How to plan a task to run after another already running task in bash? [duplicate]
This question already has an answer here:
Queue a task in a running shell
3 answers
Queue up commands while one command is being executed
3 answers
I'm looking for something like command1 ; command2
i.e. how to run command2
after command1
but I'd like to plan execution of command2
when command1
is already running.
It can be solved by just typing the command2
and confirming by Enter supposed that the command1
is not consuming standard input and that the command1
doesn't produce to much text on output making it impractical to type (typed characters are blended with the command1
output).
bash job-control jobs
marked as duplicate by muru, Scott, Kusalananda
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 15 '18 at 11:11
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Queue a task in a running shell
3 answers
Queue up commands while one command is being executed
3 answers
I'm looking for something like command1 ; command2
i.e. how to run command2
after command1
but I'd like to plan execution of command2
when command1
is already running.
It can be solved by just typing the command2
and confirming by Enter supposed that the command1
is not consuming standard input and that the command1
doesn't produce to much text on output making it impractical to type (typed characters are blended with the command1
output).
bash job-control jobs
marked as duplicate by muru, Scott, Kusalananda
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 15 '18 at 11:11
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Queue a task in a running shell
3 answers
Queue up commands while one command is being executed
3 answers
I'm looking for something like command1 ; command2
i.e. how to run command2
after command1
but I'd like to plan execution of command2
when command1
is already running.
It can be solved by just typing the command2
and confirming by Enter supposed that the command1
is not consuming standard input and that the command1
doesn't produce to much text on output making it impractical to type (typed characters are blended with the command1
output).
bash job-control jobs
This question already has an answer here:
Queue a task in a running shell
3 answers
Queue up commands while one command is being executed
3 answers
I'm looking for something like command1 ; command2
i.e. how to run command2
after command1
but I'd like to plan execution of command2
when command1
is already running.
It can be solved by just typing the command2
and confirming by Enter supposed that the command1
is not consuming standard input and that the command1
doesn't produce to much text on output making it impractical to type (typed characters are blended with the command1
output).
This question already has an answer here:
Queue a task in a running shell
3 answers
Queue up commands while one command is being executed
3 answers
bash job-control jobs
bash job-control jobs
edited Dec 15 '18 at 1:14
czerny
asked Dec 14 '18 at 10:56
czernyczerny
5251312
5251312
marked as duplicate by muru, Scott, Kusalananda
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 15 '18 at 11:11
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by muru, Scott, Kusalananda
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Dec 15 '18 at 11:11
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2
Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.- Optionally
bg
, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.
fg && command2
to resume command1 in the foreground and queue up command2 afterwards if command1 succeeds. You can of course substitute;
or||
for the&&
if you so desire.
1
Stick abg
in there and win!
– Joshua
Dec 14 '18 at 20:58
2
@Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
– The Guy with The Hat
Dec 14 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
start a command
command1
pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z
find the job number of the paused command (it's usually already printed to console when to console when to command is paused) by executing
jobs
let
command1
continue in background
bg
plan execution of
command2
to await finish ofcommand1
wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2
Documentation Job Control Builtins
You can 'accept' your own answer (click the tick icon) into order to show other users that there is a good answer to your question.
– sudodus
Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
1
@sudodus Own answer can be accepted at earliest 2 days after the question was asked. stackoverflow.blog/2009/01/06/accept-your-own-answers
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:59
6
In simple cases I sometimes control-z then usefg ; command
. Or evenfg && command
to only run the 2nd command / pipeline if the first one was successful. (You can still usebg
while thinking / typing, if it doesn't spew text on the terminal.)
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:32
2
I'm a bit confused as to what this approach offers beyond the typicalcommand1; command2
syntax. Could you please clarify this for me?
– Haxiel
Dec 14 '18 at 17:32
1
command1 & proceed_after=$!
then when you've got the next command figured outwait -n $proceed_after; command 2
– studog
Dec 14 '18 at 18:27
|
show 1 more comment
There are several alternatives.
With one ampersand, 'push to background', the second program starts after the first one starts, but they will probably run alongside each other.
command1 & command2
With two ampersands, 'logical and', the second program will start only if the first program finished successfully.
command1 && command2
With a semicolon separating the commands in the command line, the the second program will start, when the first program finished, even if it failed or was interrupted.
command1 ; command2
You can use
wait <PID>
to wait for the first command to finish, if it is already running from the same shell (in the same terminal window).
