Launch a background process and check when it ends
29
How can I launch a process in background and check when it ends within a bash script?
My idea is a script like this:
launch backgroundprocess &
while [ Process is running ];do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNINGr"
done;
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
bash
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
migrated from serverfault.com May 22 '13 at 16:53
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
add a comment |
29
How can I launch a process in background and check when it ends within a bash script?
My idea is a script like this:
launch backgroundprocess &
while [ Process is running ];do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNINGr"
done;
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
bash
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
migrated from serverfault.com May 22 '13 at 16:53
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
add a comment |
29
29
29
16
How can I launch a process in background and check when it ends within a bash script?
My idea is a script like this:
launch backgroundprocess &
while [ Process is running ];do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNINGr"
done;
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
bash
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
How can I launch a process in background and check when it ends within a bash script?
My idea is a script like this:
launch backgroundprocess &
while [ Process is running ];do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNINGr"
done;
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
bash
bash
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
edited Feb 28 at 20:35
codeforester
378317
378317
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
asked May 22 '13 at 12:34
0wn3r0wn3r
246135
246135
migrated from serverfault.com May 22 '13 at 16:53
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
migrated from serverfault.com May 22 '13 at 16:53
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
57
The key is the "wait" command:
#!/bin/bash
/my/process &
/another/process &
wait
echo "All processes done!"
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
6
Benefit of this: it does NOT burn CPU time with an infinite loop running all the time.... ;)
– Pascal Schmiel
May 22 '13 at 12:47
1
The disadvantage of this is that you can't do anything else while you are waiting, such as indicating progress to the user. Only cuonglm's solution allows you to do this.
– Mark Booth
Apr 28 '15 at 10:30
1
@Mark Booth You can indicate progress with a third asynchronous job. eg:cmd1 & p=$!; cmd2 & q=$!; while sleep 1; do echo still running ; done& wait $p $q; kill $!;
– William Pursell
Aug 2 '17 at 17:26
add a comment |
27
With wait you can have the granularity you need:
sleep 1 &
PID1=$!
sleep 2 &
PID2=$!
wait $PID1
echo 'PID1 has ended.'
wait
echo 'All background processes have exited.'
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
add a comment |
25
Here is one way to do it:
launch backgroundprocess &
PROC_ID=$!
while kill -0 "$PROC_ID" >/dev/null 2>&1; do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNING"
done
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
exit 0
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
2
Thanks, this is definitely the only answer which answers my interpretation of the original question (and the reason why I ended up looking at this question)
– Mark Booth
Apr 30 '15 at 14:48
@cuonglm, What is there are multiple processes? Probablywaitis more suitable for that?
– Nishant
Dec 5 '18 at 9:30
add a comment |
0
You can run your process with nohup and write shell script to read nohup.out file which nohup uses to log .
nohup command &
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
3
(1) At the risk of splitting hairs,nohupdoesn't write anything tonohup.out; it merely creates the file, and redirects the output of the command to it. (2) If the command doesn't produce any output, nothing will be written tonohup.out, and this idea goes nowhere fast. (3) Even ifcommanddoes write output, how can you tell when it ends by monitoring that output?
– G-Man
Oct 23 '15 at 13:29
@G-Man maybe by checking the output oflsofto see ifnohupis still usingnohup.out, but I agree this is a very hairy method.
– Alexej Magura
Sep 15 '17 at 16:39
(4) By the timecommandstarts running,nohupis gone. (1) Yes, I’m repeating a number, because I’m repeating what I said two years ago:nohupdoesn’t write anything tonohup.out. (5) Yes, you could write a shell script to loop and runlsofto see whethernohup.outis still open. But that would be a different answer. (6) Even if you did that, it would be unreliable. What if some other process opened thenohup.outfile? You’d really want to check if this specific process hadnohup.outopen. (7) But, if you’re going to do that, why not just check whether the process is running?
