We Keep Coding

Fastest way to read from InputStream to OutputStream

This code below streams at 1.3 seconds for a 2.43 MB file
byte[] buff = new byte[64*1024];
private static void flow(InputStream is, OutputStream os, byte[] buf )
throws IOException {
int numRead;
while ( (numRead = is.read(buf) ) >= 0) {
os.write(buf, 0, numRead);
}
}
What is the fastest way to "stream" an InputStream to OutputStream?
Update:
Data source is a cache, EHCache to be specific:
byte[] cached = cacheService.get(cacheKey); // Just `2 ms` to get the bytes, very fast
if(cached != null && cached.length > 0) {
flow(ByteSource.wrap(cached).openStream(), outputStream, buff);
}

I can't make any assertion that it's the fastest but I would suggest using apache-commons-io's IOUtils. Specifically
public static long copy(InputStream input, OutputStream output, int bufferSize)
and try to benchmark with different values of bufferSize.
https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-io/javadocs/api-2.5/org/apache/commons/io/IOUtils.html#copy(java.io.InputStream,%20java.io.OutputStream,%20int)
The real problem here is the high level of abstraction you're working with. Provided you know exactly where the data is coming from (e.g. the file system) and where it's going (e.g network socket) and you know which operating system you're working on, it is possible to leverage the kernel's stream support to make this much faster.
Googling for "zero copy kernel io" I found this article which is an okay overview:
https://xunnanxu.github.io/2016/09/10/It-s-all-about-buffers-zero-copy-mmap-and-Java-NIO/

Since Java 9, InputStream provides a transferTo(OutStream) method or using Java 7 Files can also be used.
Again no claims on which is the fastest but you can benchmark these as well.
References:
Official Documentation
A similar Question

I would also have said commons-io: IOUtils::copy which does this probably better than a naive approach, but the code seems to do the same as yours (see copyLarge) but answer about Java 9 makes it a better choice.
public static long copyLarge(final InputStream input, final OutputStream output, final byte[] buffer)
throws IOException {
long count = 0;
int n;
while (EOF != (n = input.read(buffer))) {
output.write(buffer, 0, n);
count += n;
}
return count;
}
However, your problem may not be how you copy, but rather the lack of buffering: you could try with BufferedInputStream and BufferedOutputStream on top of existing stream:
Files.newInputStream is not buffered.
Files.newOutputStream is not buffered.
You could use FileChannel and ByteBuffer.
System is probably buffering file on its side.
You should roll up a JMH benchmark test:
Not sure how you can disable system buffering. I don't think it is a problem.
I would first check result with buffered input stream of various size (8K, 16K, 32K, 64K, 512K, 1M, 2M, 4M, 8M)
Then with buffered output stream
Then with a mix of two.
While it may take time to execute, the road to what the fastest implies measuring.

Why is BufferedReader read() much slower than readLine()?

I need to read a file one character at a time and I'm using the read() method from BufferedReader. *
I found that read() is about 10x slower than readLine(). Is this expected? Or am I doing something wrong?
Here's a benchmark with Java 7. The input test file has about 5 million lines and 254 million characters (~242 MB) **:
The read() method takes about 7000 ms to read all the characters:
#Test
public void testRead() throws IOException, UnindexableFastaFileException{
BufferedReader fa= new BufferedReader(new FileReader(new File("chr1.fa")));
long t0= System.currentTimeMillis();
int c;
while( (c = fa.read()) != -1 ){
//
}
long t1= System.currentTimeMillis();
System.err.println(t1-t0); // ~ 7000 ms
}
The readLine() method takes only ~700 ms:
#Test
public void testReadLine() throws IOException{
BufferedReader fa= new BufferedReader(new FileReader(new File("chr1.fa")));
String line;
long t0= System.currentTimeMillis();
while( (line = fa.readLine()) != null ){
//
}
long t1= System.currentTimeMillis();
System.err.println(t1-t0); // ~ 700 ms
}
* Practical purpose: I need to know the length of each line, including the newline characters (\n or \r\n) AND the line length after stripping them. I also need to know if a line starts with the > character. For a given file this is done only once at the start of the program. Since EOL chars are not returned by BufferedReader.readLine() I'm resorting on the read() method. If there are better ways of doing this, please say.
** The gzipped file is here http://hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu/goldenpath/hg19/chromosomes/chr1.fa.gz. For those who may be wondering, I'm writing a class to index fasta files.