Otherwise if the first command is already running from another shell (in another window), you can use a small while loop using ps to check if the PID is still found by
ps
. When it is no longer found, the second command will be started.
This demo example for
bash
checks iftop
is running via the PID, and runs the command
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
if/when
top
is no longer running.
pid=$(ps -A|grep top|cut -d ' ' -f 1);
while [ "$pid" != "" ]; do ps -A|grep "$pid" > /dev/null;
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then sleep 5;else pid=""; fi; done;
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
add a comment |
The standard way is just to let command 1 start in the background and then have command 2 start either in the background or in the foreground. The full command is this:
command1 & command2
&
is not a connector between these two commands. It can be used with command1
alone to have it started in the background:
command1 &
And this is right syntax for starting both commands in the background:
command1 & command2 &
Thank you for your answer. I don't mind if commands are running in background or foreground. I'd like to run them serially (one starts when the previous one ends) and I'd like to plan the execution of the second one when the first one is already running.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:22
@czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 11:25
I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:53
1
@czerny Then just use;
. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 12:54
add a comment |
If you have a choice to use two terminals, here's what you can do:
- Assuming you are already running command1 in a terminal (let's call it terminal1)
- Start a new terminal (let's call it terminal2)
- Find process ID of command1 (let's call it command1_pid). In terminal2, run command
ps -ef | grep <command1>
(you might want to properly form the filter string in grep command so that you do not accidently find another process having as a substring). - Run command
wait <command1_pid> ; command2
Basically, wait
is a bash built-in command that waits until the provided PIDs exit and then return. You are simply delegating your waiting for command1 to finish, on to bash's wait
command.
2
It doesn't seem to work for me. Runningwait
in different terminal outputs following error message:bash: wait: pid 19531 is not a child of this shell
.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:48
1
@czerny That's normal, I don't think this answer was tested. POSIXwait
system calls only work on child processes, so one bash process can't wait for the children of a different instance of bash. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/wait.2.html#ERRORS sayswait
andwaitpid
return withECHILD
error status in this case.
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2
Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.- Optionally
bg
, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.
fg && command2
to resume command1 in the foreground and queue up command2 afterwards if command1 succeeds. You can of course substitute;
or||
for the&&
if you so desire.
1
Stick abg
in there and win!
– Joshua
Dec 14 '18 at 20:58
2
@Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
– The Guy with The Hat
Dec 14 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2
Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.- Optionally
bg
, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.
fg && command2
to resume command1 in the foreground and queue up command2 afterwards if command1 succeeds. You can of course substitute;
or||
for the&&
if you so desire.
1
Stick abg
in there and win!
– Joshua
Dec 14 '18 at 20:58
2
@Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
– The Guy with The Hat
Dec 14 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2
Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.- Optionally
bg
, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.
fg && command2
to resume command1 in the foreground and queue up command2 afterwards if command1 succeeds. You can of course substitute;
or||
for the&&
if you so desire.
Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2
Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.- Optionally
bg
, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.
fg && command2
to resume command1 in the foreground and queue up command2 afterwards if command1 succeeds. You can of course substitute;
or||
for the&&
if you so desire.
edited Dec 14 '18 at 22:08
answered Dec 14 '18 at 16:09
The Guy with The HatThe Guy with The Hat
20616
20616
1
Stick abg
in there and win!
– Joshua
Dec 14 '18 at 20:58
2
@Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
– The Guy with The Hat
Dec 14 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
1
Stick abg
in there and win!
– Joshua
Dec 14 '18 at 20:58
2
@Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
– The Guy with The Hat
Dec 14 '18 at 21:13
1
1
Stick a
bg
in there and win!– Joshua
Dec 14 '18 at 20:58
Stick a
bg
in there and win!– Joshua
Dec 14 '18 at 20:58
2
2
@Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
– The Guy with The Hat
Dec 14 '18 at 21:13
@Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
– The Guy with The Hat
Dec 14 '18 at 21:13
add a comment |
start a command
command1
pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z
find the job number of the paused command (it's usually already printed to console when to console when to command is paused) by executing
jobs
let
command1
continue in background
bg
plan execution of
command2
to await finish ofcommand1
wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2
Documentation Job Control Builtins
You can 'accept' your own answer (click the tick icon) into order to show other users that there is a good answer to your question.
