What's the POSIX way to read an exact number of bytes from a file?2019 Community Moderator ElectionCreate random data with dd and get “partial read warning”. Is the data after the warning now really random?Can I read a single character from stdin in POSIX shell?Can't clone hard disk with dd no space leftBest way to remove bytes from the start of a file?Shell: How to read the bytes of a binary file and print as hexadecimal?Read the middle of a large fileextract number of bytes out of a filewhy does it take so long to read the top few lines of my file?Does POSIX limit the number of directories in the os root?What is the portable (POSIX) way to achieve process substitution?Remove null bytes from the end of a large fileDoes POSIX standardize the file descriptor numbers?What's the right way to base64 encode a binary file on CentOS 7?
Calculating the number of days between 2 dates in Excel
Pronouncing Homer as in modern Greek
Latex for-and in equation
Who must act to prevent Brexit on March 29th?
Superhero words!
How can I successfully establish a nationwide combat training program for a large country?
What is the opposite of 'gravitas'?
How can I raise concerns with a new DM about XP splitting?
Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?
Invariance of results when scaling explanatory variables in logistic regression, is there a proof?
Is there an wasy way to program in Tikz something like the one in the image?
word describing multiple paths to the same abstract outcome
Simple image editor tool to draw a simple box/rectangle in an existing image
Partial sums of primes
Teaching indefinite integrals that require special-casing
What to do when my ideas aren't chosen, when I strongly disagree with the chosen solution?
I2C signal and power over long range (10meter cable)
Why is delta-v is the most useful quantity for planning space travel?
Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?
What would you call a finite collection of unordered objects that are not necessarily distinct?
Is infinity mathematically observable?
Is it possible to build a CPA Secure encryption scheme which remains secure even when the encryption of secret key is given?
What do you call the infoboxes with text and sometimes images on the side of a page we find in textbooks?
How to be able to process a large JSON response?
What's the POSIX way to read an exact number of bytes from a file?
2019 Community Moderator ElectionCreate random data with dd and get “partial read warning”. Is the data after the warning now really random?Can I read a single character from stdin in POSIX shell?Can't clone hard disk with dd no space leftBest way to remove bytes from the start of a file?Shell: How to read the bytes of a binary file and print as hexadecimal?Read the middle of a large fileextract number of bytes out of a filewhy does it take so long to read the top few lines of my file?Does POSIX limit the number of directories in the os root?What is the portable (POSIX) way to achieve process substitution?Remove null bytes from the end of a large fileDoes POSIX standardize the file descriptor numbers?What's the right way to base64 encode a binary file on CentOS 7?
Just hit this problem, and learned a lot from the chosen answer: Create random data with dd and get "partial read warning". Is the data after the warning now really random?
Unfortunately the suggested solution head -c is not portable.
For folks who insist that dd is the answer, please carefully read the linked answer which explains in great detail why dd can not be the answer. Also, please observe this:
$ dd bs=1000000 count=10 if=/dev/random of=random
dd: warning: partial read (89 bytes); suggest iflag=fullblock
0+10 records in
0+10 records out
143 bytes (143 B) copied, 99.3918 s, 0.0 kB/s
$ ls -l random ; du -kP random
-rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 143 Apr 22 19:19 random
4 random
$ pwd
/tmp
dd posix binary head
|
show 10 more comments
Just hit this problem, and learned a lot from the chosen answer: Create random data with dd and get "partial read warning". Is the data after the warning now really random?
Unfortunately the suggested solution head -c is not portable.
For folks who insist that dd is the answer, please carefully read the linked answer which explains in great detail why dd can not be the answer. Also, please observe this:
$ dd bs=1000000 count=10 if=/dev/random of=random
dd: warning: partial read (89 bytes); suggest iflag=fullblock
0+10 records in
0+10 records out
143 bytes (143 B) copied, 99.3918 s, 0.0 kB/s
$ ls -l random ; du -kP random
-rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 143 Apr 22 19:19 random
4 random
$ pwd
/tmp
dd posix binary head
ddis portable. If you don't mind the warning, or adjust your blocksize, is there a problem with usingdd?
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 21:35
@muru OP referred tohead -cnot being portable.
– Guido
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@Guido yes, butddis.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@murudddoesn't do the job, for reasons explained in the linked answer. In my experiments, requesting 10 * 2^20 bytes withddyields less than 200 bytes. If you don't understand or believe that, I urge you to read the linked answer which clearly explains how it can be so.
