Option to pre allocate files.

[aagaande@gmail.com]

It'd be nice to have an option to pre allocate all files (0byte padding for example) to get files written as much in order on the disk as possible. This helps prevent fragmentation a lot.

[Szafran]

yup... this would help a lot

[anonymous]

In my opinion it's the most missing feature. Other than that rtorrent has all the features I can think of.

[anonymous]

Ditto. After using rtorrent for a week on a fresh partition "xfs_frag -c frag" just showed a minor fragmentation level of 99% :-(

[anonymous]

Currently I see that rtorrent does allocate sparse files to "preallocate" the files, but this isn't exactly the same thing. While the sparse files are nice, the true 0-filled preallocated files will help against filesystem fragmentation. I ended up with an ISO image with 28000 fragments on an ext3 partition after downloading(!)

[gentoo_nk]

I agree that preallocation with zero-ing (to avoid sparse files) would be a nice feature to have.

I just downloaded a linux DVD image... Result: The 4.3GB file (4338*1MB chunks) was spread over 30275 fragments! That's almost 8 fragments per torrent chunk. (One would expect that at least every chunk is written to the disk at once. That's not the case, obviously, with libtorrent, and it isn't a bad thing... but extreme fragmentation is the result.)

Sparse files are only useful as long as they remain sparse... which doesn't happen with bittorrent.

[nisse@loodin.se]

Is this something that is planned for any of the releases?

[loswillios]

there's a patch available:  http://pastebin.ca/raw/885247

you need a kernel ≥ 2.6.23. make sure to use it only on XFS filesystems

thanks to void

[anonymous]

ecryptfs users would benefit from such an option too, since ecryptfs can't handle sparse files.

See  discussion for further details.

[anonymous]

The following  workaround zeroes every file and thus should leave no holes.

It's understood that with this patch, the creation of large files will take longer.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

The following  workaround zeroes every file and thus should leave no holes.

That one was a bit `leaky' -- please use  this patch instead.

[anonymous]

Ultimately its a job for the filesystem, not for each and every program to do their own thing. ext4 is supposed to have both persistent preallocation and online defragmentation.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Ultimately its a job for the filesystem, not for each and every program to do their own thing. ext4 is supposed to have both persistent preallocation and online defragmentation.

Being bug-free is a job for the filesystem too. Nevertheless safe_sync exists.

[anonymous]

safe_sync works around a design flaw in mmap, not a filesystem bug. The problem is that a process, by design, may mmap sparse files even when writing to them would cause the FS to run out of space.

[anonymous]

It looks like on fat on Linux or on any filesystem on OS X there is no option to not preallocate. Opening a new torrent causes a surge of disk writes and the and the available disk space shrinks by the size of the torrent.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

It looks like on fat on Linux or on any filesystem on OS X there is no option to not preallocate.

Of course. That's because FAT doesn't support sparse files at all.

[parafin]

Replying to loswillios:

there's a patch available:  http://pastebin.ca/raw/885247 you need a kernel ≥ 2.6.23. make sure to use it only on XFS filesystems thanks to void

To use that patch you'll need to add --with-xfs option to configure. But there is another way - you can apply the same patch and configure libtorrent with --with-posix-fallocate (and without --with-xfs). For this to work the same as --with-xfs you'll need patched glibc (I don't think vanilla glibc has this feature) - gentoo version >=2.7-r2 would be fine, probably other distros include patch for fallocate too, kernel headers >= 2.6.23 and kernel version >= 2.6.26. This way preallocation should work on XFS and ext4 + it probably won't hurt with other FS. posix_fallocate function from glibc previously just did dd if=/dev/zero of=/file, but now (with patched glibc) it can use kernel syscall fallocate, which was introduced in 2.6.23. It needs more testing of course, but it works fine for me with XFS. I think mentioned above patch should be included in main tree, it really helps with fragmentation.

[anonymous]

Since posix-fallocate is posix, I think it should be enabled by default when available.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Ultimately its a job for the filesystem, not for each and every program to do their own thing. ext4 is supposed to have both persistent preallocation and online defragmentation.

From a code design viewpoint I totally agree. However, preallocation in a number of scenarios is not only a welcome feature; rather a needed one. Example: in low-end NAS devices (i.e. Maxtor shared storage and the likes of it) transferring files downloaded via rtorrent, to another device in the network is a disk- and not a network-limited operation! That is, transfer is around 1-2 Mbytes/sec, whereas for unfragmented files performance is greater by an order of magnitude (10-17 Mbytes/sec).

I do love rtorrent, but since I'm transferring a lot these downloaded files, this is a major problem for me. Please do consider adding this into a future version.

[solsTiCe]

at least one can defrag quite effectivly an xfs mounted filesystem xfs_fsr -v /device not sure how well it works while you download a torrent. i have not tried that ! better wait 'til it's finished.

[rakshasa]

Using posix_fallocate by default is doomed to fuck up things a lot. I've however been considering adding optional support for this using threads to avoid the blocking caused by the call on most systems.

However, it's not a priority atm.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

The following  workaround zeroes every file and thus should leave no holes.

