how to run multiple shell scripts in parallel The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow to determine...
Solving Integral Equation by Converting to Differential Equations
Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?
Bold, vivid family
calculus parametric curve length
Preparing Indesign booklet with .psd graphics for print
Is it possible to search for a directory/file combination?
Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers
In excess I'm lethal
Are there any unintended negative consequences to allowing PCs to gain multiple levels at once in a short milestone-XP game?
Why does the UK parliament need a vote on the political declaration?
Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?
How do we know the LHC results are robust?
Limits on contract work without pre-agreed price/contract (UK)
Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?
What's the best way to handle refactoring a big file?
What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?
WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?
What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?
Non-deterministic sum of floats
Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?
Return the Closest Prime Number
How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?
Why has the US not been more assertive in confronting Russia in recent years?
Do I need to enable Dev Hub in my PROD Org?
how to run multiple shell scripts in parallel
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow to determine if a bash variable is empty?how to export VARs from a subshell to a parent shell?How can I sort du -h output by sizeview multiple log file in a single terminalHow to run a command multiple times, using bash shell?How to keep script from swallowing all of stdin?Pressing Ctrl-C stops bash script, but don't stop PHP script called by the scriptSFTP script gets different destination response when run from different directoriesPHP script error 'exec(): Unable to fork…' on Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTSCreate a screen. Run said screen as a user. Detach
I have a few test scripts, each of which runs a test PHP app. Each script runs forever.
So, cat.sh, dog.sh, and foo.sh each run a PHP script. Each shell script runs the PHP app in a loop, so it runs forever, sleeping after each run.
I'm trying to figure out how to run the scripts in parallel at the same time. See the output of the PHP apps in the stdout/term window.
I thought, doing something like the following might work:
foo.sh > &2
dog.sh > &2
cat.sh > &2
In a shell script it would be sufficient, but it's not working.
foo.sh, runs foo.php once, and it runs correctly
dog.sh, runs dog.php in a never ending loop. it runs as expected
cat.sh, runs cat.php in a never ending loop
*** this never runs!!!
It appears that the shell script never gets to run cat.sh. If I run cat.sh by itself in a separate window/term, it runs as expected.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I can get these scripts to run in parallel?
bash shell
add a comment |
I have a few test scripts, each of which runs a test PHP app. Each script runs forever.
So, cat.sh, dog.sh, and foo.sh each run a PHP script. Each shell script runs the PHP app in a loop, so it runs forever, sleeping after each run.
I'm trying to figure out how to run the scripts in parallel at the same time. See the output of the PHP apps in the stdout/term window.
I thought, doing something like the following might work:
foo.sh > &2
dog.sh > &2
cat.sh > &2
In a shell script it would be sufficient, but it's not working.
foo.sh, runs foo.php once, and it runs correctly
dog.sh, runs dog.php in a never ending loop. it runs as expected
cat.sh, runs cat.php in a never ending loop
*** this never runs!!!
It appears that the shell script never gets to run cat.sh. If I run cat.sh by itself in a separate window/term, it runs as expected.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I can get these scripts to run in parallel?
bash shell
add a comment |
I have a few test scripts, each of which runs a test PHP app. Each script runs forever.
So, cat.sh, dog.sh, and foo.sh each run a PHP script. Each shell script runs the PHP app in a loop, so it runs forever, sleeping after each run.
I'm trying to figure out how to run the scripts in parallel at the same time. See the output of the PHP apps in the stdout/term window.
I thought, doing something like the following might work:
foo.sh > &2
dog.sh > &2
cat.sh > &2
In a shell script it would be sufficient, but it's not working.
foo.sh, runs foo.php once, and it runs correctly
dog.sh, runs dog.php in a never ending loop. it runs as expected
cat.sh, runs cat.php in a never ending loop
*** this never runs!!!
It appears that the shell script never gets to run cat.sh. If I run cat.sh by itself in a separate window/term, it runs as expected.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I can get these scripts to run in parallel?
bash shell
I have a few test scripts, each of which runs a test PHP app. Each script runs forever.