– Low Powah
Apr 22 '16 at 22:55
@LowPowah I did read the linked post and I understand it, but I wonder why you can't adjust your blocksize.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 23:01
|
show 10 more comments
Just hit this problem, and learned a lot from the chosen answer: Create random data with dd and get "partial read warning". Is the data after the warning now really random?
Unfortunately the suggested solution head -c is not portable.
For folks who insist that dd is the answer, please carefully read the linked answer which explains in great detail why dd can not be the answer. Also, please observe this:
$ dd bs=1000000 count=10 if=/dev/random of=random
dd: warning: partial read (89 bytes); suggest iflag=fullblock
0+10 records in
0+10 records out
143 bytes (143 B) copied, 99.3918 s, 0.0 kB/s
$ ls -l random ; du -kP random
-rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 143 Apr 22 19:19 random
4 random
$ pwd
/tmp
dd posix binary head
Just hit this problem, and learned a lot from the chosen answer: Create random data with dd and get "partial read warning". Is the data after the warning now really random?
Unfortunately the suggested solution head -c is not portable.
For folks who insist that dd is the answer, please carefully read the linked answer which explains in great detail why dd can not be the answer. Also, please observe this:
$ dd bs=1000000 count=10 if=/dev/random of=random
dd: warning: partial read (89 bytes); suggest iflag=fullblock
0+10 records in
0+10 records out
143 bytes (143 B) copied, 99.3918 s, 0.0 kB/s
$ ls -l random ; du -kP random
-rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 143 Apr 22 19:19 random
4 random
$ pwd
/tmp
dd posix binary head
dd posix binary head
edited Apr 22 '16 at 23:28
Low Powah
asked Apr 22 '16 at 21:23
Low PowahLow Powah
137
137
ddis portable. If you don't mind the warning, or adjust your blocksize, is there a problem with usingdd?
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 21:35
@muru OP referred tohead -cnot being portable.
– Guido
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@Guido yes, butddis.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@murudddoesn't do the job, for reasons explained in the linked answer. In my experiments, requesting 10 * 2^20 bytes withddyields less than 200 bytes. If you don't understand or believe that, I urge you to read the linked answer which clearly explains how it can be so.
– Low Powah
Apr 22 '16 at 22:55
@LowPowah I did read the linked post and I understand it, but I wonder why you can't adjust your blocksize.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 23:01
|
show 10 more comments
ddis portable. If you don't mind the warning, or adjust your blocksize, is there a problem with usingdd?
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 21:35
@muru OP referred tohead -cnot being portable.
– Guido
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@Guido yes, butddis.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@murudddoesn't do the job, for reasons explained in the linked answer. In my experiments, requesting 10 * 2^20 bytes withddyields less than 200 bytes. If you don't understand or believe that, I urge you to read the linked answer which clearly explains how it can be so.
– Low Powah
Apr 22 '16 at 22:55
@LowPowah I did read the linked post and I understand it, but I wonder why you can't adjust your blocksize.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 23:01
dd is portable. If you don't mind the warning, or adjust your blocksize, is there a problem with using dd?– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 21:35
dd is portable. If you don't mind the warning, or adjust your blocksize, is there a problem with using dd?– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 21:35
@muru OP referred to
head -c not being portable.– Guido
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@muru OP referred to
head -c not being portable.– Guido
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@Guido yes, but
dd is.– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@Guido yes, but
dd is.– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@muru
dd doesn't do the job, for reasons explained in the linked answer. In my experiments, requesting 10 * 2^20 bytes with dd yields less than 200 bytes. If you don't understand or believe that, I urge you to read the linked answer which clearly explains how it can be so.– Low Powah
Apr 22 '16 at 22:55
@muru
dd doesn't do the job, for reasons explained in the linked answer. In my experiments, requesting 10 * 2^20 bytes with dd yields less than 200 bytes. If you don't understand or believe that, I urge you to read the linked answer which clearly explains how it can be so.– Low Powah
Apr 22 '16 at 22:55
@LowPowah I did read the linked post and I understand it, but I wonder why you can't adjust your blocksize.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 23:01
@LowPowah I did read the linked post and I understand it, but I wonder why you can't adjust your blocksize.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 23:01
|
show 10 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Unfortunately, to manipulate the content of a binary file, dd is pretty much the only tool in POSIX. Although most modern implementations of text processing tools (cat, sed, awk, …) can manipulate binary files, this is not required by POSIX: some older implementations do choke on null bytes, input not terminated by a newline, or invalid byte sequences in the ambient character encoding.