– sudodus
Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
1
@sudodus Own answer can be accepted at earliest 2 days after the question was asked. stackoverflow.blog/2009/01/06/accept-your-own-answers
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:59
6
In simple cases I sometimes control-z then usefg ; command
. Or evenfg && command
to only run the 2nd command / pipeline if the first one was successful. (You can still usebg
while thinking / typing, if it doesn't spew text on the terminal.)
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:32
2
I'm a bit confused as to what this approach offers beyond the typicalcommand1; command2
syntax. Could you please clarify this for me?
– Haxiel
Dec 14 '18 at 17:32
1
command1 & proceed_after=$!
then when you've got the next command figured outwait -n $proceed_after; command 2
– studog
Dec 14 '18 at 18:27
|
show 1 more comment
start a command
command1
pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z
find the job number of the paused command (it's usually already printed to console when to console when to command is paused) by executing
jobs
let
command1
continue in background
bg
plan execution of
command2
to await finish ofcommand1
wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2
Documentation Job Control Builtins
You can 'accept' your own answer (click the tick icon) into order to show other users that there is a good answer to your question.
– sudodus
Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
1
@sudodus Own answer can be accepted at earliest 2 days after the question was asked. stackoverflow.blog/2009/01/06/accept-your-own-answers
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:59
6
In simple cases I sometimes control-z then usefg ; command
. Or evenfg && command
to only run the 2nd command / pipeline if the first one was successful. (You can still usebg
while thinking / typing, if it doesn't spew text on the terminal.)
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:32
2
I'm a bit confused as to what this approach offers beyond the typicalcommand1; command2
syntax. Could you please clarify this for me?
– Haxiel
Dec 14 '18 at 17:32
1
command1 & proceed_after=$!
then when you've got the next command figured outwait -n $proceed_after; command 2
– studog
Dec 14 '18 at 18:27
|
show 1 more comment
start a command
command1
pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z
find the job number of the paused command (it's usually already printed to console when to console when to command is paused) by executing
jobs
let
command1
continue in background
bg
plan execution of
command2
to await finish ofcommand1
wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2
Documentation Job Control Builtins
start a command
command1
pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z
find the job number of the paused command (it's usually already printed to console when to console when to command is paused) by executing
jobs
let
command1
continue in background
bg
plan execution of
command2
to await finish ofcommand1
wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2
Documentation Job Control Builtins
answered Dec 14 '18 at 11:47
czernyczerny
5251312
5251312
You can 'accept' your own answer (click the tick icon) into order to show other users that there is a good answer to your question.
– sudodus
Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
1
@sudodus Own answer can be accepted at earliest 2 days after the question was asked. stackoverflow.blog/2009/01/06/accept-your-own-answers
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:59
6
In simple cases I sometimes control-z then usefg ; command
. Or evenfg && command
to only run the 2nd command / pipeline if the first one was successful. (You can still usebg
while thinking / typing, if it doesn't spew text on the terminal.)
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:32
2
I'm a bit confused as to what this approach offers beyond the typicalcommand1; command2
syntax. Could you please clarify this for me?
– Haxiel
Dec 14 '18 at 17:32
1
command1 & proceed_after=$!
then when you've got the next command figured outwait -n $proceed_after; command 2
– studog
Dec 14 '18 at 18:27
|
show 1 more comment
You can 'accept' your own answer (click the tick icon) into order to show other users that there is a good answer to your question.
– sudodus
Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
1
@sudodus Own answer can be accepted at earliest 2 days after the question was asked. stackoverflow.blog/2009/01/06/accept-your-own-answers
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:59
6
In simple cases I sometimes control-z then usefg ; command
. Or evenfg && command
to only run the 2nd command / pipeline if the first one was successful. (You can still usebg
while thinking / typing, if it doesn't spew text on the terminal.)
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:32
2
I'm a bit confused as to what this approach offers beyond the typicalcommand1; command2
syntax. Could you please clarify this for me?
– Haxiel
Dec 14 '18 at 17:32
1
command1 & proceed_after=$!
then when you've got the next command figured outwait -n $proceed_after; command 2
– studog
Dec 14 '18 at 18:27
You can 'accept' your own answer (click the tick icon) into order to show other users that there is a good answer to your question.
– sudodus
Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
You can 'accept' your own answer (click the tick icon) into order to show other users that there is a good answer to your question.