So, cat.sh, dog.sh, and foo.sh each run a PHP script. Each shell script runs the PHP app in a loop, so it runs forever, sleeping after each run.
I'm trying to figure out how to run the scripts in parallel at the same time. See the output of the PHP apps in the stdout/term window.
I thought, doing something like the following might work:
foo.sh > &2
dog.sh > &2
cat.sh > &2
In a shell script it would be sufficient, but it's not working.
foo.sh, runs foo.php once, and it runs correctly
dog.sh, runs dog.php in a never ending loop. it runs as expected
cat.sh, runs cat.php in a never ending loop
*** this never runs!!!
It appears that the shell script never gets to run cat.sh. If I run cat.sh by itself in a separate window/term, it runs as expected.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I can get these scripts to run in parallel?
bash shell
bash shell
edited Nov 20 '12 at 14:04
Linger
1863823
1863823
asked Mar 27 '12 at 21:08
tom smithtom smith
2562510
2562510
add a comment |
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Your current setup is running your commands sequentially. The first one runs, and completes, allowing the second one to start. The second one never ends, so the third one never gets a chance to start.
Try this:
foo.sh >foo.out 2>foo.err &
dog.sh >dog.out 2>dog.err &
cat.sh >cat.out 2>cat.err &
That will tell each command to run in the background, and send their output and error information to files. When a command is run in the background, it detaches from the current session, and allows the next command to run. It's important to put the ampersand (&) as the last character of the line. Otherwise, it might not get recognized correctly.
Alternately, have each of your shell scripts run the associated .php script you're apparently calling with the same semantics as above. In this scenario, your foo.sh might contain:
#!/bin/bash
php foo.php >foo.out 2>foo.err &
Finally, if you need true parallel operation, check out GNU Parallel.
Note: If you really want the output going to the screen/terminal, you can leave off the output redirection:
foo.sh &
Remember, though, that running multiple commands concurrently can cause confusing output (you may now know what output or errors came from which command), and if you logout, the output has nowhere to go.
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply. given that my scenario has each shell test running forever, i really don't want to write the stdout/stderr to a file, rather, i would like to see the output/stderr just displyed to the screen... i thought running in the background, meant i didn't have to wait for completion before running the next script.. have i missed something.. || also as to the acceptance rate.. i've tried to delete a bunch of things in the past but never could... in other cases, the answers were totally off base and no help
– tom smith
Mar 28 '12 at 0:24
Running in the background does mean you don't have to wait for completion before running the next script/command. That's what the&at the end of the command does. If you don't place the ampersand at the end, it doesn't mean the same thing. Redirecting output to a file (especially for background commands) is usually a good thing, unless they send logs somewhere else (like syslog). Otherwise, it's easy to get output mixed up between the multiple commands, since they're running at the same time. I'll update the answer to add a note about output to the terminal.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |
This can be done with parallel command.
Beautiful examples: parallel
[me@neo]<bash><~> 19
05:51 Tue Mar 05 > man -f parallel
parallel (1) - run programs in parallel
--
parallel -j 3 -- "sh foo.sh" "sh dog.sh" "sh cat.sh"
This will start 3 scripts in parallel, at the same time.
parallel sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will start by default as many process of the same command, depending of cpu count.
parallel -j 3 sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will force to execute 3 processes at the same time, even if you have just 2 cpu's.
Example:
[me@neo]<bash><~> 31
06:09 Tue Mar 05 > parallel -j 10 sh -c "echo Hello World; sleep 3; echo Good morning" -- $(seq 1 10)
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
add a comment |
Chris has the good general idea for most scripts: end each command with & and they'll go into the background. That said, here's my something I keep around for some higher-end tasks. Let me introduce you to my handy toolbox script, parallel-exec.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use threads;
use Thread::Queue;
my @workers;
my $num_threads = shift;
my $dbname = shift;
my $queue = new Thread::Queue;
for (0..$num_threads-1) {
$workers[$_] = new threads(&worker);
print "TEST!n";
}
while ($_ = shift @ARGV) {
$queue->enqueue($_);
}
sub worker() {
while ($file = $queue->dequeue) {
system ('./parser.pl', $dbname, $file);
}
}
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $queue->enqueue(undef); }
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $workers[$_]->join; }
With some light tweaking, you can change the number of threads, provide an array of commands, etc. As this stands right now, it takes the number of threads specified on the command line, a database name, and a list of files to import, then spawns one instance for each file running the specified number at once.