It is possible, but difficult, to use dd safely. The reason I spend a lot of energy steering people away from it is that there's a lot of advice out there that promotes dd in situations where it is neither useful nor safe.
The problem with dd is its notion of blocks: it assumes that a call to read returns one block; if read returns less data, you get a partial block, which throws things like skip and count off. Here's an example that illustrates the problem, where dd is reading from a pipe that delivers data relatively slowly:
yes hello | while read line; do echo $line; done | dd ibs=4 count=1000 | wc -c
On a bog-standard Linux (Debian jessie, Linux kernel 3.16, dd from GNU coreutils 8.23), I get a highly variable number of bytes, ranging from about 3000 to almost 4000. Change the input block size to a divisor of 6, and the output is consistently 4000 bytes as one would naively expect — the input to dd arrives in bursts of 6 bytes, and as long as a block doesn't span multiple bursts, dd gets to read a complete block.
This suggests a solution: use an input block size of 1. No matter how the input is produced, there's no way for dd to read a partial block if the input block size is 1. (This is not completely obvious: dd could read a block of size 0 if it's interrupted by a signal — but if it's interrupted by a signal, the read system call returns -1. A read returning 0 is only possible if the file is opened in non-blocking mode, and in that case a read had better not be considered to have been performed at all. In blocking mode, read only returns 0 at the end of the file.)
dd ibs=1 count="$number_of_bytes"
The problem with this approach is that it can be slow (but not shockingly slow: only about 4 times slower than head -c in my quick benchmark).
POSIX defines other tools that read binary data and convert it to a text format: uuencode (outputs in historical uuencode format or in Base64), od (outputs an octal or hexadecimal dump). Neither is well-suited to the task at hand. uuencode can be undone by uudecode, but counting bytes in the output is awkward because the number of bytes per line of output is not standardized. It's possible to get well-defined output from od, but unfortunately there's no POSIX tool to go the other way round (it can be done but only through slow loops in sh or awk, which defeats the purpose here).
Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. It seems like there is no simple, and safe way which is also portable. Maybe the answer is to write a C program if one wants to work with arbitrary bytes in units smaller than lines. I am intrigued by the possibility of a uuencode/uudecode solution. Can you please explain a little more why such a solution would not be safe or portable? (I'm defining safe to mean guaranteed not to lose data on given that everything else works perfectly.)
– Low Powah
Apr 23 '16 at 0:27
@LowPowahuuencodewon't lose data, the problem is counting the input bytes. You can easily count the number of lines, but the number of bytes per line is not standardized. You can pipe into awk and do the counting there, but if you do that I think you'll lose any speed advantage. Furthermore the output ofuuencode(in either format) can't easily be split according to input bytes, since it processes bytes by blocks. The output ofodis easy to work with but difficult to convert back to binary afterwards.
– Gilles
Apr 23 '16 at 0:34
add a comment |
Newer version of dd have a count_bytes iflag. eg:
cat /dev/zero | dd count=1234 iflag=count_bytes | wc -c
will output something like
2+1 records in
2+1 records out
1234 bytes (1.2 kB, 1.2 KiB) copied, 0.000161684 s, 7.6 MB/s
1234
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Part of the point of using dd at all is that the user gets to pick the block size it uses. If dd fails for too large block sizes, IMO it's the user's responsibility to try smaller block sizes. I could ask for a TB from dd in one block, but that doesn't mean I'll get it.
If you want an exact number of bytes, this will be horrendously slow, but should work:
dd bs=1 count=1000000
If even a block size of 1 results in partial reads, …
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f278443%2fwhats-the-posix-way-to-read-an-exact-number-of-bytes-from-a-file%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Unfortunately, to manipulate the content of a binary file, dd is pretty much the only tool in POSIX. Although most modern implementations of text processing tools (cat, sed, awk, …) can manipulate binary files, this is not required by POSIX: some older implementations do choke on null bytes, input not terminated by a newline, or invalid byte sequences in the ambient character encoding.
It is possible, but difficult, to use dd safely. The reason I spend a lot of energy steering people away from it is that there's a lot of advice out there that promotes dd in situations where it is neither useful nor safe.
