file_get_contents vs readfile

[howa]

Target: To fetch a file using PHP and send to user

Method 1:

echo file_get_contents( $file_path );

Method 2:

readfile( $file_path );
Which one is better?

[ZeldorBlat]

On Sep 10, 10:07 am, howa <[e-mail]:

Target: To fetch a file using PHP and send to user

Method 1:

echo file_get_contents( $file_path );

Method 2:

readfile( $file_path );

Which one is better?

In practice it probably doesn't make much of a difference. In this
case, however, I'd use readfile since the function was intended to do
exactly what it is that you're trying to do.

[Erwin Moller]

howa wrote:

Target: To fetch a file using PHP and send to user

Method 1:

echo file_get_contents( $file_path );

Method 2:

readfile( $file_path );
Which one is better?

According to www.php.net:

file_get_contents() is the preferred way to read the contents of a file
into a string. It will use memory mapping techniques if supported by
your OS to enhance performance.

But that aside, I don't know what is better.
You could try to see if a huge file give better performance with
file_get_contents(), but I expect the networktraffic is a much bigger
concern than the servers file-IO.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

[howa]

On 9 10 , 10 20 , ZeldorBlat <[e-mail]:

On Sep 10, 10:07 am, howa <[e-mail]:

Target: To fetch a file using PHP and send to user

Method 1:

echo file_get_contents( $file_path );

Method 2:

readfile( $file_path );

Which one is better?

In practice it probably doesn't make much of a difference. In this
case, however, I'd use readfile since the function was intended to do
exactly what it is that you're trying to do.

from the doc it said:

file_get_contents() is the preferred way to read the contents of a
file into a string

also, readfile() also need to read the entrie file into memory before
send to buffer, so I am just wondering which is better.

[gosha bine]

On 10.09.2007 16:23 howa wrote:

On 9 10 , 10 20 , ZeldorBlat <[e-mail]:

>On Sep 10, 10:07 am, howa <[e-mail]:

>>Target: To fetch a file using PHP and send to user
Method 1:
echo file_get_contents( $file_path );
Method 2:
readfile( $file_path );
Which one is better?

In practice it probably doesn't make much of a difference. In this
case, however, I'd use readfile since the function was intended to do
exactly what it is that you're trying to do.

from the doc it said:

file_get_contents() is the preferred way to read the contents of a
file into a string

also, readfile() also need to read the entrie file into memory before
send to buffer, so I am just wondering which is better.

Actually, readfile doesn't read the whole file, it uses mmap if
possible, otherwise reads/writes in 8K chunks, thus conserving memory.

--
gosha bine

makrell ~ http://www.tagarga.com/blok/makrell
php done right ;) http://code.google.com/p/pihipi

[Good Man]

howa <ho******@gmail.comwrote in news:1189441552.210767.228350
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>>"readfile" has a knack for ending the file streaming

early on large files

not really understand your point....

i think beside memory limiation, a single call to readfile should be
more efficient.

try streaming a 12MB file, regardless of your memory settings, to
understand my point. your download will end early and you will not get the
complete file.

the function is posted on the manual page for a reason, i personally have
found it vital, use at your discretion.

[howa]

okay. i get your point.

my files only will have Max 1MB or 2MB...

if file ending early regardless the memory limit, then this should a
bug...

On 9 11 , 12 36 , Good Man <[e-mail]:

howa <[e-mail] in news:1189441552.210767.228350
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>"readfile" has a knack for ending the file streaming

early on large files

not really understand your point....

i think beside memory limiation, a single call to readfile should be
more efficient.

try streaming a 12MB file, regardless of your memory settings, to
understand my point. your download will end early and you will not get the
complete file.

the function is posted on the manual page for a reason, i personally have
found it vital, use at your discretion.

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(Good Man)

>try streaming a 12MB file, regardless of your memory settings, to
understand my point. your download will end early and you will not get the
complete file.

I did a test with a 179MB(!) file on my local server - no problems with
a plain readfile(). Memory limit is set to 32MB, PHP 5.2.3. Script
execution and file delivery took about 70s, memory usage was just 1.7MB.

>the function is posted on the manual page for a reason, i personally have
found it vital, use at your discretion.

Maybe a bug in an older version? The UCN is from 2005.

Micha

[Good Man]

Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote in
news:e8********************************@4ax.com:

.oO(Good Man)

>>try streaming a 12MB file, regardless of your memory settings, to
understand my point. your download will end early and you will not
get the complete file.

I did a test with a 179MB(!) file on my local server - no problems
with a plain readfile(). Memory limit is set to 32MB, PHP 5.2.3.
Script execution and file delivery took about 70s, memory usage was
just 1.7MB.

>>the function is posted on the manual page for a reason, i personally
have found it vital, use at your discretion.

Maybe a bug in an older version? The UCN is from 2005.

Interesting, thanks... as I said, it's not like I used that function right
away, I had to resort to it because my files were getting cut off.

I'll skip it on new coding projects and use plain ol' readfile()

:)

[Steve]

"Good Man" <he***@letsgo.comwrote in message
news:Xn************************@216.196.97.131...

Michael Fesser <ne*****@gmx.dewrote in
news:e8********************************@4ax.com:

>.oO(Good Man)

>>>try streaming a 12MB file, regardless of your memory settings, to
understand my point. your download will end early and you will not
get the complete file.

I did a test with a 179MB(!) file on my local server - no problems
with a plain readfile(). Memory limit is set to 32MB, PHP 5.2.3.
Script execution and file delivery took about 70s, memory usage was
just 1.7MB.

>>>the function is posted on the manual page for a reason, i personally
have found it vital, use at your discretion.

Maybe a bug in an older version? The UCN is from 2005.

Interesting, thanks... as I said, it's not like I used that function right
away, I had to resort to it because my files were getting cut off.

I'll skip it on new coding projects and use plain ol' readfile()

or plain ol' file_get_contents()

;^)