According to this docker tutorial
What's the difference between
./my_first_process -D
./my_main_process &
They both seem unblocking to bash script and run in background
& tells the shell to put the command that precedes it into the background. -D is simply a flag that is passed to my_first_process and is interpreted by it; it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the shell.
You will have to look into the documentation of my_first_process to see what -D does … it could mean anything. E.g. in npm, -D means "development", whereas in some other tools, it may mean "directory". In diff, it means "Output merged file to show `#ifdef NAME' diffs."
Some programs, by convention, take -D as an instruction to self-daemonize. Doing this looks something like the following:
Call fork(), and exit if it returns 0 (so only the child survives).
Close stdin, stdout and stderr if they are attached to the console (ideally, replacing their file descriptors with handles on /dev/null, so writes don't trigger an error).
Call setsid() to create a new session.
Call fork() again, and exit if it returns 0 again.
That's a lot more work than what just someprogram & does! A program that has self-daemonized can no longer log to the terminal, and will no longer be impacted if the terminal itself closes. That's not true of a program that's just started in the background.
To get something similar to the same behavior from bash, correct code would be something like:
someprogram </dev/null >/dev/null 2>&1 & disown -h
...wherein disown -h tells the shell not to pass along a SIGHUP to that process. It's also not uncommon to see the external tool nohup used for this purpose (though by default, it redirects stdout and stderr to a file called nohup.out if they're pointed at the TTY, the end purpose -- of making sure they're not pointed at the terminal, and thus that writes to them don't start failing if the terminal goes away -- is achieved):
nohup someprogram >/dev/null &
Related
The way I normally start a long-running shell script is
% (nohup ./script.sh </dev/null >script.log 2>&1 & )
The redirections close stdin, and reopen stdout and stderr; the nohup stops HUP reaching the process when the owning process exits (I realise that the 2>&1 is somewhat redundant, since the nohup does something like this anyway); and the backgrounding within the subshell is the double-fork which means that the ./script.sh process's parent has exited while it's still running, so it acquires the init process as its parent.
That doesn't completely work, however, because when I exit the shell from which I've invoked this (typically, of course, I'm doing this on a remote machine), it doesn't exit cleanly. I can do ^C to exit, and this is OK – the process does carry on in the background as intended. However I can't work out what is/isn't happening to require the ^C, and that's annoying me.
The actions above seem to tick most of the boxes in the unix FAQ (question 1.7), except that I'm not doing anything to detach this process from a controlling terminal, or to make it a session leader. The setsid(2) call exists on FreeBSD, but not the setsid command; nor, as far as I can see, is there an obvious substitute for that command. The same is true on macOS, of course.
So, the questions are:
Is there a differently-named caller of setsid on this platform, that I'm missing?
What, precisely, is happening when I exit the calling shell, that I'm killing with the ^C? Is there any way this could bite me?
Related questions (eg 1, 2) either answer a slightly different question, or assume the presence of the setsid command.
(This question has annoyed me for years, but because what I do here doesn't actually not work, I've never before got around to investigating, getting stumped, and asking about it).
In FreeBSD, out of the box you could use daemon -- run detached from the controlling terminal. option -r could be useful:
-r Supervise and restart the program after a one-second delay if it
has been terminated.
You could also try a supervisor, for example immortal is available for both platforms:
pkg install immortal # FreeBSD
brew install immortal # macOS
To daemonize your script and log (stdout/stderr) you could use:
immortal /path/to/your/script.sh -l /tmp/script.log
Or for more options, you could create a my-service.yml for example:
cmd: /path/to/script
cwd: /your/path
env:
DEBUG: 1
ENVIROMENT: production
log:
file: /tmp/app.log
stderr:
file: /tmp/app-error.log
And then run it with immortal -c my-service.yml
More examples can be found here: https://immortal.run/post/examples
If just want to use nohup and save the stdout & stderr into a file, you could add this to your script:
#!/bin/sh
exec 2>&1
...
Check more about exec 2>&1 in this answers https://stackoverflow.com/a/13088401/1135424
And then simply call nohup /your/script.sh & and check the file nohup.out, from the man
FILES
nohup.out The output file of the nohup execution if stan-
dard output is a terminal and if the current
directory is writable.
$HOME/nohup.out The output file of the nohup execution if stan-
dard output is a terminal and if the current
directory is not writable.