The important thing when analyzing performance is to have a valid benchmark before you start. So let's start with a simple JMH benchmark that shows what our expected performance after warmup would be.
One thing we have to consider is that since modern operating systems like to cache file data that is accessed regularly we need some way to clear the caches between tests. On Windows there's a small little utility that does just this - on Linux you should be able to do it by writing to some pseudo file somewhere.
The code then looks as follows:
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Benchmark;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.BenchmarkMode;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Fork;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Mode;
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.FileReader;
import java.io.IOException;
#BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
#Fork(1)
public class IoPerformanceBenchmark {
private static final String FILE_PATH = "test.fa";
#Benchmark
public int readTest() throws IOException, InterruptedException {
clearFileCaches();
int result = 0;
try (BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(FILE_PATH))) {
int value;
while ((value = reader.read()) != -1) {
result += value;
}
}
return result;
}
#Benchmark
public int readLineTest() throws IOException, InterruptedException {
clearFileCaches();
int result = 0;
try (BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(FILE_PATH))) {
String line;
while ((line = reader.readLine()) != null) {
result += line.chars().sum();
}
}
return result;
}
private void clearFileCaches() throws IOException, InterruptedException {
ProcessBuilder pb = new ProcessBuilder("EmptyStandbyList.exe", "standbylist");
pb.inheritIO();
pb.start().waitFor();
}
}
and if we run it with
chcp 65001 # set codepage to utf-8
mvn clean install; java "-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8" -server -jar .\target\benchmarks.jar
we get the following results (about 2 seconds are needed to clear the caches for me and I'm running this on a HDD so that's why it's a good deal slower than for you):
Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units
IoPerformanceBenchmark.readLineTest avgt 20 3.749 ± 0.039 s/op
IoPerformanceBenchmark.readTest avgt 20 3.745 ± 0.023 s/op
Surprise! As expected there's no performance difference here at all after the JVM has settled into a stable mode. But there is one outlier in the readCharTest method:
# Warmup Iteration 1: 6.186 s/op
# Warmup Iteration 2: 3.744 s/op
which is exaclty the problem you're seeing. The most likely reason I can think of is that OSR isn't doing a good job here or that the JIT is only running too late to make a difference on the first iteration.
Depending on your use case this might be a big problem or negligible (if you're reading a thousand files it won't matter, if you're only reading one this is a problem).
Solving such a problem is not easy and there are no general solutions, although there are ways to handle this. One easy test to see if we're on the right track is to run the code with the -Xcomp option which forces HotSpot to compile every method on the first invocation. And indeed doing so, causes the large delay at the first invocation to disappear:
# Warmup Iteration 1: 3.965 s/op
# Warmup Iteration 2: 3.753 s/op
Possible solution
Now that we have a good idea what the actual problem is (my guess is still all those locks neither being coalesced nor using the efficient biased locks implementation), the solution is rather straight forward and simple: Reduce the number of function calls (so yes we could've arrived at this solution without everything above, but it's always nice to have a good grip on the problem and there might have been a solution that didn't involve changing much code).
The following code runs consistently faster than either of the other two - you can play with the array size but it's surprisingly unimportant (presumably because contrary to the other methods read(char[]) does not have to acquire a lock so the cost per call is lower to begin with).
private static final int BUFFER_SIZE = 256;
private char[] arr = new char[BUFFER_SIZE];
#Benchmark
public int readArrayTest() throws IOException, InterruptedException {
clearFileCaches();
int result = 0;
try (BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(FILE_PATH))) {
int charsRead;
while ((charsRead = reader.read(arr)) != -1) {
for (int i = 0; i < charsRead; i++) {
result += arr[i];
}
}
}
return result;
}
This is most likely good enough performance wise, but if you wanted to improve performance even further using a file mapping might (wouldn't count on too large an improvement in a case such as this, but if you know that your text is always ASCII, you could make some further optimizations) further help performance.

So this is the practical answer to my own question: Don't use BufferedReader.read() use FileChannel instead. (Obviously I'm not answering the WHY I put in the title). Here's the quick and dirty benchmark, hopefully others will find it useful:
#Test
public void testFileChannel() throws IOException{
FileChannel fileChannel = FileChannel.open(Paths.get("chr1.fa"));
long n= 0;
int noOfBytesRead = 0;
long t0= System.nanoTime();
while(noOfBytesRead != -1){
ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(10000);
noOfBytesRead = fileChannel.read(buffer);
buffer.flip();
while ( buffer.hasRemaining() ) {
char x= (char)buffer.get();
n++;
}
}
long t1= System.nanoTime();
System.err.println((float)(t1-t0) / 1e6); // ~ 250 ms
System.err.println("nchars: " + n); // 254235640 chars read
}
With ~250 ms to read the whole file char by char, this strategy is considerably faster than BufferedReader.readLine() (~700 ms), let alone read(). Adding if statements in the loop to check for x == '\n' and x == '>' makes little difference. Also putting a StringBuilder to reconstruct lines doesn't affect the timing too much. So this is plenty good for me (at least for now).
Thanks to #Marco13 for mentioning FileChannel.