2
GNU Parallel provides very similar functionality, but that's a handy little bit of Perl. It never hurts to have multiple options in your toolbox.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 15:45
add a comment |
or..you can do it like this:
threads=20
tempfifo=$PMS_HOME/$$.fifo
trap "exec 1000>&-;exec 1000<&-;exit 0" 2
mkfifo $tempfifo
exec 1000<>$tempfifo
rm -rf $tempfifo
for ((i=1; i<=$threads; i++))
do
echo >&1000
done
for ((j=1; j<=1000; j++))
do
read -u1000
{
echo $j
echo >&1000
} &
done
wait
echo "done!!!!!!!!!!"
every time, it runs 20 threads in parallel.
hope it help :)
I'd include a#!line at the start of the script. The loop writing the initial lines to the fifo should be done in the background to avoid a potential deadlock (just make itdone &).
– kasperd
Dec 28 '15 at 9:58
add a comment |
Try this :
./Cat.sh &
./Dog.sh &
./foo.sh & they will run in background.
For more control on the processes embbed them on a python script using multiprocessing module
import multiprocessing as mp
import os
def Run(script_name):
os.system('./'+script _name+'.sh)
Pool=[]
For s in [your script list]:
p=mp.Process(target =Run ,args=(s,))
Pool.append(p)
For p in P:
p.start()
Fort p in P:
p.join()
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f374131%2fhow-to-run-multiple-shell-scripts-in-parallel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Your current setup is running your commands sequentially. The first one runs, and completes, allowing the second one to start. The second one never ends, so the third one never gets a chance to start.
Try this:
foo.sh >foo.out 2>foo.err &
dog.sh >dog.out 2>dog.err &
cat.sh >cat.out 2>cat.err &
That will tell each command to run in the background, and send their output and error information to files. When a command is run in the background, it detaches from the current session, and allows the next command to run. It's important to put the ampersand (&) as the last character of the line. Otherwise, it might not get recognized correctly.
Alternately, have each of your shell scripts run the associated .php script you're apparently calling with the same semantics as above. In this scenario, your foo.sh might contain:
#!/bin/bash
php foo.php >foo.out 2>foo.err &
Finally, if you need true parallel operation, check out GNU Parallel.
Note: If you really want the output going to the screen/terminal, you can leave off the output redirection:
foo.sh &
Remember, though, that running multiple commands concurrently can cause confusing output (you may now know what output or errors came from which command), and if you logout, the output has nowhere to go.
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply. given that my scenario has each shell test running forever, i really don't want to write the stdout/stderr to a file, rather, i would like to see the output/stderr just displyed to the screen... i thought running in the background, meant i didn't have to wait for completion before running the next script.. have i missed something.. || also as to the acceptance rate.. i've tried to delete a bunch of things in the past but never could... in other cases, the answers were totally off base and no help
– tom smith
Mar 28 '12 at 0:24
Running in the background does mean you don't have to wait for completion before running the next script/command. That's what the&at the end of the command does. If you don't place the ampersand at the end, it doesn't mean the same thing. Redirecting output to a file (especially for background commands) is usually a good thing, unless they send logs somewhere else (like syslog). Otherwise, it's easy to get output mixed up between the multiple commands, since they're running at the same time. I'll update the answer to add a note about output to the terminal.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |
Your current setup is running your commands sequentially. The first one runs, and completes, allowing the second one to start. The second one never ends, so the third one never gets a chance to start.
Try this:
foo.sh >foo.out 2>foo.err &
dog.sh >dog.out 2>dog.err &
cat.sh >cat.out 2>cat.err &
That will tell each command to run in the background, and send their output and error information to files. When a command is run in the background, it detaches from the current session, and allows the next command to run. It's important to put the ampersand (&) as the last character of the line. Otherwise, it might not get recognized correctly.
