I have a script (first.sh) which creates a output folder at a particular location.Now a second script (second.sh) need the location of this output folder as it need to process the data into it.
Keep in mind that the first.sh script will generate the output folder as per the user needs.(as per path set by the user).
Now i need the second.sh script to find the path of the output folder generated by first.sh script and then it should enter into it for processing some data?
I need the logic for the above problem. Also remember that the path for output folder always changes and the second.sh script should be able to find the exact path and output folder.
first.sh /add/sub/output_folder (user decides the output path)
second.sh
It should find the "/add/sub/output_folder" location
Hope it helps.Plz help me.
More details of what the both scripts do would be helpfull.
I assume you can not/ don't lunch second.sh form first.sh because this would be the easiest option.
One way of approaching this would be to output the folder location to a property file by first.sh that second.sh has access to.
Depending on the manner in which you are calling your code, you can probably use $PPID to generate a primitive means by which script 1 and script 2 can exchange information.
$PPID is the parent-process-id of your script. In the following example, both scripta.sh and scriptb.sh see the same value:
scripta.sh:
#!/bin/sh
datadir=/tmp/$PPID.tmp
mkdir -p $datadir
sleep $(( RANDOM % 60 ))
echo Some data from $PPID/$$ on $(tty) >$datadir/testfile.txt_tmp
mv $datadir/testfile.txt_tmp $datadir/testfile.txt
scriptb.sh
#!/bin/sh
datadir=/tmp/$PPID.tmp
timeout=60
while (( (i=i+1) < timeout )); do
cat $datadir/testfile.txt 2>&- && break
sleep 1
done
This example will hold for up to 60 seconds for the data to appear and will work no matter how many users are active.
You should test this by running the following on two or more separate terminals.
scripta.sh &
scriptb.sh &
You'll need another script (or overnight process) to clean up the datadir directories.
BTW, I do not recommend /tmp as a holding zone for these files. Create a buffer directory somewhere else where there is lots of space.
If you're allowed to call second.sh from first.sh you can do
first.sh $YOUR_OUTPUT_PATH
You can get access to that path by using $1, e.g.
echo $1
Related
I'd like to write .sh script that runs several scripts in the same directory one-by-one without running them concurrently (e.x. while the first one is still executing, the second one doesn't start executing).
Could you tell me the command, that could be written in front of script's name that does the actual thing?
I've tried source but it gives the following message for every listed script
./outer_script.sh: source: not found
source is a non-standard extension introduced by bash. POSIX specifies that you must use the . command. Other than the name, they are identical.
However, you probably don't want to source, because that is only supposed to be used when you need the script to be able to change the state of the script calling it. It is like a #include or import statement in other languages.
You would usually want to just run the script directly as a command, i.e. do not prefix it with source nor with any other command.
As a quick example of not using source:
for script in scripts/*; do
"$script"
done
If the above does not work, ensure that you've set the executable bit (chmod a+x) on the necessary scripts.
That is normal behavior of the bash script. i.e. if you have three scripts:
script1.sh:
echo "starting"
./script2.sh
./script3.sh
echo "done"
script2.sh:
while [ 1 ]; do
echo "script2"
sleep 2
done
and script3.sh:
echo "script3"
The output is:
starting
script2
script2
script2
...
and script3.sh will never be executed, unless you modify script1.sh to be:
echo "starting"
./script2.sh &
./script3.sh &
echo "done"
in which case the output will be something like:
starting
done
script2
script3
script2
script2
...
So in this case I assume your second level scripts contain something that starts new processes.
Have you included the line #!bin/bash in your outer_script? Some OS's don't consider it to be bash by default and source is bash command. Else just call the scripts using ./path/to/script.sh inside the outer_script
I am trying to login on one of the remote server(Box1) and trying to read one file on remote server(Box1).
That contain the another server(Box2) details, base upon that details I have to come back to the local server and ssh to another server(Box2) for some data crunching. and so on.....
ssh box1.com << EOF
if [[ ! -f /home/rakesh/tomar.log ]]
then
echo "LOG file not found"
else
echo " LOG file present"
export server_node1= `cat /home/rakesh/tomar.log`
fi
EOF
ssh box2.com << EOF
if [[ ! -f /home/rakesh/tomar.log ]]
then
echo "LOG file not found"
else
echo " LOG file present"
export server_node2= `cat /home/rakesh/tomar.log`
fi
EOF
but I am not getting value of "server_node1" and "server_node2" on local machine.
any help would be appreciated.