– G-Man
Sep 16 '17 at 1:38
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
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: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
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
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
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%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f76717%2flaunch-a-background-process-and-check-when-it-ends%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
57
The key is the "wait" command:
#!/bin/bash
/my/process &
/another/process &
wait
echo "All processes done!"
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
6
Benefit of this: it does NOT burn CPU time with an infinite loop running all the time.... ;)
– Pascal Schmiel
May 22 '13 at 12:47
1
The disadvantage of this is that you can't do anything else while you are waiting, such as indicating progress to the user. Only cuonglm's solution allows you to do this.
– Mark Booth
Apr 28 '15 at 10:30
1
@Mark Booth You can indicate progress with a third asynchronous job. eg:cmd1 & p=$!; cmd2 & q=$!; while sleep 1; do echo still running ; done& wait $p $q; kill $!;
– William Pursell
Aug 2 '17 at 17:26
add a comment |
57
The key is the "wait" command:
#!/bin/bash
/my/process &
/another/process &
wait
echo "All processes done!"
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
6
Benefit of this: it does NOT burn CPU time with an infinite loop running all the time.... ;)
– Pascal Schmiel
May 22 '13 at 12:47
1
The disadvantage of this is that you can't do anything else while you are waiting, such as indicating progress to the user. Only cuonglm's solution allows you to do this.
– Mark Booth
Apr 28 '15 at 10:30
1
@Mark Booth You can indicate progress with a third asynchronous job. eg:cmd1 & p=$!; cmd2 & q=$!; while sleep 1; do echo still running ; done& wait $p $q; kill $!;
– William Pursell
Aug 2 '17 at 17:26
add a comment |
57
57
57
The key is the "wait" command:
#!/bin/bash
/my/process &
/another/process &
wait
echo "All processes done!"
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
The key is the "wait" command:
#!/bin/bash
/my/process &
/another/process &
wait
echo "All processes done!"
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
answered May 22 '13 at 12:39
Pascal SchmielPascal Schmiel
82965
82965
6
Benefit of this: it does NOT burn CPU time with an infinite loop running all the time.... ;)
– Pascal Schmiel
May 22 '13 at 12:47
1
The disadvantage of this is that you can't do anything else while you are waiting, such as indicating progress to the user. Only cuonglm's solution allows you to do this.
– Mark Booth
Apr 28 '15 at 10:30
1
@Mark Booth You can indicate progress with a third asynchronous job. eg:cmd1 & p=$!; cmd2 & q=$!; while sleep 1; do echo still running ; done& wait $p $q; kill $!;
– William Pursell
Aug 2 '17 at 17:26
add a comment |
6
Benefit of this: it does NOT burn CPU time with an infinite loop running all the time.... ;)
– Pascal Schmiel
May 22 '13 at 12:47
1
The disadvantage of this is that you can't do anything else while you are waiting, such as indicating progress to the user. Only cuonglm's solution allows you to do this.
– Mark Booth
Apr 28 '15 at 10:30
1
@Mark Booth You can indicate progress with a third asynchronous job. eg:cmd1 & p=$!; cmd2 & q=$!; while sleep 1; do echo still running ; done& wait $p $q; kill $!;
– William Pursell
Aug 2 '17 at 17:26
6
6
Benefit of this: it does NOT burn CPU time with an infinite loop running all the time.... ;)
– Pascal Schmiel
May 22 '13 at 12:47
Benefit of this: it does NOT burn CPU time with an infinite loop running all the time.... ;)
– Pascal Schmiel
May 22 '13 at 12:47
1
1
The disadvantage of this is that you can't do anything else while you are waiting, such as indicating progress to the user. Only cuonglm's solution allows you to do this.
– Mark Booth
Apr 28 '15 at 10:30
The disadvantage of this is that you can't do anything else while you are waiting, such as indicating progress to the user. Only cuonglm's solution allows you to do this.