Alternately, have each of your shell scripts run the associated .php script you're apparently calling with the same semantics as above. In this scenario, your foo.sh might contain:
#!/bin/bash
php foo.php >foo.out 2>foo.err &
Finally, if you need true parallel operation, check out GNU Parallel.
Note: If you really want the output going to the screen/terminal, you can leave off the output redirection:
foo.sh &
Remember, though, that running multiple commands concurrently can cause confusing output (you may now know what output or errors came from which command), and if you logout, the output has nowhere to go.
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply. given that my scenario has each shell test running forever, i really don't want to write the stdout/stderr to a file, rather, i would like to see the output/stderr just displyed to the screen... i thought running in the background, meant i didn't have to wait for completion before running the next script.. have i missed something.. || also as to the acceptance rate.. i've tried to delete a bunch of things in the past but never could... in other cases, the answers were totally off base and no help
– tom smith
Mar 28 '12 at 0:24
Running in the background does mean you don't have to wait for completion before running the next script/command. That's what the&at the end of the command does. If you don't place the ampersand at the end, it doesn't mean the same thing. Redirecting output to a file (especially for background commands) is usually a good thing, unless they send logs somewhere else (like syslog). Otherwise, it's easy to get output mixed up between the multiple commands, since they're running at the same time. I'll update the answer to add a note about output to the terminal.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |
Your current setup is running your commands sequentially. The first one runs, and completes, allowing the second one to start. The second one never ends, so the third one never gets a chance to start.
Try this:
foo.sh >foo.out 2>foo.err &
dog.sh >dog.out 2>dog.err &
cat.sh >cat.out 2>cat.err &
That will tell each command to run in the background, and send their output and error information to files. When a command is run in the background, it detaches from the current session, and allows the next command to run. It's important to put the ampersand (&) as the last character of the line. Otherwise, it might not get recognized correctly.
Alternately, have each of your shell scripts run the associated .php script you're apparently calling with the same semantics as above. In this scenario, your foo.sh might contain:
#!/bin/bash
php foo.php >foo.out 2>foo.err &
Finally, if you need true parallel operation, check out GNU Parallel.
Note: If you really want the output going to the screen/terminal, you can leave off the output redirection:
foo.sh &
Remember, though, that running multiple commands concurrently can cause confusing output (you may now know what output or errors came from which command), and if you logout, the output has nowhere to go.
Your current setup is running your commands sequentially. The first one runs, and completes, allowing the second one to start. The second one never ends, so the third one never gets a chance to start.
Try this:
foo.sh >foo.out 2>foo.err &
dog.sh >dog.out 2>dog.err &
cat.sh >cat.out 2>cat.err &
That will tell each command to run in the background, and send their output and error information to files. When a command is run in the background, it detaches from the current session, and allows the next command to run. It's important to put the ampersand (&) as the last character of the line. Otherwise, it might not get recognized correctly.
Alternately, have each of your shell scripts run the associated .php script you're apparently calling with the same semantics as above. In this scenario, your foo.sh might contain:
#!/bin/bash
php foo.php >foo.out 2>foo.err &
Finally, if you need true parallel operation, check out GNU Parallel.
Note: If you really want the output going to the screen/terminal, you can leave off the output redirection:
foo.sh &
Remember, though, that running multiple commands concurrently can cause confusing output (you may now know what output or errors came from which command), and if you logout, the output has nowhere to go.