I have a script (lets call it parent.sh) that makes 2 calls to a second script (child.sh) that runs a java process. The child.sh scripts are run in the background by placing an & at the end of the line in parent.sh. However, when i run parent.sh, i need to press Ctrl+C to return to the terminal screen. What is the reason for this? Is it something to do with the fact that the child.sh processes are running under the parent.sh process. So the parent.sh doesn't die until the childs do?
parent.sh
#!/bin/bash
child.sh param1a param2a &
child.sh param1b param2b &
exit 0
child.sh
#!/bin/bash
java com.test.Main
echo "Main Process Stopped" | mail -s "WARNING-Main Process is down." user#email.com
As you can see, I don't want to run the java process in the background because i want to send a mail out when the process dies. Doing it as above works fine from a functional standpoint, but i would like to know how i can get it to return to the terminal after executing parent.sh.
What i ended up doing was to make to change parent.sh to the following
#!/bin/bash
child.sh param1a param2a > startup.log &
child.sh param1b param2b > startup2.log &
exit 0
I would not have come to this solution without your suggestions and root cause analysis of the issue. Thanks!
And apologies for my inaccurate comment. (There was no input, I answered from memory and I remembered incorrectly.)
The following link from the Linux Documentation Project suggests adding a wait after your mail command in child.sh:
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/x9644.html
Summary of the above document
Within a script, running a command in the background with an ampersand (&)
may cause the script to hang until ENTER is hit. This seems to occur with
commands that write to stdout. It can be a major annoyance.
....
....
As Walter Brameld IV explains it:
As far as I can tell, such scripts don't actually hang. It just
seems that they do because the background command writes text to
the console after the prompt. The user gets the impression that
the prompt was never displayed. Here's the sequence of events:
Script launches background command.
Script exits.
Shell displays the prompt.
Background command continues running and writing text to the
console.
Background command finishes.
User doesn't see a prompt at the bottom of the output, thinks script
is hanging.
If you change child.sh to look like the following you shouldn't experience this annoyance:
#!/bin/bash
java com.test.Main
echo "Main Process Stopped" | mail -s "WARNING-Main Process is down." user#gmail.com
wait
Or as #SebastianStigler states in a comment to your question above:
Add a > /dev/null at the end of the line with mail. mail will otherwise try to start its interactive mode.
This will cause the mail command to write to /dev/null rather than stdout which should also stop this annoyance.
Hope this helps
The process was still linked to the controlling terminal because STDOUT needs somewhere to go. You solved that problem by redirecting to a file ( > startup.log ).
If you're not interested in the output, discard STDOUT completely ( >/dev/null ).
If you're not interested in errors, either, discard both ( &>/dev/null ).
If you want the processes to keep running even after you log out of your terminal, use nohup — that effectively disconnects them from what you are doing and leaves them to quietly run in the background until you reboot your machine (or otherwise kill them).
nohup child.sh param1a param2a &>/dev/null &
Ive got a script that takes a quite a long time to run, as it has to handle many thousands of files. I want to make this script as fool proof as possible. To this end, I want to check if the user ran the script using nohup and '&'. E.x.
me#myHost:/home/me/bin $ nohup doAlotOfStuff.sh &. I want to make 100% sure the script was run with nohup and '&', because its a very painful recovery process if the script dies in the middle for whatever reason.
How can I check those two key paramaters inside the script itself? and if they are missing, how can I stop the script before it gets any farther, and complain to the user that they ran the script wrong? Better yet, is there way I can force the script to run in nohup &?
Edit: the server enviornment is AIX 7.1
The ps utility can get the process state. The process state code will contain the character + when running in foreground. Absence of + means code is running in background.
However, it will be hard to tell whether the background script was invoked using nohup. It's also almost impossible to rely on the presence of nohup.out as output can be redirected by user elsewhere at will.
There are 2 ways to accomplish what you want to do. Either bail out and warn the user or automatically restart the script in background.
#!/bin/bash
local mypid=$$
if [[ $(ps -o stat= -p $mypid) =~ "+" ]]; then
echo Running in foreground.
exec nohup $0 "$#" &
exit
fi
# the rest of the script
...
In this code, if the process has a state code +, it will print a warning then restart the process in background. If the process was started in the background, it will just proceed to the rest of the code.
If you prefer to bailout and just warn the user, you can remove the exec line. Note that the exit is not needed after exec. I left it there just in case you choose to remove the exec line.