The problem with dd is its notion of blocks: it assumes that a call to read returns one block; if read returns less data, you get a partial block, which throws things like skip and count off. Here's an example that illustrates the problem, where dd is reading from a pipe that delivers data relatively slowly:
yes hello | while read line; do echo $line; done | dd ibs=4 count=1000 | wc -c
On a bog-standard Linux (Debian jessie, Linux kernel 3.16, dd from GNU coreutils 8.23), I get a highly variable number of bytes, ranging from about 3000 to almost 4000. Change the input block size to a divisor of 6, and the output is consistently 4000 bytes as one would naively expect — the input to dd arrives in bursts of 6 bytes, and as long as a block doesn't span multiple bursts, dd gets to read a complete block.
This suggests a solution: use an input block size of 1. No matter how the input is produced, there's no way for dd to read a partial block if the input block size is 1. (This is not completely obvious: dd could read a block of size 0 if it's interrupted by a signal — but if it's interrupted by a signal, the read system call returns -1. A read returning 0 is only possible if the file is opened in non-blocking mode, and in that case a read had better not be considered to have been performed at all. In blocking mode, read only returns 0 at the end of the file.)
dd ibs=1 count="$number_of_bytes"
The problem with this approach is that it can be slow (but not shockingly slow: only about 4 times slower than head -c in my quick benchmark).
POSIX defines other tools that read binary data and convert it to a text format: uuencode (outputs in historical uuencode format or in Base64), od (outputs an octal or hexadecimal dump). Neither is well-suited to the task at hand. uuencode can be undone by uudecode, but counting bytes in the output is awkward because the number of bytes per line of output is not standardized. It's possible to get well-defined output from od, but unfortunately there's no POSIX tool to go the other way round (it can be done but only through slow loops in sh or awk, which defeats the purpose here).
Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. It seems like there is no simple, and safe way which is also portable. Maybe the answer is to write a C program if one wants to work with arbitrary bytes in units smaller than lines. I am intrigued by the possibility of a uuencode/uudecode solution. Can you please explain a little more why such a solution would not be safe or portable? (I'm defining safe to mean guaranteed not to lose data on given that everything else works perfectly.)
– Low Powah
Apr 23 '16 at 0:27
@LowPowahuuencodewon't lose data, the problem is counting the input bytes. You can easily count the number of lines, but the number of bytes per line is not standardized. You can pipe into awk and do the counting there, but if you do that I think you'll lose any speed advantage. Furthermore the output ofuuencode(in either format) can't easily be split according to input bytes, since it processes bytes by blocks. The output ofodis easy to work with but difficult to convert back to binary afterwards.
– Gilles
Apr 23 '16 at 0:34
add a comment |
Unfortunately, to manipulate the content of a binary file, dd is pretty much the only tool in POSIX. Although most modern implementations of text processing tools (cat, sed, awk, …) can manipulate binary files, this is not required by POSIX: some older implementations do choke on null bytes, input not terminated by a newline, or invalid byte sequences in the ambient character encoding.
It is possible, but difficult, to use dd safely. The reason I spend a lot of energy steering people away from it is that there's a lot of advice out there that promotes dd in situations where it is neither useful nor safe.
The problem with dd is its notion of blocks: it assumes that a call to read returns one block; if read returns less data, you get a partial block, which throws things like skip and count off. Here's an example that illustrates the problem, where dd is reading from a pipe that delivers data relatively slowly:
yes hello | while read line; do echo $line; done | dd ibs=4 count=1000 | wc -c
On a bog-standard Linux (Debian jessie, Linux kernel 3.16, dd from GNU coreutils 8.23), I get a highly variable number of bytes, ranging from about 3000 to almost 4000. Change the input block size to a divisor of 6, and the output is consistently 4000 bytes as one would naively expect — the input to dd arrives in bursts of 6 bytes, and as long as a block doesn't span multiple bursts, dd gets to read a complete block.
This suggests a solution: use an input block size of 1. No matter how the input is produced, there's no way for dd to read a partial block if the input block size is 1. (This is not completely obvious: dd could read a block of size 0 if it's interrupted by a signal — but if it's interrupted by a signal, the read system call returns -1. A read returning 0 is only possible if the file is opened in non-blocking mode, and in that case a read had better not be considered to have been performed at all. In blocking mode, read only returns 0 at the end of the file.)
dd ibs=1 count="$number_of_bytes"
The problem with this approach is that it can be slow (but not shockingly slow: only about 4 times slower than head -c in my quick benchmark).