Java JIT optimizes away empty loop bodies, so your loops actually look like this:
while((c = fa.read()) != -1);
and
while((line = fa.readLine()) != null);
I suggest you read up on benchmarking here and the optimization of the loops here.
As to why the time taken differs:
Reason one (This only applies if the bodies of the loops contain code): In the first example, you're doing one operation per line, in the second, you're doing one per character. This this adds up the more lines/characters you have.
while((c = fa.read()) != -1){
//One operation per character.
}
while((line = fa.readLine()) != null){
//One operation per line.
}
Reason two: In the class BufferedReader, the method readLine() doesn't use read() behind the scenes - it uses its own code. The method readLine() does less operations per character to read a line, than it would take to read a line with the read() method - this is why readLine() is faster at reading an entire file.
Reason three: It takes more iterations to read each character, than it does to read each line (unless each character is on a new line); read() is called more times than readLine().

Thanks #Voo for the correction. What I mentioned below is correct from FileReader#read() v/s BufferedReader#readLine() point of view BUT not correct from BufferedReader#read() v/s BufferedReader#readLine() point of view, so I have striked-out the answer.
Using read() method on BufferedReader is not a good idea, it wouldn't cause you any harm but it certainly wastes the purpose of class.
Whole purpose in life of BufferedReader is to reduce the i/o by buffering the content. You can read here in Java tutorials. You may also notice that read() method in BufferedReader is actually inherited from Reader while readLine() is BufferedReader's own method.
If you want to use read() method then I would say you better use FileReader, which is meant for that purpose. You can read here in Java tutorials.
So, I think answer to your question is very simple (without going into bench-marking and all that explainations) -
Each read() is handled by underlying OS and triggers disk access, network activity, or some other operation that is relatively expensive.
When you use readLine() then you save all these overheads, so readLine() will always be faster than read(), may not be substantially for small data but faster.

It is not surprising to see this difference if you think about it. One test is iterating the lines in a text file, while the other is iterating characters.
Unless each line contains one character, it is expected that the readLine() is way faster than the read() method.(although as pointed out by the comments above, it is arguable since a BufferedReader buffers the input, while the physical file reading might not be the only performance taking operation)
If you really want to test the difference between the 2 I would suggest a setup where you iterate over each character in both tests. E.g. something like:
void readTest(BufferedReader r)
{
int c;
StringBuilder b = new StringBuilder();
while((c = r.read()) != -1)
b.append((char)c);
}
void readLineTest(BufferedReader r)
{
String line;
StringBuilder b = new StringBuilder();
while((line = b.readLine())!= null)
for(int i = 0; i< line.length; i++)
b.append(line.charAt(i));
}
Besides the above, please use a "Java performance diagnostic tool" to benchmark your code. Also, readup on how to microbenchmark java code.

According to the documentation:
Every read() method call makes an expensive system call.
Every readLine() method call still makes an expensive system call, however, for more bytes at once, so there are fewer calls.
Similar situation happens when we make database update command for each record we want to update, versus a batch update, where we make one call for all the records.

Reading first N bytes of a file as an InputStream in Java?

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;
}
}
}

How to use NIO to write InputStream to File?

I am using following way to write InputStream to File:
private void writeToFile(InputStream stream) throws IOException {
String filePath = "C:\\Test.jpg";
FileChannel outChannel = new FileOutputStream(filePath).getChannel();
ReadableByteChannel inChannel = Channels.newChannel(stream);
ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(1024);
while(true) {
if(inChannel.read(buffer) == -1) {
break;
}
buffer.flip();
outChannel.write(buffer);
buffer.clear();
}
inChannel.close();
outChannel.close();
}
I was wondering if this is the right way to use NIO. I have read a method FileChannel.transferFrom, which takes three parameter:
ReadableByteChannel src
long position
long count
In my case I only have src, I don't have the position and count, is there any way I can use this method to create the file?
Also for Image is there any better way to create image only from InputStream and NIO?
Any information would be very useful to me. There are similar questions here, in SO, but I cannot find any particular solution which suites my case.

I would use Files.copy
Files.copy(is, Paths.get(filePath));
as for your version
ByteBuffer.allocateDirect is faster - Java will make a best effort to perform native I/O operations directly upon it.
Closing is unreliable, if first fails second will never execute. Use try-with-resources instead, Channels are AutoCloseable too.

No it's not correct. You run the risk of losing data. The canonical NIO copy loop is as follows:
while (in.read(buffer) >= 0 || buffer.position() > 0)
{
buffer.flip();
out.write(buffer);
buffer.compact();
}
Note the changed loop conditions, which take care of flushing the output at EOS, and the use of compact() instead of clear(), which takes care of the possibility of short writes.
Similarly the canonical transferTo()/transferFrom() loop is as follows:
long offset = 0;
long quantum = 1024*1024; // or however much you want to transfer at a time
long count;
while ((count = out.transferFrom(in, offset, quantum)) > 0)
{
offset += count;
}
It must be called in a loop, as it isn't guaranteed to transfer the entire quantum.

Read large files in Java

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.