– sudodus
Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
1
1
@sudodus Own answer can be accepted at earliest 2 days after the question was asked. stackoverflow.blog/2009/01/06/accept-your-own-answers
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:59
@sudodus Own answer can be accepted at earliest 2 days after the question was asked. stackoverflow.blog/2009/01/06/accept-your-own-answers
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:59
6
6
In simple cases I sometimes control-z then use
fg ; command
. Or even fg && command
to only run the 2nd command / pipeline if the first one was successful. (You can still use bg
while thinking / typing, if it doesn't spew text on the terminal.)– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:32
In simple cases I sometimes control-z then use
fg ; command
. Or even fg && command
to only run the 2nd command / pipeline if the first one was successful. (You can still use bg
while thinking / typing, if it doesn't spew text on the terminal.)– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:32
2
2
I'm a bit confused as to what this approach offers beyond the typical
command1; command2
syntax. Could you please clarify this for me?– Haxiel
Dec 14 '18 at 17:32
I'm a bit confused as to what this approach offers beyond the typical
command1; command2
syntax. Could you please clarify this for me?– Haxiel
Dec 14 '18 at 17:32
1
1
command1 & proceed_after=$!
then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
– studog
Dec 14 '18 at 18:27
command1 & proceed_after=$!
then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
– studog
Dec 14 '18 at 18:27
|
show 1 more comment
There are several alternatives.
With one ampersand, 'push to background', the second program starts after the first one starts, but they will probably run alongside each other.
command1 & command2
With two ampersands, 'logical and', the second program will start only if the first program finished successfully.
command1 && command2
With a semicolon separating the commands in the command line, the the second program will start, when the first program finished, even if it failed or was interrupted.
command1 ; command2
You can use
wait <PID>
to wait for the first command to finish, if it is already running from the same shell (in the same terminal window).
Otherwise if the first command is already running from another shell (in another window), you can use a small while loop using ps to check if the PID is still found by
ps
. When it is no longer found, the second command will be started.
This demo example for
bash
checks iftop
is running via the PID, and runs the command
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
if/when
top
is no longer running.
pid=$(ps -A|grep top|cut -d ' ' -f 1);
while [ "$pid" != "" ]; do ps -A|grep "$pid" > /dev/null;
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then sleep 5;else pid=""; fi; done;
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
add a comment |
There are several alternatives.
With one ampersand, 'push to background', the second program starts after the first one starts, but they will probably run alongside each other.
command1 & command2
With two ampersands, 'logical and', the second program will start only if the first program finished successfully.
command1 && command2
With a semicolon separating the commands in the command line, the the second program will start, when the first program finished, even if it failed or was interrupted.
command1 ; command2
You can use
wait <PID>
to wait for the first command to finish, if it is already running from the same shell (in the same terminal window).
Otherwise if the first command is already running from another shell (in another window), you can use a small while loop using ps to check if the PID is still found by
ps
. When it is no longer found, the second command will be started.
This demo example for
bash
checks iftop
is running via the PID, and runs the command
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
if/when
top
is no longer running.
pid=$(ps -A|grep top|cut -d ' ' -f 1);
while [ "$pid" != "" ]; do ps -A|grep "$pid" > /dev/null;
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then sleep 5;else pid=""; fi; done;
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
add a comment |
There are several alternatives.
With one ampersand, 'push to background', the second program starts after the first one starts, but they will probably run alongside each other.
command1 & command2
With two ampersands, 'logical and', the second program will start only if the first program finished successfully.
command1 && command2
With a semicolon separating the commands in the command line, the the second program will start, when the first program finished, even if it failed or was interrupted.
command1 ; command2
You can use
wait <PID>
to wait for the first command to finish, if it is already running from the same shell (in the same terminal window).
Otherwise if the first command is already running from another shell (in another window), you can use a small while loop using ps to check if the PID is still found by
ps
. When it is no longer found, the second command will be started.
This demo example for
bash
checks iftop
is running via the PID, and runs the command
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
if/when
top
is no longer running.
pid=$(ps -A|grep top|cut -d ' ' -f 1);
while [ "$pid" != "" ]; do ps -A|grep "$pid" > /dev/null;
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then sleep 5;else pid=""; fi; done;
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
There are several alternatives.