POSIX defines other tools that read binary data and convert it to a text format: uuencode (outputs in historical uuencode format or in Base64), od (outputs an octal or hexadecimal dump). Neither is well-suited to the task at hand. uuencode can be undone by uudecode, but counting bytes in the output is awkward because the number of bytes per line of output is not standardized. It's possible to get well-defined output from od, but unfortunately there's no POSIX tool to go the other way round (it can be done but only through slow loops in sh or awk, which defeats the purpose here).
Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. It seems like there is no simple, and safe way which is also portable. Maybe the answer is to write a C program if one wants to work with arbitrary bytes in units smaller than lines. I am intrigued by the possibility of a uuencode/uudecode solution. Can you please explain a little more why such a solution would not be safe or portable? (I'm defining safe to mean guaranteed not to lose data on given that everything else works perfectly.)
– Low Powah
Apr 23 '16 at 0:27
@LowPowahuuencodewon't lose data, the problem is counting the input bytes. You can easily count the number of lines, but the number of bytes per line is not standardized. You can pipe into awk and do the counting there, but if you do that I think you'll lose any speed advantage. Furthermore the output ofuuencode(in either format) can't easily be split according to input bytes, since it processes bytes by blocks. The output ofodis easy to work with but difficult to convert back to binary afterwards.
– Gilles
Apr 23 '16 at 0:34
add a comment |
Unfortunately, to manipulate the content of a binary file, dd is pretty much the only tool in POSIX. Although most modern implementations of text processing tools (cat, sed, awk, …) can manipulate binary files, this is not required by POSIX: some older implementations do choke on null bytes, input not terminated by a newline, or invalid byte sequences in the ambient character encoding.
It is possible, but difficult, to use dd safely. The reason I spend a lot of energy steering people away from it is that there's a lot of advice out there that promotes dd in situations where it is neither useful nor safe.
The problem with dd is its notion of blocks: it assumes that a call to read returns one block; if read returns less data, you get a partial block, which throws things like skip and count off. Here's an example that illustrates the problem, where dd is reading from a pipe that delivers data relatively slowly:
yes hello | while read line; do echo $line; done | dd ibs=4 count=1000 | wc -c
On a bog-standard Linux (Debian jessie, Linux kernel 3.16, dd from GNU coreutils 8.23), I get a highly variable number of bytes, ranging from about 3000 to almost 4000. Change the input block size to a divisor of 6, and the output is consistently 4000 bytes as one would naively expect — the input to dd arrives in bursts of 6 bytes, and as long as a block doesn't span multiple bursts, dd gets to read a complete block.
This suggests a solution: use an input block size of 1. No matter how the input is produced, there's no way for dd to read a partial block if the input block size is 1. (This is not completely obvious: dd could read a block of size 0 if it's interrupted by a signal — but if it's interrupted by a signal, the read system call returns -1. A read returning 0 is only possible if the file is opened in non-blocking mode, and in that case a read had better not be considered to have been performed at all. In blocking mode, read only returns 0 at the end of the file.)
dd ibs=1 count="$number_of_bytes"
The problem with this approach is that it can be slow (but not shockingly slow: only about 4 times slower than head -c in my quick benchmark).
POSIX defines other tools that read binary data and convert it to a text format: uuencode (outputs in historical uuencode format or in Base64), od (outputs an octal or hexadecimal dump). Neither is well-suited to the task at hand. uuencode can be undone by uudecode, but counting bytes in the output is awkward because the number of bytes per line of output is not standardized. It's possible to get well-defined output from od, but unfortunately there's no POSIX tool to go the other way round (it can be done but only through slow loops in sh or awk, which defeats the purpose here).
Unfortunately, to manipulate the content of a binary file, dd is pretty much the only tool in POSIX. Although most modern implementations of text processing tools (cat, sed, awk, …) can manipulate binary files, this is not required by POSIX: some older implementations do choke on null bytes, input not terminated by a newline, or invalid byte sequences in the ambient character encoding.
It is possible, but difficult, to use dd safely. The reason I spend a lot of energy steering people away from it is that there's a lot of advice out there that promotes dd in situations where it is neither useful nor safe.