Just like bash -c 'export foo=bar' cannot declare a variable in the calling shell where you typed this, an ssh command cannot declare a variable in the calling shell. You will have to refactor so that the calling shell receives the information and knows what to do with it.
I agree with the comment that storing a log file in a variable is probably not a sane, or at least elegant, thing to do, but the easy way to do what you are attempting is to put the ssh inside the assignment.
server_node1=$(ssh box1.com cat tomar.log)
server_node2=$(ssh box2.com cat tomar.log)
A few notes and amplifications:
The remote shell will run in your home directory, so I took it out (on the assumption that /home/rt9419 is your home directory, obviously).
In case of an error in the cat command, the exit code of ssh will be the error code from cat, and the error message on standard error will be visible on your standard error, so the echo seemed quite superfluous. (If you want a custom message, variable=$(ssh whatever) || echo "Custom message" >&2 would do that. Note the redirection to standard error; it doesn't seem to matter here, but it's good form.)
If you really wanted to, you could run an arbitrarily complex command in the ssh; as outlined above, it didn't seem necessary here, but you could do assigment=$(ssh remote 'if [[ things ]]; then for variable in $(complex commands to drive a loop); do : etc etc; done; fi; more </dev/null; exit "$variable"') or whatever.
As further comments on your original attempt,
The backticks in the here document in your attempt would be evaluated by your local shell before the ssh command even ran. There are separate questions about how to fix that; see e.g. How have both local and remote variable inside an SSH command. but in short, unless you absolutely require the local shell to be able to modify the commands you send, probably put them in single quotes, like I did in the silly complex ssh example above.
The function of export is to make variables visible to child processes. There is no way to affect the environment of a parent process (short of having it cooperate and/or coordinate the change, as in the code above). As an example to illustrate the difference, if you set PERL5LIB to a directory with Perl libraries, but fail to export it, the Perl process you start will not see the variable; it is only visible to the current shell. When you export it, any Perl process you start as a child of this shell will also see this variable and the value you assigned. In other words, you export variables which are not private to the current shell (and don't export private ones; aside from making sure they are private, this saves the amount of memory which needs to be copied between processes), but that still only makes them visible to children, by the design of the U*x process architecture.
You should get back the file from box1and box2 with an scp:
scp box1.com:/home/rt9419/tomar.log ~/tomar1.log
#then you can cat!
export server_node1=`cat ~/tomar1.log`
idem with box2
scp box2.com:/home/rt9419/tomar.log ~/tomar2.log
#then you can cat!
export server_node2=`cat ~/tomar2.log`
There are several possibilities. In your case, you could on the remote system create a file (in bash syntax), containing the assignments of these variables, for example
echo "export server_node2='$(</home/rt9419/tomar.log)'" >>export_settings
(which makes me wonder why you want the whole content of your logfile be stored into a variable, but this is another question), then transfer this file to your host (for example with scp) and source it from within your bash script.
I have a shell script which usually runs nearly 10 mins for a single run,but i need to know if another request for running the script comes while a instance of the script is running already, whether new request need to wait for existing instance to compplete or a new instance will be started.
I need a new instance must be started whenever a request is available for the same script.
How to do it...
The shell script is a polling script which looks for a file in a directory and execute the file.The execution of the file takes nearly 10 min or more.But during execution if a new file arrives, it also has to be executed simultaneously.
the shell script is below, and how to modify it to execute multiple requests..
#!/bin/bash
while [ 1 ]; do
newfiles=`find /afs/rch/usr8/fsptools/WWW/cgi-bin/upload/ -newer /afs/rch/usr$
touch /afs/rch/usr8/fsptools/WWW/cgi-bin/upload/.my_marker
if [ -n "$newfiles" ]; then
echo "found files $newfiles"
name2=`ls /afs/rch/usr8/fsptools/WWW/cgi-bin/upload/ -Art |tail -n 2 |head $
echo " $name2 "
mkdir -p -m 0755 /afs/rch/usr8/fsptools/WWW/dumpspace/$name2
name1="/afs/rch/usr8/fsptools/WWW/dumpspace/fipsdumputils/fipsdumputil -e -$
$name1
touch /afs/rch/usr8/fsptools/WWW/dumpspace/tempfiles/$name2
fi
sleep 5
done
When writing scripts like the one you describe, I take one of two approaches.