With one ampersand, 'push to background', the second program starts after the first one starts, but they will probably run alongside each other.
command1 & command2
With two ampersands, 'logical and', the second program will start only if the first program finished successfully.
command1 && command2
With a semicolon separating the commands in the command line, the the second program will start, when the first program finished, even if it failed or was interrupted.
command1 ; command2
You can use
wait <PID>
to wait for the first command to finish, if it is already running from the same shell (in the same terminal window).
Otherwise if the first command is already running from another shell (in another window), you can use a small while loop using ps to check if the PID is still found by
ps
. When it is no longer found, the second command will be started.
This demo example for
bash
checks iftop
is running via the PID, and runs the command
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
if/when
top
is no longer running.
pid=$(ps -A|grep top|cut -d ' ' -f 1);
while [ "$pid" != "" ]; do ps -A|grep "$pid" > /dev/null;
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then sleep 5;else pid=""; fi; done;
echo "*** $USER, I am ready now ***"
edited Dec 15 '18 at 0:07
answered Dec 14 '18 at 11:37
sudodussudodus
1,49337
1,49337
add a comment |
add a comment |
The standard way is just to let command 1 start in the background and then have command 2 start either in the background or in the foreground. The full command is this:
command1 & command2
&
is not a connector between these two commands. It can be used with command1
alone to have it started in the background:
command1 &
And this is right syntax for starting both commands in the background:
command1 & command2 &
Thank you for your answer. I don't mind if commands are running in background or foreground. I'd like to run them serially (one starts when the previous one ends) and I'd like to plan the execution of the second one when the first one is already running.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:22
@czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 11:25
I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:53
1
@czerny Then just use;
. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 12:54
add a comment |
The standard way is just to let command 1 start in the background and then have command 2 start either in the background or in the foreground. The full command is this:
command1 & command2
&
is not a connector between these two commands. It can be used with command1
alone to have it started in the background:
command1 &
And this is right syntax for starting both commands in the background:
command1 & command2 &
Thank you for your answer. I don't mind if commands are running in background or foreground. I'd like to run them serially (one starts when the previous one ends) and I'd like to plan the execution of the second one when the first one is already running.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:22
@czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 11:25
I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:53
1
@czerny Then just use;
. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 12:54
add a comment |
The standard way is just to let command 1 start in the background and then have command 2 start either in the background or in the foreground. The full command is this:
command1 & command2
&
is not a connector between these two commands. It can be used with command1
alone to have it started in the background:
command1 &
And this is right syntax for starting both commands in the background:
command1 & command2 &
The standard way is just to let command 1 start in the background and then have command 2 start either in the background or in the foreground. The full command is this:
command1 & command2
&
is not a connector between these two commands. It can be used with command1
alone to have it started in the background:
command1 &
And this is right syntax for starting both commands in the background:
command1 & command2 &
answered Dec 14 '18 at 11:07
TomaszTomasz
9,53652965
9,53652965
Thank you for your answer. I don't mind if commands are running in background or foreground. I'd like to run them serially (one starts when the previous one ends) and I'd like to plan the execution of the second one when the first one is already running.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:22
@czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 11:25
I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:53
1
@czerny Then just use;
. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 12:54
add a comment |
Thank you for your answer. I don't mind if commands are running in background or foreground. I'd like to run them serially (one starts when the previous one ends) and I'd like to plan the execution of the second one when the first one is already running.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:22
@czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 11:25
I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:53
1
@czerny Then just use;
. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 12:54
Thank you for your answer. I don't mind if commands are running in background or foreground. I'd like to run them serially (one starts when the previous one ends) and I'd like to plan the execution of the second one when the first one is already running.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:22
Thank you for your answer. I don't mind if commands are running in background or foreground. I'd like to run them serially (one starts when the previous one ends) and I'd like to plan the execution of the second one when the first one is already running.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:22
@czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 11:25
@czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 11:25
I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:53
I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:53
1
1
@czerny Then just use
;
. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 12:54
@czerny Then just use
;
. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?– Tomasz
Dec 14 '18 at 12:54
add a comment |
If you have a choice to use two terminals, here's what you can do:
- Assuming you are already running command1 in a terminal (let's call it terminal1)
- Start a new terminal (let's call it terminal2)
- Find process ID of command1 (let's call it command1_pid). In terminal2, run command
ps -ef | grep <command1>
(you might want to properly form the filter string in grep command so that you do not accidently find another process having as a substring). - Run command
wait <command1_pid> ; command2
Basically, wait
is a bash built-in command that waits until the provided PIDs exit and then return. You are simply delegating your waiting for command1 to finish, on to bash's wait
command.
