I am trying to write a bash script, but I need multiple tabs in it or terminal.
Is it possible to use that in a bash script. I need it, because I use a few commands
that need to keep running.
Thank you all and sorry for my English!
To run a process in the background add & at the end. For example, this runs ls in the background and uses tail to monitor the file that's being written to in the foreground.
ls -lR / > /tmp/ls.out &
tail -f /tmp/ls.out
If at any point you want to wait until the background processes are finished before continuing—perhaps at the end of your script before it exits—use a bare wait command:
wait
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 am testing a bash script I hope to run as a cron job to scan a download log and perform labor-intensive conversions on image files. In order to run several conversions at once, the first script loops through the download log and sends the filename to the second script, which I set to run as a background process using &.
The script pair works well, but when the process is complete, I must press the enter key to return to a command prompt. This is a non-issue when I am running a test, but I am not sure if this behavior has ramifications when run as a cron job.
Will this be an issue? If so, is there a way to close the "terminal" running the first script from the crontab?
Here's a truncated form of my code:
Script 1 (to be launched by crontab):
for i in file1 file2 file3 etc
do
bash /path/to/convert.sh $i &
done
exit 0
Script 2 (convert.sh)
fileName=${1?no file given}
jpegName=$(echo $fileName | sed s/tif/jpg/g)
convert $fileName $jpegName
exit 0
Thanks for any help/assurances you can give!
you don't need script 2. you can convert it to function and put it inside script1.
Another problem is you are running convert.sh in an uncontrolled way. You cannot foresee how many processes will be created (background processes) and this may lead to severe performance overheads.
finally, if you cannot end process in normal way, you may choose to terminate it again using cron by issueing pkill script1.sh
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 logged in to a remote server via ssh and started a php script. Appereantly, it will take 17 hours to complete, is there a way to break the connection but the keep the script executing? I didn't make any output redirection, so I am seeing all the output.
Can you stop the process right now? If so, launch screen, start the process and detach screen using ctrl-a then ctrl-d. Use screen -r to retrieve the session later.
This should be available in most distros, failing that, a package will definitely be available for you.
ctrl + z
will pause it. Than type
bg
to send it to background. Write down the PID of the process for later usage ;)
EDIT: I forgot, you have to execute
disown -$PID
where $PID is the pid of your process
after that, and the process will not be killed after you close the terminal.
you described it's important to protect script continuation. Unfortunately I don't know, you make any interaction with script and script is made by you.
continuation protects 'screen' command. your connection will break, but screen protect pseudo terminal, you can reconnect to this later, see man.
if you don't need operators interaction with script, you simply can put script to background at the start, and log complete output into log file. Simply use command:
nohup /where/is/your.script.php >output.log 2&>1 &
>output.log will redirect output into log file, 2&>1 will append error stream into output, effectively into log file. last & will put command into background. Notice, nohup command will detach process from terminal group.
At now you can safely exit from ssh shell. Because your script is out of terminal group, then it won't be killed. It will be rejoined from your shell process, into system INIT process. It is unix like system behavior. Complete output you can monitor using command
tail -f output.log #allways breakable by ^C, it is only watching
Using this method you do not need use ^Z , bg etc shell tricks for putting command to the background.
Notice, using redirection to nohup command is preferred. Otherwise nohup will auto redirect all outputs for you to nohup.out file in the current directory.
You can use screen.
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