First, you can use a pid file to indicate that a second copy should not run. For example:
#!/bin/sh
pidfile=/var/run/$(0##*/).pid
# remove pid if we exit normally or are terminated
trap "rm -f $pidfile" 0 1 3 15
# Write the pid as a symlink
if ! ln -s "pid=$$" "$pidfile"; then
echo "Already running. Exiting." >&2
exit 0
fi
# Do your stuff
I like using symlinks to store pid because writing a symlink is an atomic operation; two processes can't conflict with each other. You don't even need to check for the existence of the pid symlink, because a failure of ln clearly indicates that a pid cannot be set. That's either a permission or path problem, or it's due to the symlink already being there.
Second option is to make it possible .. nay, preferable .. not to block additional instances, and instead configure whatever it is that this script does to permit multiple servers to run at the same time on different queue entries. "Single-queue-single-server" is never as good as "single-queue-multi-server". Since you haven't included code in your question, I have no way to know whether this approach would be useful for you, but here's some explanatory meta bash:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
workdir=/var/tmp # Set a better $workdir than this.
a=( $(get_list_of_queue_ids) ) # A command? A function? Up to you.
for qid in "${a[#]}"; do
# Set a "lock" for this item .. or don't, and move on.
if ! ln -s "pid=$$" $workdir/$qid.working; then
continue
fi
# Do your stuff with just this $qid.
...
# And finally, clean up after ourselves
remove_qid_from_queue $qid
rm $workdir/$qid.working
done
The effect of this is to transfer the idea of "one at a time" from the handler to the data. If you have a multi-CPU system, you probably have enough capacity to handle multiple queue entries at the same time.
ghoti's answer shows some helpful techniques, if modifying the script is an option.
Generally speaking, for an existing script:
Unless you know with certainty that:
the script has no side effects other than to output to the terminal or to write to files with shell-instance specific names (such as incorporating $$, the current shell's PID, into filenames) or some other instance-specific location,
OR that the script was explicitly designed for parallel execution,
I would assume that you cannot safely run multiple copies of the script simultaneously.
It is not reasonable to expect the average shell script to be designed for concurrent use.
From the viewpoint of the operating system, several processes may of course execute the same program in parallel. No need to worry about this.
However, it is conceivable, that a (careless) programmer wrote the program in such a way that it produces incorrect results, when two copies are executed in parallel.
Question,
I want to have a bash script that will have a global variable that can be incremented from other bash scripts.
Example:
I have a script like the following:
#! /bin/bash
export Counter=0
for SCRIPT in /Users/<user>/Desktop/*sh
do
$SCRIPT
done
echo $Counter
That script will call all the other bash scripts in a folder and those scripts will have something like the following:
if [ "$Output" = "$Check" ]
then
echo "OK"
((Counter++))
I want it to then increment the $Counter variable if it does equal "OK" and then pass that value back to the initial batch script so I can keep that counter number and have a total at the end.
Any idea on how to go about doing that?
Environment variables propagate in one direction only -- from parent to child. Thus, a child process cannot change the value of an environment variable set in their parent.
What you can do is use the filesystem:
export counter_file=$(mktemp "$HOME/.counter.XXXXXX")
for script in ~user/Desktop/*sh; do "$script"; done
...and, in the individual script:
counter_curr=$(< "$counter_file" )
(( ++counter_curr ))
printf '%s\n' "$counter_curr" >"$counter_file"
This isn't currently concurrency-safe, but your parent script as currently written will never call more than one child at a time.
An even easier approach, assuming that the value you're tracking remains relatively small, is to use the file's size as a proxy for the counter's value. To do this, incrementing the counter is as simple as this:
printf '\n' >>"$counter_file"
...and checking its value in O(1) time -- without needing to open the file and read its content -- is as simple as checking the file's size; with GNU stat:
counter=$(stat -f %z "$counter_file")
Note that locking may be required for this to be concurrency-safe if using a filesystem such as NFS which does not correctly implement O_APPEND; see Norman Gray's answer (to which this owes inspiration) for a working implementation.