edited Mar 28 '12 at 1:57
answered Mar 27 '12 at 23:37
Christopher CashellChristopher Cashell
8,14212742
8,14212742
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply. given that my scenario has each shell test running forever, i really don't want to write the stdout/stderr to a file, rather, i would like to see the output/stderr just displyed to the screen... i thought running in the background, meant i didn't have to wait for completion before running the next script.. have i missed something.. || also as to the acceptance rate.. i've tried to delete a bunch of things in the past but never could... in other cases, the answers were totally off base and no help
– tom smith
Mar 28 '12 at 0:24
Running in the background does mean you don't have to wait for completion before running the next script/command. That's what the&at the end of the command does. If you don't place the ampersand at the end, it doesn't mean the same thing. Redirecting output to a file (especially for background commands) is usually a good thing, unless they send logs somewhere else (like syslog). Otherwise, it's easy to get output mixed up between the multiple commands, since they're running at the same time. I'll update the answer to add a note about output to the terminal.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply. given that my scenario has each shell test running forever, i really don't want to write the stdout/stderr to a file, rather, i would like to see the output/stderr just displyed to the screen... i thought running in the background, meant i didn't have to wait for completion before running the next script.. have i missed something.. || also as to the acceptance rate.. i've tried to delete a bunch of things in the past but never could... in other cases, the answers were totally off base and no help
– tom smith
Mar 28 '12 at 0:24
Running in the background does mean you don't have to wait for completion before running the next script/command. That's what the&at the end of the command does. If you don't place the ampersand at the end, it doesn't mean the same thing. Redirecting output to a file (especially for background commands) is usually a good thing, unless they send logs somewhere else (like syslog). Otherwise, it's easy to get output mixed up between the multiple commands, since they're running at the same time. I'll update the answer to add a note about output to the terminal.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 1:49
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply. given that my scenario has each shell test running forever, i really don't want to write the stdout/stderr to a file, rather, i would like to see the output/stderr just displyed to the screen... i thought running in the background, meant i didn't have to wait for completion before running the next script.. have i missed something.. || also as to the acceptance rate.. i've tried to delete a bunch of things in the past but never could... in other cases, the answers were totally off base and no help
– tom smith
Mar 28 '12 at 0:24
Hi Chris. Thanks for the reply. given that my scenario has each shell test running forever, i really don't want to write the stdout/stderr to a file, rather, i would like to see the output/stderr just displyed to the screen... i thought running in the background, meant i didn't have to wait for completion before running the next script.. have i missed something.. || also as to the acceptance rate.. i've tried to delete a bunch of things in the past but never could... in other cases, the answers were totally off base and no help
– tom smith
Mar 28 '12 at 0:24
Running in the background does mean you don't have to wait for completion before running the next script/command. That's what the
& at the end of the command does. If you don't place the ampersand at the end, it doesn't mean the same thing. Redirecting output to a file (especially for background commands) is usually a good thing, unless they send logs somewhere else (like syslog). Otherwise, it's easy to get output mixed up between the multiple commands, since they're running at the same time. I'll update the answer to add a note about output to the terminal.– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 1:49
Running in the background does mean you don't have to wait for completion before running the next script/command. That's what the
& at the end of the command does. If you don't place the ampersand at the end, it doesn't mean the same thing. Redirecting output to a file (especially for background commands) is usually a good thing, unless they send logs somewhere else (like syslog). Otherwise, it's easy to get output mixed up between the multiple commands, since they're running at the same time. I'll update the answer to add a note about output to the terminal.– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |
This can be done with parallel command.
Beautiful examples: parallel
[me@neo]<bash><~> 19
05:51 Tue Mar 05 > man -f parallel
parallel (1) - run programs in parallel
--
parallel -j 3 -- "sh foo.sh" "sh dog.sh" "sh cat.sh"
This will start 3 scripts in parallel, at the same time.
parallel sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will start by default as many process of the same command, depending of cpu count.
parallel -j 3 sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will force to execute 3 processes at the same time, even if you have just 2 cpu's.
Example:
[me@neo]<bash><~> 31
06:09 Tue Mar 05 > parallel -j 10 sh -c "echo Hello World; sleep 3; echo Good morning" -- $(seq 1 10)
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
add a comment |
This can be done with parallel command.
Beautiful examples: parallel
[me@neo]<bash><~> 19
05:51 Tue Mar 05 > man -f parallel
parallel (1) - run programs in parallel
--
parallel -j 3 -- "sh foo.sh" "sh dog.sh" "sh cat.sh"
This will start 3 scripts in parallel, at the same time.
parallel sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will start by default as many process of the same command, depending of cpu count.
parallel -j 3 sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will force to execute 3 processes at the same time, even if you have just 2 cpu's.