One good way to find if a script is logging to nohup, is to first check that the nohup.out exists, and then to echo to it and ensure that you can read it there. For example:
echo "complextag"
if ( $(cat nohup.out | grep "complextag" ) != "complextag" );then
# various commands complaining to the user, then exiting
fi
This works because if the script's stdout is going to nohup.out, where they should be going (or whatever out file you specified), then when you echo that phrase, it should be appended to the file nohup.out. If it doesn't appear there, then the script was nut run using nohup and you can scold them, perhaps by using a wall command on a temporary broadcast file. (if you want me to elaborate on that I can).
As for being run in the background, if it's not running you should know by checking nohup.
I have a VM that I want running indefinitely. The server is always running but I want the script to keep running after I log out. How would I go about doing so? Creating a cron job?
In general the following steps are sufficient to convince most Unix shells that the process you're launching should not depend on the continued existence of the shell:
run the command under nohup
run the command in the background
redirect all file descriptors that normally point to the terminal to other locations
So, if you want to run command-name, you should do it like so:
nohup command-name >/dev/null 2>/dev/null </dev/null &
This tells the process that will execute command-name to send all stdout and stderr to nowhere (instead of to your terminal) and also to read stdin from nowhere (instead of from your terminal). Of course if you actually have locations to write to/read from, you can certainly use those instead -- anything except the terminal is fine:
nohup command-name >outputFile 2>errorFile <inputFile &
See also the answer in Petur's comment, which discusses this issue a fair bit.
I have a script (lets call it parent.sh) that makes 2 calls to a second script (child.sh) that runs a java process. The child.sh scripts are run in the background by placing an & at the end of the line in parent.sh. However, when i run parent.sh, i need to press Ctrl+C to return to the terminal screen. What is the reason for this? Is it something to do with the fact that the child.sh processes are running under the parent.sh process. So the parent.sh doesn't die until the childs do?
parent.sh
#!/bin/bash
child.sh param1a param2a &
child.sh param1b param2b &
exit 0
child.sh
#!/bin/bash
java com.test.Main
echo "Main Process Stopped" | mail -s "WARNING-Main Process is down." user#email.com
As you can see, I don't want to run the java process in the background because i want to send a mail out when the process dies. Doing it as above works fine from a functional standpoint, but i would like to know how i can get it to return to the terminal after executing parent.sh.
What i ended up doing was to make to change parent.sh to the following
#!/bin/bash
child.sh param1a param2a > startup.log &
child.sh param1b param2b > startup2.log &
exit 0
I would not have come to this solution without your suggestions and root cause analysis of the issue. Thanks!
And apologies for my inaccurate comment. (There was no input, I answered from memory and I remembered incorrectly.)
The following link from the Linux Documentation Project suggests adding a wait after your mail command in child.sh:
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/x9644.html
Summary of the above document
Within a script, running a command in the background with an ampersand (&)
may cause the script to hang until ENTER is hit. This seems to occur with
commands that write to stdout. It can be a major annoyance.
....
....
As Walter Brameld IV explains it:
As far as I can tell, such scripts don't actually hang. It just
seems that they do because the background command writes text to
the console after the prompt. The user gets the impression that
the prompt was never displayed. Here's the sequence of events:
Script launches background command.
Script exits.
Shell displays the prompt.
Background command continues running and writing text to the
console.
Background command finishes.
User doesn't see a prompt at the bottom of the output, thinks script
is hanging.
If you change child.sh to look like the following you shouldn't experience this annoyance:
#!/bin/bash
java com.test.Main
echo "Main Process Stopped" | mail -s "WARNING-Main Process is down." user#gmail.com
wait
Or as #SebastianStigler states in a comment to your question above:
Add a > /dev/null at the end of the line with mail. mail will otherwise try to start its interactive mode.
This will cause the mail command to write to /dev/null rather than stdout which should also stop this annoyance.
Hope this helps
The process was still linked to the controlling terminal because STDOUT needs somewhere to go. You solved that problem by redirecting to a file ( > startup.log ).
If you're not interested in the output, discard STDOUT completely ( >/dev/null ).
If you're not interested in errors, either, discard both ( &>/dev/null ).
If you want the processes to keep running even after you log out of your terminal, use nohup — that effectively disconnects them from what you are doing and leaves them to quietly run in the background until you reboot your machine (or otherwise kill them).
nohup child.sh param1a param2a &>/dev/null &