You could source the other scripts, which means they're not running in a sub-process but "inline" in the calling script like this:
#! /bin/bash
export counter=0
for script in /Users/<user>/Desktop/*sh
do
source "$script"
done
echo $counter
But as pointed out in the comments i'd only advise to use this approach if you control the called scripts yourself. If they for example exit or have variables clashing with each other, bad things could happen.
As described, you can't do this, since there isn't anything which corresponds to a ‘global variable’ for shell scripts.
As the comment suggests, you'll have to use the filesystem to communicate between scripts.
One simple/crude way of doing what you describe would be to simply have each cooperating script append a line to a file, and the ‘global count’ is the size of this file:
#! /bin/sh -
echo ping >>/tmp/scriptcountfile
then wc -l /tmp/scriptcountfile is the number of times that's happened. Of course, there's a potential race condition there, so something like the following would sequence those accesses:
#! /bin/sh -
(
flock -n 9
echo 'do stuff...'
echo ping >>/tmp/stampfile
) 9>/tmp/lockfile
(the flock command is available on Linux, but isn't portable).
Of course, then you can start to do fancier things by having scripts send stuff through pipes and sockets, but that's going somewhat over the top.
I have two shell scripts, a.sh and b.sh.
How can I call b.sh from within the shell script a.sh?
There are a couple of different ways you can do this:
Make the other script executable with chmod a+x /path/to/file(Nathan Lilienthal's comment), add the #!/bin/bash line (called shebang) at the top, and the path where the file is to the $PATH environment variable. Then you can call it as a normal command;
Or call it with the source command (which is an alias for .), like this:
source /path/to/script
Or use the bash command to execute it, like:
/bin/bash /path/to/script
The first and third approaches execute the script as another process, so variables and functions in the other script will not be accessible.
The second approach executes the script in the first script's process, and pulls in variables and functions from the other script (so they are usable from the calling script).
In the second method, if you are using exit in second script, it will exit the first script as well. Which will not happen in first and third methods.
Check this out.
#!/bin/bash
echo "This script is about to run another script."
sh ./script.sh
echo "This script has just run another script."
There are a couple of ways you can do this. Terminal to execute the script:
#!/bin/bash
SCRIPT_PATH="/path/to/script.sh"
# Here you execute your script
"$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
. "$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
source "$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
bash "$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
eval '"$SCRIPT_PATH"'
# or
OUTPUT=$("$SCRIPT_PATH")
echo $OUTPUT
# or
OUTPUT=`"$SCRIPT_PATH"`
echo $OUTPUT
# or
("$SCRIPT_PATH")
# or
(exec "$SCRIPT_PATH")
All this is correct for the path with spaces!!!
The answer which I was looking for:
( exec "path/to/script" )
As mentioned, exec replaces the shell without creating a new process. However, we can put it in a subshell, which is done using the parantheses.
EDIT:
Actually ( "path/to/script" ) is enough.
If you have another file in same directory, you can either do:
bash another_script.sh
or
source another_script.sh
or
. another_script.sh
When you use bash instead of source, the script cannot alter environment of the parent script. The . command is POSIX standard while source command is a more readable bash synonym for . (I prefer source over .). If your script resides elsewhere just provide path to that script. Both relative as well as full path should work.
Depends on.
Briefly...
If you want load variables on current console and execute you may use source myshellfile.sh on your code. Example:
#!/bin/bash
set -x
echo "This is an example of run another INTO this session."
source my_lib_of_variables_and_functions.sh
echo "The function internal_function() is defined into my lib."
returned_value=internal_function()
echo $this_is_an_internal_variable
set +x
If you just want to execute a file and the only thing intersting for you is the result, you can do:
#!/bin/bash
set -x
./executing_only.sh
bash i_can_execute_this_way_too.sh
bash or_this_way.sh
set +x
You can use /bin/sh to call or execute another script (via your actual script):
# cat showdate.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "Date is: `date`"
# cat mainscript.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "You are login as: `whoami`"
echo "`/bin/sh ./showdate.sh`" # exact path for the script file
The output would be:
# ./mainscript.sh
You are login as: root
Date is: Thu Oct 17 02:56:36 EDT 2013
First you have to include the file you call:
#!/bin/bash
. includes/included_file.sh
then you call your function like this:
#!/bin/bash
my_called_function
Simple source will help you.