That one was a bit `leaky' -- please use  this patch instead.

Hi. The pastebin link does not work. Would a repost be possible?

I'm loving rtorrent but I miss this feature.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

The following  workaround zeroes every file and thus should leave no holes.

That one was a bit `leaky' -- please use  this patch instead.

Hi. The pastebin link does not work. Would a repost be possible?

Sure:

 http://pastebin.ca/894036

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

The following  workaround zeroes every file and thus should leave no holes.

That one was a bit `leaky' -- please use  this patch instead.

Hi. The pastebin link does not work. Would a repost be possible?

Sure:  http://pastebin.ca/894036

BTW: I never tried this patch with libtorrent 0.12.* since I'm still using 0.11.9.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

Replying to anonymous:

The following  workaround zeroes every file and thus should leave no holes.

That one was a bit `leaky' -- please use  this patch instead.

Hi. The pastebin link does not work. Would a repost be possible?

Sure:  http://pastebin.ca/894036

BTW: I never tried this patch with libtorrent 0.12.* since I'm still using 0.11.9.

Thank you very much for the patch. I can confirm that it works with 0.12.4. It zeroes all the files when a download is started, producing files with a much smaller number of extents.

One question, must CHUNK_SIZE has the same value as the block size used in the partition hosting the downloaded files? Checked mine and it had a block size of 4096 bytes, so I left the patch untouched.

[anonymous]

I've found a "problem" with the patch. Sometimes I download only part of a torrent. I add the torrent in stopped state and set priority to off for the files I don't want. With the patch, when the torrent is started all files are allocated, including those with priority set to off. This can be a problem is the files you don't want are big.

It would be better to pre allocate only the ones with normal or high priority and create the ones with off priority as sparse (they will only get data written in case there is a chunk of the torrent that includes them and some file we want to download, so fragmentation is not an issue for them). If later we decide to download a file with off priority, it will be a sparse file and get fragmentated (I never do that, anyway).

[anonymous]

Try the patch from ticket #888, maybe that will help here too.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Try the patch from ticket #888, maybe that will help here too.

Thanks, but that won't do it (for what I want). Imagine a torrent with two big files from which we only want the first one. Torrents can have chunks than correspond to more than one file (the end of one file and the beginning of another file). As the client downloads full torrent chunks, a few bytes from the second file will be downloaded, causing the second big file to be allocated.

I made a path that does what I wanted: When starting a file it will pre allocate space for the files with normal or high priority. Files with off priority (those I don't want now or in the future) will be allocated as sparse. It uses the allocation code from one of the patches above. To be really good it should allocate in it's own thread, but I just browsed the code a bit so it'll do for now.

 http://pastebin.ca/1389768

[anonymous]

this would also speed up hashing of files..

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

One question, must CHUNK_SIZE has the same value as the block size used in the partition hosting the downloaded files?

No, it has nothing to do with the blocksize of your fs.

[anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

I've found a "problem" with the patch. Sometimes I download only part of a torrent. I add the torrent in stopped state and set priority to off for the files I don't want. With the patch, when the torrent is started all files are allocated, including those with priority set to off. This can be a problem is the files you don't want are big. It would be better to pre allocate only the ones with normal or high priority and create the ones with off priority as sparse (they will only get data written in case there is a chunk of the torrent that includes them and some file we want to download, so fragmentation is not an issue for them). If later we decide to download a file with off priority, it will be a sparse file and get fragmentated (I never do that, anyway).

This patch is really just a workaround for ecryptfs users. I've spent about 20 minutes reading the code before I wrote it..

[anonymous]

Like all those oldie adventure games: "You wait. Time passes" :)

rakshasa, this ticket is certainly not an rtorrent defect! It's more of an enhancement request. One that most NAS/low-powered-rig users on ext3 filesystems might need, but an enhancement only nevertheless.

Clean code is a good thing. A small number of options is also a good thing. But would you please make an exception for this one? Perhaps either preallocate by default or allow the user to control such behavior by rtorrent.rc configuration option?

Whatever you may decide, I must stay that I find rtorrent to be a monster of stability. It is simply impossible to crash/break this thing! Congrats on a well written application mate!

[the_other_anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

Like all those oldie adventure games: "You wait. Time passes" :) rakshasa, this ticket is certainly not an rtorrent defect! It's more of an enhancement request. One that most NAS/low-powered-rig users on ext3 filesystems might need, but an enhancement only nevertheless. Clean code is a good thing. A small number of options is also a good thing. But would you please make an exception for this one? Perhaps either preallocate by default or allow the user to control such behavior by rtorrent.rc configuration option? Whatever you may decide, I must stay that I find rtorrent to be a monster of stability. It is simply impossible to crash/break this thing! Congrats on a well written application mate!

Amen!

[rakshasa]

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

[the_other_anonymous]

Replying to rakshasa:

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

lol!

[rakshasa]

Latest commit contains some code for this... Can't test it since MacOSX doesn't support posix_fallocate. To try it out, configure with '--with-posix-fallocate' and set 'system.file_allocate.set = yes'.

When starting large torrents, it should hang for a while allocating the files on disk.

[the _grue_eaten_anonymous]

<OT>Glad to see Zork had its impact alright ;) As for me, I was a hobbit/spectrum guy back then. Oh well, mindless chatter of mine</ot>

Thank you for considering this enhancement rakhasa! Will be awaiting for this feature to hit the optware distributions with great anticipation.

[the_other_anonymous]

Replying to rakshasa:

Latest commit contains some code for this... Can't test it since MacOSX doesn't support posix_fallocate. To try it out, configure with '--with-posix-fallocate' and set 'system.file_allocate.set = yes'. When starting large torrents, it should hang for a while allocating the files on disk.

Please forgive my slowness but this will only work on ext4, right?

[anonymous]

 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7272/2/

The fallocate() system call is not in most glibc’s as of this writing, but posix_fallocate() is; the problem with posix_fallocate is that if you use it on ext3, it will attempt to emulate fallocate() by writing all zeros to the file. This emulation step can be very slow, and may come as a surprise to the application that was expecting posix_fallocate() to be quick; the fallocate() system call has the advantage that if it is not present, it will fail, and the application can then decide on its own what it wants to do.

All right!

[the_other_anonymous]

Ugh, sorry, again:

The fallocate() system call is not in most glibc’s as of this writing,
but posix_fallocate() is; the problem with posix_fallocate is that if
you use it on ext3, it will attempt to emulate fallocate() by writing
all zeros to the file. This emulation step can be very slow, and may
come as a surprise to the application that was expecting
posix_fallocate() to be quick; the fallocate() system call has the
advantage that if it is not present, it will fail, and the application
can then decide on its own what it wants to do.

[the_other_anonymous]

Well, done! It works as expected (on encfs; which like ecryptfs, cannot handle sparse files).

The write-pattern is a bit weird, though:

But that's glibc, I guess.

[rakshasa]

Considering this fixed.

[anonymous]

rakhasha,

the change just hit the optware distro. Awesome work mate, the difference is really *vast*!

Hats of to you, you rock!

[anonymous]

Thanks for this feature, I really missed it.

Just one comment for your consideration: If we download only a set of files of a torrent it might be better to posix_fallocate only the files that don't have off priority. Right now, chunks that span over two files might produce the allocation of a file with priority set to off. This might be a problem with big files (in terms of disk space used, I mean), for example a torrent with two DVDs from which we only want one.

[another_anonymous]

Replying to anonymous:

I made a path that does what I wanted: When starting a file it will pre allocate space for the files with normal or high priority. Files with off priority (those I don't want now or in the future) will be allocated as sparse. It uses the allocation code from one of the patches above. To be really good it should allocate in it's own thread, but I just browsed the code a bit so it'll do for now.  http://pastebin.ca/1389768

This pastebin appears to have expired. Could you re-post please?

[f.dumas@ellis.siteparc.fr]

Replying to rakshasa:

Latest commit contains some code for this... Can't test it since MacOSX doesn't support posix_fallocate. To try it out, configure with '--with-posix-fallocate' and set 'system.file_allocate.set = yes'. When starting large torrents, it should hang for a while allocating the files on disk.

Hi,

I am running version 0.8.2 on Ubuntu. I installed the binary from Ubuntu's repositories. Then,

1- added the line 'system.file_allocate.set = yes' to ~/.rtorrent.rc
2- called 'rtorrent --with-posix-fallocate' from bash
3- got the following error message :

rtorrent: Error in option file: ~/.rtorrent.rc:37: Command "system.file_allocate.set" does not exist.

4- got an alternate error, if line 'system.file_allocate.set = yes' is commented:

rtorrent: invalid option -- '-'
rtorrent: Invalid/unknown option flag "--". See rtorrent -h for more information.

How to use parameter '--with-posix-fallocate' and setting 'system.file_allocate.set = yes' rakshasa wrote about ?

Thanks.

[anonymous]

Use a more recent version. 0.8.2 is ancient (but upgrade libtorrent first). The --with-posix-fallocate is not a runtime option, it's a configure option. So you'll have to compile it yourself if the repository version is compiled without it.

[f.dumas@ellis.siteparc.fr]

Thanks.

Should I understand the fix was added only to release 0.8.5 ?

[Libtorrent-devel] LibTorrent 0.12.5 and rTorrent 0.8.5 released
Added support for using posix_fallocate on newly resized files.

Is "posix_fallocate on newly resized files" the same issue as the one covered by ticket #460 ?

[Alexander]

I've got it working under Debian Lenny. Glibc was recent enough. I used rtorrent and libtorrent from unstable (0.8.6 and 0.11.6). Libtorrent needed recompile with --with-posix-fallocate, rtorrent package didn't.

If filesystem is ext3 rtorrent freezes while preallocation is running, since ext3 doesn't support extents and preallocation and glibc call falls back to writing zeros to the file. I reformatted partition as xfs, fallocate() returns immidiately and after downloading and xfs_bmap shows that file consists from one large extent. Perfect.

By the way, I guess that if you don't want to recompile, you may try to mount xfs with allocsize=16m, it should help with fragmentation. That would work if you don't have a lot small files on that partition.