Example:
[me@neo]<bash><~> 31
06:09 Tue Mar 05 > parallel -j 10 sh -c "echo Hello World; sleep 3; echo Good morning" -- $(seq 1 10)
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
add a comment |
This can be done with parallel command.
Beautiful examples: parallel
[me@neo]<bash><~> 19
05:51 Tue Mar 05 > man -f parallel
parallel (1) - run programs in parallel
--
parallel -j 3 -- "sh foo.sh" "sh dog.sh" "sh cat.sh"
This will start 3 scripts in parallel, at the same time.
parallel sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will start by default as many process of the same command, depending of cpu count.
parallel -j 3 sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will force to execute 3 processes at the same time, even if you have just 2 cpu's.
Example:
[me@neo]<bash><~> 31
06:09 Tue Mar 05 > parallel -j 10 sh -c "echo Hello World; sleep 3; echo Good morning" -- $(seq 1 10)
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
This can be done with parallel command.
Beautiful examples: parallel
[me@neo]<bash><~> 19
05:51 Tue Mar 05 > man -f parallel
parallel (1) - run programs in parallel
--
parallel -j 3 -- "sh foo.sh" "sh dog.sh" "sh cat.sh"
This will start 3 scripts in parallel, at the same time.
parallel sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will start by default as many process of the same command, depending of cpu count.
parallel -j 3 sh -c "echo hi; sleep 2; echo bye" -- 1 2 3
This will force to execute 3 processes at the same time, even if you have just 2 cpu's.
Example:
[me@neo]<bash><~> 31
06:09 Tue Mar 05 > parallel -j 10 sh -c "echo Hello World; sleep 3; echo Good morning" -- $(seq 1 10)
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
Good morning
edited Mar 5 '13 at 4:15
answered Mar 5 '13 at 3:59
user133922
add a comment |
add a comment |
Chris has the good general idea for most scripts: end each command with & and they'll go into the background. That said, here's my something I keep around for some higher-end tasks. Let me introduce you to my handy toolbox script, parallel-exec.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use threads;
use Thread::Queue;
my @workers;
my $num_threads = shift;
my $dbname = shift;
my $queue = new Thread::Queue;
for (0..$num_threads-1) {
$workers[$_] = new threads(&worker);
print "TEST!n";
}
while ($_ = shift @ARGV) {
$queue->enqueue($_);
}
sub worker() {
while ($file = $queue->dequeue) {
system ('./parser.pl', $dbname, $file);
}
}
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $queue->enqueue(undef); }
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $workers[$_]->join; }
With some light tweaking, you can change the number of threads, provide an array of commands, etc. As this stands right now, it takes the number of threads specified on the command line, a database name, and a list of files to import, then spawns one instance for each file running the specified number at once.
2
GNU Parallel provides very similar functionality, but that's a handy little bit of Perl. It never hurts to have multiple options in your toolbox.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 15:45
add a comment |
Chris has the good general idea for most scripts: end each command with & and they'll go into the background. That said, here's my something I keep around for some higher-end tasks. Let me introduce you to my handy toolbox script, parallel-exec.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use threads;
use Thread::Queue;
my @workers;
my $num_threads = shift;
my $dbname = shift;
my $queue = new Thread::Queue;
for (0..$num_threads-1) {
$workers[$_] = new threads(&worker);
print "TEST!n";
}
while ($_ = shift @ARGV) {
$queue->enqueue($_);
}
sub worker() {
while ($file = $queue->dequeue) {
system ('./parser.pl', $dbname, $file);
}
}
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $queue->enqueue(undef); }
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $workers[$_]->join; }
With some light tweaking, you can change the number of threads, provide an array of commands, etc. As this stands right now, it takes the number of threads specified on the command line, a database name, and a list of files to import, then spawns one instance for each file running the specified number at once.