For Ex.
#!/bin/bash
echo "My shell_1"
source my_script1.sh
echo "Back in shell_1"
Just add in a line whatever you would have typed in a terminal to execute the script!
e.g.:
#!bin/bash
./myscript.sh &
if the script to be executed is not in same directory, just use the complete path of the script.
e.g.:`/home/user/script-directory/./myscript.sh &
This was what worked for me, this is the content of the main sh script that executes the other one.
#!/bin/bash
source /path/to/other.sh
The top answer suggests adding #!/bin/bash line to the first line of the sub-script being called. But even if you add the shebang, it is much faster* to run a script in a sub-shell and capture the output:
$(source SCRIPT_NAME)
This works when you want to keep running the same interpreter (e.g. from bash to another bash script) and ensures that the shebang line of the sub-script is not executed.
For example:
#!/bin/bash
SUB_SCRIPT=$(mktemp)
echo "#!/bin/bash" > $SUB_SCRIPT
echo 'echo $1' >> $SUB_SCRIPT
chmod +x $SUB_SCRIPT
if [[ $1 == "--source" ]]; then
for X in $(seq 100); do
MODE=$(source $SUB_SCRIPT "source on")
done
else
for X in $(seq 100); do
MODE=$($SUB_SCRIPT "source off")
done
fi
echo $MODE
rm $SUB_SCRIPT
Output:
~ ❯❯❯ time ./test.sh
source off
./test.sh 0.15s user 0.16s system 87% cpu 0.360 total
~ ❯❯❯ time ./test.sh --source
source on
./test.sh --source 0.05s user 0.06s system 95% cpu 0.114 total
* For example when virus or security tools are running on a device it might take an extra 100ms to exec a new process.
pathToShell="/home/praveen/"
chmod a+x $pathToShell"myShell.sh"
sh $pathToShell"myShell.sh"
#!/bin/bash
# Here you define the absolute path of your script
scriptPath="/home/user/pathScript/"
# Name of your script
scriptName="myscript.sh"
# Here you execute your script
$scriptPath/$scriptName
# Result of script execution
result=$?
chmod a+x /path/to/file-to-be-executed
That was the only thing I needed. Once the script to be executed is made executable like this, you (at least in my case) don't need any other extra operation like sh or ./ while you are calling the script.
Thanks to the comment of #Nathan Lilienthal
Assume the new file is "/home/satya/app/app_specific_env" and the file contents are as follows
#!bin/bash
export FAV_NUMBER="2211"
Append this file reference to ~/.bashrc file
source /home/satya/app/app_specific_env
When ever you restart the machine or relogin, try echo $FAV_NUMBER in the terminal. It will output the value.
Just in case if you want to see the effect right away, source ~/.bashrc in the command line.
There are some problems to import functions from other file.
First: You needn't to do this file executable. Better not to do so!
just add
. file
to import all functions. And all of them will be as if they are defined in your file.
Second: You may be define the function with the same name. It will be overwritten. It's bad. You may declare like that
declare -f new_function_name=old_function_name
and only after that do import.
So you may call old function by new name.
Third: You may import only full list of functions defined in file.
If some not needed you may unset them. But if you rewrite your functions after unset they will be lost. But if you set reference to it as described above you may restore after unset with the same name.
Finally In common procedure of import is dangerous and not so simple. Be careful! You may write script to do this more easier and safe.
If you use only part of functions(not all) better split them in different files. Unfortunately this technique not made well in bash. In python for example and some other script languages it's easy and safe. Possible to make partial import only needed functions with its own names. We all want that in next bush versions will be done the same functionality. But now We must write many additional cod so as to do what you want.
Use backticks.
$ ./script-that-consumes-argument.sh `sh script-that-produces-argument.sh`
Then fetch the output of the producer script as an argument on the consumer script.