The problem with dd is its notion of blocks: it assumes that a call to read returns one block; if read returns less data, you get a partial block, which throws things like skip and count off. Here's an example that illustrates the problem, where dd is reading from a pipe that delivers data relatively slowly:
yes hello | while read line; do echo $line; done | dd ibs=4 count=1000 | wc -c
On a bog-standard Linux (Debian jessie, Linux kernel 3.16, dd from GNU coreutils 8.23), I get a highly variable number of bytes, ranging from about 3000 to almost 4000. Change the input block size to a divisor of 6, and the output is consistently 4000 bytes as one would naively expect — the input to dd arrives in bursts of 6 bytes, and as long as a block doesn't span multiple bursts, dd gets to read a complete block.
This suggests a solution: use an input block size of 1. No matter how the input is produced, there's no way for dd to read a partial block if the input block size is 1. (This is not completely obvious: dd could read a block of size 0 if it's interrupted by a signal — but if it's interrupted by a signal, the read system call returns -1. A read returning 0 is only possible if the file is opened in non-blocking mode, and in that case a read had better not be considered to have been performed at all. In blocking mode, read only returns 0 at the end of the file.)
dd ibs=1 count="$number_of_bytes"
The problem with this approach is that it can be slow (but not shockingly slow: only about 4 times slower than head -c in my quick benchmark).
POSIX defines other tools that read binary data and convert it to a text format: uuencode (outputs in historical uuencode format or in Base64), od (outputs an octal or hexadecimal dump). Neither is well-suited to the task at hand. uuencode can be undone by uudecode, but counting bytes in the output is awkward because the number of bytes per line of output is not standardized. It's possible to get well-defined output from od, but unfortunately there's no POSIX tool to go the other way round (it can be done but only through slow loops in sh or awk, which defeats the purpose here).
answered Apr 22 '16 at 23:36
GillesGilles
544k12811021619
544k12811021619
Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. It seems like there is no simple, and safe way which is also portable. Maybe the answer is to write a C program if one wants to work with arbitrary bytes in units smaller than lines. I am intrigued by the possibility of a uuencode/uudecode solution. Can you please explain a little more why such a solution would not be safe or portable? (I'm defining safe to mean guaranteed not to lose data on given that everything else works perfectly.)
– Low Powah
Apr 23 '16 at 0:27
@LowPowahuuencodewon't lose data, the problem is counting the input bytes. You can easily count the number of lines, but the number of bytes per line is not standardized. You can pipe into awk and do the counting there, but if you do that I think you'll lose any speed advantage. Furthermore the output ofuuencode(in either format) can't easily be split according to input bytes, since it processes bytes by blocks. The output ofodis easy to work with but difficult to convert back to binary afterwards.
– Gilles
Apr 23 '16 at 0:34
add a comment |
Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. It seems like there is no simple, and safe way which is also portable. Maybe the answer is to write a C program if one wants to work with arbitrary bytes in units smaller than lines. I am intrigued by the possibility of a uuencode/uudecode solution. Can you please explain a little more why such a solution would not be safe or portable? (I'm defining safe to mean guaranteed not to lose data on given that everything else works perfectly.)
– Low Powah
Apr 23 '16 at 0:27
@LowPowahuuencodewon't lose data, the problem is counting the input bytes. You can easily count the number of lines, but the number of bytes per line is not standardized. You can pipe into awk and do the counting there, but if you do that I think you'll lose any speed advantage. Furthermore the output ofuuencode(in either format) can't easily be split according to input bytes, since it processes bytes by blocks. The output ofodis easy to work with but difficult to convert back to binary afterwards.
– Gilles
Apr 23 '16 at 0:34
Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. It seems like there is no simple, and safe way which is also portable. Maybe the answer is to write a C program if one wants to work with arbitrary bytes in units smaller than lines. I am intrigued by the possibility of a uuencode/uudecode solution. Can you please explain a little more why such a solution would not be safe or portable? (I'm defining safe to mean guaranteed not to lose data on given that everything else works perfectly.)
– Low Powah
Apr 23 '16 at 0:27
Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. It seems like there is no simple, and safe way which is also portable. Maybe the answer is to write a C program if one wants to work with arbitrary bytes in units smaller than lines. I am intrigued by the possibility of a uuencode/uudecode solution. Can you please explain a little more why such a solution would not be safe or portable? (I'm defining safe to mean guaranteed not to lose data on given that everything else works perfectly.)