2
It doesn't seem to work for me. Runningwait
in different terminal outputs following error message:bash: wait: pid 19531 is not a child of this shell
.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:48
1
@czerny That's normal, I don't think this answer was tested. POSIXwait
system calls only work on child processes, so one bash process can't wait for the children of a different instance of bash. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/wait.2.html#ERRORS sayswait
andwaitpid
return withECHILD
error status in this case.
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
If you have a choice to use two terminals, here's what you can do:
- Assuming you are already running command1 in a terminal (let's call it terminal1)
- Start a new terminal (let's call it terminal2)
- Find process ID of command1 (let's call it command1_pid). In terminal2, run command
ps -ef | grep <command1>
(you might want to properly form the filter string in grep command so that you do not accidently find another process having as a substring). - Run command
wait <command1_pid> ; command2
Basically, wait
is a bash built-in command that waits until the provided PIDs exit and then return. You are simply delegating your waiting for command1 to finish, on to bash's wait
command.
2
It doesn't seem to work for me. Runningwait
in different terminal outputs following error message:bash: wait: pid 19531 is not a child of this shell
.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:48
1
@czerny That's normal, I don't think this answer was tested. POSIXwait
system calls only work on child processes, so one bash process can't wait for the children of a different instance of bash. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/wait.2.html#ERRORS sayswait
andwaitpid
return withECHILD
error status in this case.
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
If you have a choice to use two terminals, here's what you can do:
- Assuming you are already running command1 in a terminal (let's call it terminal1)
- Start a new terminal (let's call it terminal2)
- Find process ID of command1 (let's call it command1_pid). In terminal2, run command
ps -ef | grep <command1>
(you might want to properly form the filter string in grep command so that you do not accidently find another process having as a substring). - Run command
wait <command1_pid> ; command2
Basically, wait
is a bash built-in command that waits until the provided PIDs exit and then return. You are simply delegating your waiting for command1 to finish, on to bash's wait
command.
If you have a choice to use two terminals, here's what you can do:
- Assuming you are already running command1 in a terminal (let's call it terminal1)
- Start a new terminal (let's call it terminal2)
- Find process ID of command1 (let's call it command1_pid). In terminal2, run command
ps -ef | grep <command1>
(you might want to properly form the filter string in grep command so that you do not accidently find another process having as a substring). - Run command
wait <command1_pid> ; command2
Basically, wait
is a bash built-in command that waits until the provided PIDs exit and then return. You are simply delegating your waiting for command1 to finish, on to bash's wait
command.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 11:31
PrasannaPrasanna
993
993
2
It doesn't seem to work for me. Runningwait
in different terminal outputs following error message:bash: wait: pid 19531 is not a child of this shell
.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:48
1
@czerny That's normal, I don't think this answer was tested. POSIXwait
system calls only work on child processes, so one bash process can't wait for the children of a different instance of bash. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/wait.2.html#ERRORS sayswait
andwaitpid
return withECHILD
error status in this case.
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |
2
It doesn't seem to work for me. Runningwait
in different terminal outputs following error message:bash: wait: pid 19531 is not a child of this shell
.
– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:48
1
@czerny That's normal, I don't think this answer was tested. POSIXwait
system calls only work on child processes, so one bash process can't wait for the children of a different instance of bash. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/wait.2.html#ERRORS sayswait
andwaitpid
return withECHILD
error status in this case.
– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:38
2
2
It doesn't seem to work for me. Running
wait
in different terminal outputs following error message: bash: wait: pid 19531 is not a child of this shell
.– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:48
It doesn't seem to work for me. Running
wait
in different terminal outputs following error message: bash: wait: pid 19531 is not a child of this shell
.– czerny
Dec 14 '18 at 11:48
1
1
@czerny That's normal, I don't think this answer was tested. POSIX
wait
system calls only work on child processes, so one bash process can't wait for the children of a different instance of bash. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/wait.2.html#ERRORS says wait
and waitpid
return with ECHILD
error status in this case.– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:38
@czerny That's normal, I don't think this answer was tested. POSIX
wait
system calls only work on child processes, so one bash process can't wait for the children of a different instance of bash. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/wait.2.html#ERRORS says wait
and waitpid
return with ECHILD
error status in this case.– Peter Cordes
Dec 14 '18 at 13:38
add a comment |