– Mark Booth
Apr 28 '15 at 10:30
1
1
@Mark Booth You can indicate progress with a third asynchronous job. eg:
cmd1 & p=$!; cmd2 & q=$!; while sleep 1; do echo still running ; done& wait $p $q; kill $!;– William Pursell
Aug 2 '17 at 17:26
@Mark Booth You can indicate progress with a third asynchronous job. eg:
cmd1 & p=$!; cmd2 & q=$!; while sleep 1; do echo still running ; done& wait $p $q; kill $!;– William Pursell
Aug 2 '17 at 17:26
add a comment |
27
With wait you can have the granularity you need:
sleep 1 &
PID1=$!
sleep 2 &
PID2=$!
wait $PID1
echo 'PID1 has ended.'
wait
echo 'All background processes have exited.'
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
add a comment |
27
With wait you can have the granularity you need:
sleep 1 &
PID1=$!
sleep 2 &
PID2=$!
wait $PID1
echo 'PID1 has ended.'
wait
echo 'All background processes have exited.'
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
add a comment |
27
27
27
With wait you can have the granularity you need:
sleep 1 &
PID1=$!
sleep 2 &
PID2=$!
wait $PID1
echo 'PID1 has ended.'
wait
echo 'All background processes have exited.'
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
With wait you can have the granularity you need:
sleep 1 &
PID1=$!
sleep 2 &
PID2=$!
wait $PID1
echo 'PID1 has ended.'
wait
echo 'All background processes have exited.'
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
edited Apr 6 '16 at 17:50
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
answered May 22 '13 at 13:57
Mircea VutcoviciMircea Vutcovici
1,301108
1,301108
add a comment |
add a comment |
25
Here is one way to do it:
launch backgroundprocess &
PROC_ID=$!
while kill -0 "$PROC_ID" >/dev/null 2>&1; do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNING"
done
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
exit 0
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
2
Thanks, this is definitely the only answer which answers my interpretation of the original question (and the reason why I ended up looking at this question)
– Mark Booth
Apr 30 '15 at 14:48
@cuonglm, What is there are multiple processes? Probablywaitis more suitable for that?
– Nishant
Dec 5 '18 at 9:30
add a comment |
25
Here is one way to do it:
launch backgroundprocess &
PROC_ID=$!
while kill -0 "$PROC_ID" >/dev/null 2>&1; do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNING"
done
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
exit 0
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
2
Thanks, this is definitely the only answer which answers my interpretation of the original question (and the reason why I ended up looking at this question)
– Mark Booth
Apr 30 '15 at 14:48
@cuonglm, What is there are multiple processes? Probablywaitis more suitable for that?
– Nishant
Dec 5 '18 at 9:30
add a comment |
25
25
25
Here is one way to do it:
launch backgroundprocess &
PROC_ID=$!
while kill -0 "$PROC_ID" >/dev/null 2>&1; do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNING"
done
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
exit 0
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
Here is one way to do it:
launch backgroundprocess &
PROC_ID=$!
while kill -0 "$PROC_ID" >/dev/null 2>&1; do
echo "PROCESS IS RUNNING"
done
echo "PROCESS TERMINATED"
exit 0
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
edited Oct 23 '15 at 13:23
Community♦
1
1
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
answered May 22 '13 at 12:42
cuonglmcuonglm
105k25209307
105k25209307
2
Thanks, this is definitely the only answer which answers my interpretation of the original question (and the reason why I ended up looking at this question)
– Mark Booth
Apr 30 '15 at 14:48
@cuonglm, What is there are multiple processes? Probablywaitis more suitable for that?
– Nishant
Dec 5 '18 at 9:30
add a comment |
2
Thanks, this is definitely the only answer which answers my interpretation of the original question (and the reason why I ended up looking at this question)
– Mark Booth
Apr 30 '15 at 14:48
@cuonglm, What is there are multiple processes? Probablywaitis more suitable for that?