2
GNU Parallel provides very similar functionality, but that's a handy little bit of Perl. It never hurts to have multiple options in your toolbox.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 15:45
add a comment |
Chris has the good general idea for most scripts: end each command with & and they'll go into the background. That said, here's my something I keep around for some higher-end tasks. Let me introduce you to my handy toolbox script, parallel-exec.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use threads;
use Thread::Queue;
my @workers;
my $num_threads = shift;
my $dbname = shift;
my $queue = new Thread::Queue;
for (0..$num_threads-1) {
$workers[$_] = new threads(&worker);
print "TEST!n";
}
while ($_ = shift @ARGV) {
$queue->enqueue($_);
}
sub worker() {
while ($file = $queue->dequeue) {
system ('./parser.pl', $dbname, $file);
}
}
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $queue->enqueue(undef); }
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $workers[$_]->join; }
With some light tweaking, you can change the number of threads, provide an array of commands, etc. As this stands right now, it takes the number of threads specified on the command line, a database name, and a list of files to import, then spawns one instance for each file running the specified number at once.
Chris has the good general idea for most scripts: end each command with & and they'll go into the background. That said, here's my something I keep around for some higher-end tasks. Let me introduce you to my handy toolbox script, parallel-exec.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use threads;
use Thread::Queue;
my @workers;
my $num_threads = shift;
my $dbname = shift;
my $queue = new Thread::Queue;
for (0..$num_threads-1) {
$workers[$_] = new threads(&worker);
print "TEST!n";
}
while ($_ = shift @ARGV) {
$queue->enqueue($_);
}
sub worker() {
while ($file = $queue->dequeue) {
system ('./parser.pl', $dbname, $file);
}
}
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $queue->enqueue(undef); }
for (0..$num_threads-1) { $workers[$_]->join; }
With some light tweaking, you can change the number of threads, provide an array of commands, etc. As this stands right now, it takes the number of threads specified on the command line, a database name, and a list of files to import, then spawns one instance for each file running the specified number at once.
answered Mar 28 '12 at 7:26
Jeff FerlandJeff Ferland
18.4k14978
18.4k14978
2
GNU Parallel provides very similar functionality, but that's a handy little bit of Perl. It never hurts to have multiple options in your toolbox.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 15:45
add a comment |
2
GNU Parallel provides very similar functionality, but that's a handy little bit of Perl. It never hurts to have multiple options in your toolbox.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 15:45
2
2
GNU Parallel provides very similar functionality, but that's a handy little bit of Perl. It never hurts to have multiple options in your toolbox.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 15:45
GNU Parallel provides very similar functionality, but that's a handy little bit of Perl. It never hurts to have multiple options in your toolbox.
– Christopher Cashell
Mar 28 '12 at 15:45
add a comment |
or..you can do it like this:
threads=20
tempfifo=$PMS_HOME/$$.fifo
trap "exec 1000>&-;exec 1000<&-;exit 0" 2
mkfifo $tempfifo
exec 1000<>$tempfifo
rm -rf $tempfifo
for ((i=1; i<=$threads; i++))
do
echo >&1000
done
for ((j=1; j<=1000; j++))
do
read -u1000
{
echo $j
echo >&1000
} &
done
wait
echo "done!!!!!!!!!!"
every time, it runs 20 threads in parallel.
hope it help :)
I'd include a#!line at the start of the script. The loop writing the initial lines to the fifo should be done in the background to avoid a potential deadlock (just make itdone &).
– kasperd
Dec 28 '15 at 9:58
add a comment |
or..you can do it like this:
threads=20
tempfifo=$PMS_HOME/$$.fifo
trap "exec 1000>&-;exec 1000<&-;exit 0" 2
mkfifo $tempfifo
exec 1000<>$tempfifo
rm -rf $tempfifo
for ((i=1; i<=$threads; i++))
do
echo >&1000
done
for ((j=1; j<=1000; j++))
do
read -u1000
{
echo $j
echo >&1000
} &
done
wait
echo "done!!!!!!!!!!"
every time, it runs 20 threads in parallel.
hope it help :)
I'd include a#!line at the start of the script. The loop writing the initial lines to the fifo should be done in the background to avoid a potential deadlock (just make itdone &).
