On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:28:53 -0400
Johan Kullstam kullstj...@comcast.net wrote:
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:
I have three programs - say proga, progb, progc.
proga, progb are completely independent. They take couple of hours to
finish. The time to complete
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:52:47 +0300
Micha Feigin mi...@post.tau.ac.il wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:28:53 -0400
Johan Kullstam kullstj...@comcast.net wrote:
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:
I have three programs - say proga, progb, progc.
proga, progb are
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:05:20PM -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty dtu...@vianet.ca writes:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
While you may think its terribly inefficient, it isn't really. A fancy
wait function is just polling anyway,
Douglas A. Tutty dtu...@vianet.ca writes:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:05:20PM -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty dtu...@vianet.ca writes:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
While you may think its terribly inefficient, it isn't really. A fancy
In 20090625143028.ga7...@blitz.hooton, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:05:20PM -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty dtu...@vianet.ca writes:
While you may think its terribly inefficient, it isn't really. A
fancy wait function is just polling anyway, you're just
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:05:20PM -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty dtu...@vianet.ca writes:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
While you may think its terribly inefficient, it isn't really. A fancy
wait function is
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
Currently I have a shell script that works as below.
1) launch proga, progb in the background using nohup.
2) Ask proga, progb to write a file when they finish.
3) Every five minutes check if these files are present. If
Doug writes:
While you may think its terribly inefficient, it isn't really. A fancy
wait function is just polling anyway, you're just making it overt. You
also have the ability to have proga and progb only touch the file if they
complete successfully.
Have each of them check for a
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
Currently I have a shell script that works as below.
1) launch proga, progb in the background using nohup.
2) Ask proga, progb to write a file when they finish.
3) Every five minutes check if these files are
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Kamaraju S
Kusumanchiraju.mailingli...@gmail.com wrote:
proga, progb are completely independent. They take couple of hours to
finish. The time to complete proga, progb are not same.
progc should to be launched only after both proga, progb are finished. progc
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Mike Castledalgoda+deb...@gmail.com wrote:
I've taken to using flock for such things if I'm launching them from
other scripts. I forget which package and I can't look right now (my
machine died this morning).
To clarify, I meant to say:
I've taken to using
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:
I have three programs - say proga, progb, progc.
proga, progb are completely independent. They take couple of hours to
finish. The time to complete proga, progb are not same.
progc should to be launched only after both proga, progb
Douglas A. Tutty dtu...@vianet.ca writes:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
Currently I have a shell script that works as below.
1) launch proga, progb in the background using nohup.
2) Ask proga, progb to write a file when they finish.
3) Every five
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
Currently I have a shell script that works as below.
1) launch proga, progb in the background using nohup.
2) Ask proga, progb to write a file when they finish.
3) Every five minutes check if
I have three programs - say proga, progb, progc.
proga, progb are completely independent. They take couple of hours to
finish. The time to complete proga, progb are not same.
progc should to be launched only after both proga, progb are finished. progc
takes another couple of hours to finish.
Hi,
I didn't test that script, just writing it from memory, but maybe that gives
you some ideas:
#!/bin/bash
prog1
prog2
while [ $(ps -A | grep -E 'prog1|prog2') == 0 ]
do
sleep 5
done
prog3
more or less like that
greetings,
vitaminx
2009/6/23 Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
On 6/22/09 6:32 PM, me wrote:
2009/6/23 Kamaraju S Kusumanchiraju.mailingli...@gmail.com
I have three programs - say proga, progb, progc.
proga, progb are completely independent. They take couple of hours to
finish. The time to complete proga, progb are not same.
progc should to be launched
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
progc should to be launched only after both proga, progb are finished. progc
takes another couple of hours to finish.
What is good way to automate this problem (that is no manual
interaction)?
In a shell script, run proga and
Scott Gifford wrote:
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
progc should to be launched only after both proga, progb are finished.
progc takes another couple of hours to finish.
What is good way to automate this problem (that is no manual
interaction)?
In a
Are progs ab yours?
Yes. They are mine.
If so, how about having each one check ps for the
other one as part of it's exit. If the other one isn't running, start
progc before exit.
That is a nice idea. I have not thought about it. For now, I will go with
Gifford's tip of using the shell's
me wrote:
#!/bin/bash
prog1
prog2
while [ $(ps -A | grep -E 'prog1|prog2') == 0 ]
do
sleep 5
done
prog3
more or less like that
You know, I actually started out with something similar. But it has
limitations.
Let's say you want to launch two sets of (proga, progb,
21 matches
Mail list logo