– Nishant
Dec 5 '18 at 9:30
2
2
Thanks, this is definitely the only answer which answers my interpretation of the original question (and the reason why I ended up looking at this question)
– Mark Booth
Apr 30 '15 at 14:48
Thanks, this is definitely the only answer which answers my interpretation of the original question (and the reason why I ended up looking at this question)
– Mark Booth
Apr 30 '15 at 14:48
@cuonglm, What is there are multiple processes? Probably
wait is more suitable for that?– Nishant
Dec 5 '18 at 9:30
@cuonglm, What is there are multiple processes? Probably
wait is more suitable for that?– Nishant
Dec 5 '18 at 9:30
add a comment |
0
You can run your process with nohup and write shell script to read nohup.out file which nohup uses to log .
nohup command &
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
3
(1) At the risk of splitting hairs,nohupdoesn't write anything tonohup.out; it merely creates the file, and redirects the output of the command to it. (2) If the command doesn't produce any output, nothing will be written tonohup.out, and this idea goes nowhere fast. (3) Even ifcommanddoes write output, how can you tell when it ends by monitoring that output?
– G-Man
Oct 23 '15 at 13:29
@G-Man maybe by checking the output oflsofto see ifnohupis still usingnohup.out, but I agree this is a very hairy method.
– Alexej Magura
Sep 15 '17 at 16:39
(4) By the timecommandstarts running,nohupis gone. (1) Yes, I’m repeating a number, because I’m repeating what I said two years ago:nohupdoesn’t write anything tonohup.out. (5) Yes, you could write a shell script to loop and runlsofto see whethernohup.outis still open. But that would be a different answer. (6) Even if you did that, it would be unreliable. What if some other process opened thenohup.outfile? You’d really want to check if this specific process hadnohup.outopen. (7) But, if you’re going to do that, why not just check whether the process is running?
– G-Man
Sep 16 '17 at 1:38
add a comment |
0
You can run your process with nohup and write shell script to read nohup.out file which nohup uses to log .
nohup command &
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
3
(1) At the risk of splitting hairs,nohupdoesn't write anything tonohup.out; it merely creates the file, and redirects the output of the command to it. (2) If the command doesn't produce any output, nothing will be written tonohup.out, and this idea goes nowhere fast. (3) Even ifcommanddoes write output, how can you tell when it ends by monitoring that output?
– G-Man
Oct 23 '15 at 13:29
@G-Man maybe by checking the output oflsofto see ifnohupis still usingnohup.out, but I agree this is a very hairy method.
– Alexej Magura
Sep 15 '17 at 16:39
(4) By the timecommandstarts running,nohupis gone. (1) Yes, I’m repeating a number, because I’m repeating what I said two years ago:nohupdoesn’t write anything tonohup.out. (5) Yes, you could write a shell script to loop and runlsofto see whethernohup.outis still open. But that would be a different answer. (6) Even if you did that, it would be unreliable. What if some other process opened thenohup.outfile? You’d really want to check if this specific process hadnohup.outopen. (7) But, if you’re going to do that, why not just check whether the process is running?
– G-Man
Sep 16 '17 at 1:38
add a comment |
0
0
0
You can run your process with nohup and write shell script to read nohup.out file which nohup uses to log .
nohup command &
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
You can run your process with nohup and write shell script to read nohup.out file which nohup uses to log .
nohup command &
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
answered May 22 '13 at 12:37
Abhishek Anand AmralkarAbhishek Anand Amralkar
1112
1112
3
(1) At the risk of splitting hairs,nohupdoesn't write anything tonohup.out; it merely creates the file, and redirects the output of the command to it. (2) If the command doesn't produce any output, nothing will be written tonohup.out, and this idea goes nowhere fast. (3) Even ifcommanddoes write output, how can you tell when it ends by monitoring that output?
– G-Man
Oct 23 '15 at 13:29
@G-Man maybe by checking the output oflsofto see ifnohupis still usingnohup.out, but I agree this is a very hairy method.