– kasperd
Dec 28 '15 at 9:58
add a comment |
or..you can do it like this:
threads=20
tempfifo=$PMS_HOME/$$.fifo
trap "exec 1000>&-;exec 1000<&-;exit 0" 2
mkfifo $tempfifo
exec 1000<>$tempfifo
rm -rf $tempfifo
for ((i=1; i<=$threads; i++))
do
echo >&1000
done
for ((j=1; j<=1000; j++))
do
read -u1000
{
echo $j
echo >&1000
} &
done
wait
echo "done!!!!!!!!!!"
every time, it runs 20 threads in parallel.
hope it help :)
or..you can do it like this:
threads=20
tempfifo=$PMS_HOME/$$.fifo
trap "exec 1000>&-;exec 1000<&-;exit 0" 2
mkfifo $tempfifo
exec 1000<>$tempfifo
rm -rf $tempfifo
for ((i=1; i<=$threads; i++))
do
echo >&1000
done
for ((j=1; j<=1000; j++))
do
read -u1000
{
echo $j
echo >&1000
} &
done
wait
echo "done!!!!!!!!!!"
every time, it runs 20 threads in parallel.
hope it help :)
answered Dec 28 '15 at 9:16
ouyangyeweiouyangyewei
1
1
I'd include a#!line at the start of the script. The loop writing the initial lines to the fifo should be done in the background to avoid a potential deadlock (just make itdone &).
– kasperd
Dec 28 '15 at 9:58
add a comment |
I'd include a#!line at the start of the script. The loop writing the initial lines to the fifo should be done in the background to avoid a potential deadlock (just make itdone &).
– kasperd
Dec 28 '15 at 9:58
I'd include a
#! line at the start of the script. The loop writing the initial lines to the fifo should be done in the background to avoid a potential deadlock (just make it done &).– kasperd
Dec 28 '15 at 9:58
I'd include a
#! line at the start of the script. The loop writing the initial lines to the fifo should be done in the background to avoid a potential deadlock (just make it done &).– kasperd
Dec 28 '15 at 9:58
add a comment |
Try this :
./Cat.sh &
./Dog.sh &
./foo.sh & they will run in background.
For more control on the processes embbed them on a python script using multiprocessing module
import multiprocessing as mp
import os
def Run(script_name):
os.system('./'+script _name+'.sh)
Pool=[]
For s in [your script list]:
p=mp.Process(target =Run ,args=(s,))
Pool.append(p)
For p in P:
p.start()
Fort p in P:
p.join()
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Try this :
./Cat.sh &
./Dog.sh &
./foo.sh & they will run in background.
For more control on the processes embbed them on a python script using multiprocessing module
import multiprocessing as mp
import os
def Run(script_name):
os.system('./'+script _name+'.sh)
Pool=[]
For s in [your script list]:
p=mp.Process(target =Run ,args=(s,))
Pool.append(p)
For p in P:
p.start()
Fort p in P:
p.join()
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Try this :
./Cat.sh &
./Dog.sh &
./foo.sh & they will run in background.
For more control on the processes embbed them on a python script using multiprocessing module
import multiprocessing as mp
import os
def Run(script_name):
os.system('./'+script _name+'.sh)
Pool=[]
For s in [your script list]:
p=mp.Process(target =Run ,args=(s,))
Pool.append(p)
For p in P:
p.start()
Fort p in P:
p.join()
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Try this :
./Cat.sh &
./Dog.sh &
./foo.sh & they will run in background.
For more control on the processes embbed them on a python script using multiprocessing module
import multiprocessing as mp
import os
def Run(script_name):
os.system('./'+script _name+'.sh)
Pool=[]
For s in [your script list]:
p=mp.Process(target =Run ,args=(s,))
Pool.append(p)
For p in P:
p.start()
Fort p in P:
p.join()
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 10 mins ago
EddieEddie
1
1
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Eddie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f374131%2fhow-to-run-multiple-shell-scripts-in-parallel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown