In script a I tell script b to execute a certain command.
Is there a way to pause script a until script b is done executing?
I don't want to use sleep, because every run of the script can be different.
Use:
wait <pid>
This will cause script A to wait for B to complete before continuing.
Related
When running commands from a bash script, does bash always wait for the previous command to complete, or does it just start the command then go on to the next one?
ie: If you run the following two commands from a bash script is it possible for things to fail?
cp /tmp/a /tmp/b
cp /tmp/b /tmp/c
Yes, if you do nothing else then commands in a bash script are serialized. You can tell bash to run a bunch of commands in parallel, and then wait for them all to finish, but doing something like this:
command1 &
command2 &
command3 &
wait
The ampersands at the end of each of the first three lines tells bash to run the command in the background. The fourth command, wait, tells bash to wait until all the child processes have exited.
Note that if you do things this way, you'll be unable to get the exit status of the child commands (and set -e won't work), so you won't be able to tell whether they succeeded or failed in the usual way.
The bash manual has more information (search for wait, about two-thirds of the way down).
add '&' at the end of a command to run it parallel.
However, it is strange because in your case the second command depends on the final result of the first one. Either use sequential commands or copy to b and c from a like this:
cp /tmp/a /tmp/b &
cp /tmp/a /tmp/c &
Unless you explicitly tell bash to start a process in the background, it will wait until the process exits. So if you write this:
foo args &
bash will continue without waiting for foo to exit. But if you don't explicitly put the process in the background, bash will wait for it to exit.
Technically, a process can effectively put itself in the background by forking a child and then exiting. But since that technique is used primarily by long-lived processes, this shouldn't affect you.
In general, unless explicitly sent to the background or forking themselves off as a daemon, commands in a shell script are serialized.
They wait until the previous one is finished.
However, you can write 2 scripts and run them in separate processes, so they can be executed simultaneously. It's a wild guess, really, but I think you'll get an access error if a process tries to write in a file that's being read by another process.
I think what you want is the concept of a subshell. Here's one reference I just googled: http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/advanced_bash_scripting_guide/subshells.html
I'm trying to create a .sh script that does the following:
Start a first command ./first.sh
Start a second command ./second.sh
Wait for the end of the second command
Kill the first command
End of the script
I know how to start a command and i know how to start a command without blocking the script. But i don't know how to kill the first command with the second one is finished.
You can try this:
#!/bin/bash
./first.sh &
firstpid="$!"
./second.sh
kill "$firstpid"
I want to know how to make a shell script wait till other script finishes its execution with out the help of sleep command.
suppose i have scripts run.sh and kill.sh, where run.sh will make all the processes up(means to start running the image on the box) whereas kill.sh contains just the kill commands to kill all the running processes.
Whenever i have run the run.sh, it will make all the processes up and it will end. Then what happens here is all the running processes becoming orphan(handled by init). Whenever we run kill.sh, some of the processes are becoming zombies.
Means, Orphan processes becoming zombies.
To avoid this, i want to make the run.sh wait till the end of kill.sh script.
So, How to make a shell script wait for another script ? Please provide the comments.
Thanks in Advance
You can use wait to let the first script finish without giving an explicit sleep.
#!/bin/bash
./first_script.sh
wait
./second_script.sh
If I want to call another batch script from within a batch script I could use
CALL File.bat
to pause the execution of the current batch file and wait for the CALLed script to complete.
I can use
START File.bat
if I want them to run simultaneously.
How do I achieve this behavior in a shell script??
If you want to wait:
#!/bin/bash
# do some stuff
/path/to/other/script
# do other stuff
To run it simultaneously (i.e. "in the background"):
#!/bin/bash
# do some stuff
/path/to/other/script &
# do other stuff, then optionally:
wait
# this will wait for all background jobs to finish
There are other ways, and certain things you should consider about input and output redirection for the background process if you want to provide specific input and/or capture output or errors, but that's the basics.
By “shell“, I assume you mean *NIX sh.
To execute another script and wait for it to complete, do
sh file.sh
To start it in background, do
(sh file.sh) &
For bash (and other Bourne shell-compatible shells):
you don't need CALL; invoking another script or program executes it synchronously. someprog.sh
you append & to a command to run it asynchronously; note that the program will halt if it attempts to read from stdin if it's in the background. someprog.sh &
Do lines in a bash script execute sequentially? I can't see any reason why not, but I am really new to bash scripting and I have a couple commands that need to execute in order.
For example:
#!/bin/sh
# will this get finished before the next command starts?
./someLongCommand1 arg1
./someLongCommand2 arg1
Yes, they are executed sequentially. However, if you run a program in the background, the next command in your script is executed immediately after the backgrounded command is started.
#!/bin/sh
# will this get finished before the next command starts?
./someLongCommand1 arg1 &
./someLongCommand2 arg1 &
would result in an near-instant completion of the script; however, the commands started in it will not have completed. (You start a command in the background by putting an ampersand (&) behind the name.
Yes... unless you go out of your way to run one of the commands in the background, one will finish before the next one starts.