– Low Powah
Apr 23 '16 at 0:27
@LowPowah
uuencode won't lose data, the problem is counting the input bytes. You can easily count the number of lines, but the number of bytes per line is not standardized. You can pipe into awk and do the counting there, but if you do that I think you'll lose any speed advantage. Furthermore the output of uuencode (in either format) can't easily be split according to input bytes, since it processes bytes by blocks. The output of od is easy to work with but difficult to convert back to binary afterwards.– Gilles
Apr 23 '16 at 0:34
@LowPowah
uuencode won't lose data, the problem is counting the input bytes. You can easily count the number of lines, but the number of bytes per line is not standardized. You can pipe into awk and do the counting there, but if you do that I think you'll lose any speed advantage. Furthermore the output of uuencode (in either format) can't easily be split according to input bytes, since it processes bytes by blocks. The output of od is easy to work with but difficult to convert back to binary afterwards.– Gilles
Apr 23 '16 at 0:34
add a comment |
Newer version of dd have a count_bytes iflag. eg:
cat /dev/zero | dd count=1234 iflag=count_bytes | wc -c
will output something like
2+1 records in
2+1 records out
1234 bytes (1.2 kB, 1.2 KiB) copied, 0.000161684 s, 7.6 MB/s
1234
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Newer version of dd have a count_bytes iflag. eg:
cat /dev/zero | dd count=1234 iflag=count_bytes | wc -c
will output something like
2+1 records in
2+1 records out
1234 bytes (1.2 kB, 1.2 KiB) copied, 0.000161684 s, 7.6 MB/s
1234
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Newer version of dd have a count_bytes iflag. eg:
cat /dev/zero | dd count=1234 iflag=count_bytes | wc -c
will output something like
2+1 records in
2+1 records out
1234 bytes (1.2 kB, 1.2 KiB) copied, 0.000161684 s, 7.6 MB/s
1234
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Newer version of dd have a count_bytes iflag. eg:
cat /dev/zero | dd count=1234 iflag=count_bytes | wc -c
will output something like
2+1 records in
2+1 records out
1234 bytes (1.2 kB, 1.2 KiB) copied, 0.000161684 s, 7.6 MB/s
1234
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Mar 22 at 18:43
jdizzlejdizzle
1011
1011
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
jdizzle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Part of the point of using dd at all is that the user gets to pick the block size it uses. If dd fails for too large block sizes, IMO it's the user's responsibility to try smaller block sizes. I could ask for a TB from dd in one block, but that doesn't mean I'll get it.
If you want an exact number of bytes, this will be horrendously slow, but should work:
dd bs=1 count=1000000
If even a block size of 1 results in partial reads, …
add a comment |
Part of the point of using dd at all is that the user gets to pick the block size it uses. If dd fails for too large block sizes, IMO it's the user's responsibility to try smaller block sizes. I could ask for a TB from dd in one block, but that doesn't mean I'll get it.
If you want an exact number of bytes, this will be horrendously slow, but should work:
dd bs=1 count=1000000
If even a block size of 1 results in partial reads, …
add a comment |
Part of the point of using dd at all is that the user gets to pick the block size it uses. If dd fails for too large block sizes, IMO it's the user's responsibility to try smaller block sizes. I could ask for a TB from dd in one block, but that doesn't mean I'll get it.
If you want an exact number of bytes, this will be horrendously slow, but should work:
dd bs=1 count=1000000
If even a block size of 1 results in partial reads, …
Part of the point of using dd at all is that the user gets to pick the block size it uses. If dd fails for too large block sizes, IMO it's the user's responsibility to try smaller block sizes. I could ask for a TB from dd in one block, but that doesn't mean I'll get it.
If you want an exact number of bytes, this will be horrendously slow, but should work:
dd bs=1 count=1000000
If even a block size of 1 results in partial reads, …
answered Apr 22 '16 at 23:29
murumuru
36.5k589163
36.5k589163
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f278443%2fwhats-the-posix-way-to-read-an-exact-number-of-bytes-from-a-file%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
-binary, dd, head, posix
ddis portable. If you don't mind the warning, or adjust your blocksize, is there a problem with usingdd?– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 21:35
@muru OP referred to
head -cnot being portable.– Guido
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@Guido yes, but
ddis.– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 22:30
@muru
dddoesn't do the job, for reasons explained in the linked answer. In my experiments, requesting 10 * 2^20 bytes withddyields less than 200 bytes. If you don't understand or believe that, I urge you to read the linked answer which clearly explains how it can be so.– Low Powah
Apr 22 '16 at 22:55
@LowPowah I did read the linked post and I understand it, but I wonder why you can't adjust your blocksize.
– muru
Apr 22 '16 at 23:01