS_PER_SECOND;
}
#Override
public int read() throws IOException {
if (startTimeMillis == 0) {
startTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
long interval = now - startTimeMillis;
//see if we are too fast..
if (interval * ratePerMillis < totalBytesRead + 1) { //+1 because we are reading 1 byte
try {
final long sleepTime = ratePerMillis / (totalBytesRead + 1) - interval; // will most likely only be relevant on the first few passes
Thread.sleep(Math.max(1, sleepTime));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {//never realized what that is good for :)
}
}
totalBytesRead += 1;
return rawStream.read();
}
}
The crude solution is just to read a chunk at a time and then sleep eg 10k then sleep a second. But the first question I have to ask is: why? There are a couple of likely answers:
You don't want to create work faster than it can be done; or
You don't want to create too great a load on the system.
My suggestion is not to control it at the read level. That's kind of messy and inaccurate. Instead control it at the work end. Java has lots of great concurrency tools to deal with this. There are a few alternative ways of doing this.
I tend to like using a producer consumer pattern for soling this kind of problem. It gives you great options on being able to monitor progress by having a reporting thread and so on and it can be a really clean solution.
Something like an ArrayBlockingQueue can be used for the kind of throttling needed for both (1) and (2). With a limited capacity the reader will eventually block when the queue is full so won't fill up too fast. The workers (consumers) can be controlled to only work so fast to also throttle the rate covering (2).
while !EOF
store System.currentTimeMillis() + 1000 (1 sec) in a long variable
read a 10K buffer
check if stored time has passed
if it isn't, Thread.sleep() for stored time - current time
Creating ThrottledInputStream that takes another InputStream as suggested would be a nice solution.
If you have used Java I/O then you should be familiar with decorating streams. I suggest an InputStream subclass that takes another InputStream and throttles the flow rate. (You could subclass FileInputStream but that approach is highly error-prone and inflexible.)
Your exact implementation will depend upon your exact requirements. Generally you will want to note the time your last read returned (System.nanoTime). On the current read, after the underlying read, wait until sufficient time has passed for the amount of data transferred. A more sophisticated implementation may buffer and return (almost) immediately with only as much data as rate dictates (be careful that you should only return a read length of 0 if the buffer is of zero length).
You can use a RateLimiter. And make your own implementation of the read in InputStream. An example of this can be seen bellow
public class InputStreamFlow extends InputStream {
private final InputStream inputStream;
private final RateLimiter maxBytesPerSecond;
public InputStreamFlow(InputStream inputStream, RateLimiter limiter) {
this.inputStream = inputStream;
this.maxBytesPerSecond = limiter;
}
#Override
public int read() throws IOException {
maxBytesPerSecond.acquire(1);
return (inputStream.read());
}
#Override
public int read(byte[] b) throws IOException {
maxBytesPerSecond.acquire(b.length);
return (inputStream.read(b));
}
#Override
public int read(byte[] b, int off, int len) throws IOException {
maxBytesPerSecond.acquire(len);
return (inputStream.read(b,off, len));
}
}
if you want to limit the flow by 1 MB/s you can get the input stream like this:
final RateLimiter limiter = RateLimiter.create(RateLimiter.ONE_MB);
final InputStreamFlow inputStreamFlow = new InputStreamFlow(originalInputStream, limiter);
It depends a little on whether you mean "don't exceed a certain rate" or "stay close to a certain rate."
If you mean "don't exceed", you can guarantee that with a simple loop:
while not EOF do
read a buffer
Thread.wait(time)
write the buffer
od
The amount of time to wait is a simple function of the size of the buffer; if the buffer size is 10K bytes, you want to wait a second between reads.
If you want to get closer than that, you probably need to use a timer.
create a Runnable to do the reading
create a Timer with a TimerTask to do the reading
schedule the TimerTask n times a second.
If you're concerned about the speed at which you're passing the data on to something else, instead of controlling the read, put the data into a data structure like a queue or circular buffer, and control the other end; send data periodically. You need to be careful with that, though, depending on the data set size and such, because you can run into memory limitations if the reader is very much faster than the writer.