– Alexej Magura
Sep 15 '17 at 16:39
(4) By the timecommandstarts running,nohupis gone. (1) Yes, I’m repeating a number, because I’m repeating what I said two years ago:nohupdoesn’t write anything tonohup.out. (5) Yes, you could write a shell script to loop and runlsofto see whethernohup.outis still open. But that would be a different answer. (6) Even if you did that, it would be unreliable. What if some other process opened thenohup.outfile? You’d really want to check if this specific process hadnohup.outopen. (7) But, if you’re going to do that, why not just check whether the process is running?
– G-Man
Sep 16 '17 at 1:38
add a comment |
3
(1) At the risk of splitting hairs,nohupdoesn't write anything tonohup.out; it merely creates the file, and redirects the output of the command to it. (2) If the command doesn't produce any output, nothing will be written tonohup.out, and this idea goes nowhere fast. (3) Even ifcommanddoes write output, how can you tell when it ends by monitoring that output?
– G-Man
Oct 23 '15 at 13:29
@G-Man maybe by checking the output oflsofto see ifnohupis still usingnohup.out, but I agree this is a very hairy method.
– Alexej Magura
Sep 15 '17 at 16:39
(4) By the timecommandstarts running,nohupis gone. (1) Yes, I’m repeating a number, because I’m repeating what I said two years ago:nohupdoesn’t write anything tonohup.out. (5) Yes, you could write a shell script to loop and runlsofto see whethernohup.outis still open. But that would be a different answer. (6) Even if you did that, it would be unreliable. What if some other process opened thenohup.outfile? You’d really want to check if this specific process hadnohup.outopen. (7) But, if you’re going to do that, why not just check whether the process is running?
– G-Man
Sep 16 '17 at 1:38
3
3
(1) At the risk of splitting hairs,
nohup doesn't write anything to nohup.out; it merely creates the file, and redirects the output of the command to it. (2) If the command doesn't produce any output, nothing will be written to nohup.out, and this idea goes nowhere fast. (3) Even if command does write output, how can you tell when it ends by monitoring that output?– G-Man
Oct 23 '15 at 13:29
(1) At the risk of splitting hairs,
nohup doesn't write anything to nohup.out; it merely creates the file, and redirects the output of the command to it. (2) If the command doesn't produce any output, nothing will be written to nohup.out, and this idea goes nowhere fast. (3) Even if command does write output, how can you tell when it ends by monitoring that output?– G-Man
Oct 23 '15 at 13:29
@G-Man maybe by checking the output of
lsof to see if nohup is still using nohup.out, but I agree this is a very hairy method.– Alexej Magura
Sep 15 '17 at 16:39
@G-Man maybe by checking the output of
lsof to see if nohup is still using nohup.out, but I agree this is a very hairy method.– Alexej Magura
Sep 15 '17 at 16:39
(4) By the time
command starts running, nohup is gone. (1) Yes, I’m repeating a number, because I’m repeating what I said two years ago: nohup doesn’t write anything to nohup.out. (5) Yes, you could write a shell script to loop and run lsof to see whether nohup.out is still open. But that would be a different answer. (6) Even if you did that, it would be unreliable. What if some other process opened the nohup.out file? You’d really want to check if this specific process had nohup.out open. (7) But, if you’re going to do that, why not just check whether the process is running?– G-Man
Sep 16 '17 at 1:38
(4) By the time
command starts running, nohup is gone. (1) Yes, I’m repeating a number, because I’m repeating what I said two years ago: nohup doesn’t write anything to nohup.out. (5) Yes, you could write a shell script to loop and run lsof to see whether nohup.out is still open. But that would be a different answer. (6) Even if you did that, it would be unreliable. What if some other process opened the nohup.out file? You’d really want to check if this specific process had nohup.out open. (7) But, if you’re going to do that, why not just check whether the process is running?– G-Man
Sep 16 '17 at 1:38
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- 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.
draft saved
draft discarded
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%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f76717%2flaunch-a-background-process-and-check-when-it-ends%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
