On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Cameron Simpson<cs(a)zip.com.au> wrote: > On 30Oct2009 09:42, Dan Track<dan.track(a)gmail.com> wrote: > | Hi, > | > | I'm trying to run mutliple commands from the command line while using > | nohup. But I can't seem to get the syntax right, can someone please > | correct this for me > | > | nohup cmd 1;cm2;cmd3 > | > | All i get is that cmd1 runs from wiht nohup but the rest run in my > | current shell. I'd like all to be run with the single nohup command, > | any thoughts? > > Syntacticly that's three command. A semicolon is like a newline, so its > as though you've typed: > > nohup cmd 1 > cmd2 > cmd3 > > Since nohup expects one command, you need one command. SInce you want > three, invoke the shell as your command: > > nohup sh -c 'cmd1; cmd2; cmd3' > > Cheers, Hi Cameron, Many thanks for that gem.

Hi Patrick, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 08:02 -0700, Suvayu Ali wrote: >> >>I often find nohup very unreliable. I have had jobs fail submitted with >>nohup. I was thinking of switching to using screen. Maybe you could give >>that a try? > >Screen is not an option if you want to set up a long-running job and log >out. In what way has nohup failed on you? It's one of the oldest >commands in the Shell toolbox and I've never had a problem with it. > >Note that it's often a good idea to run it thus: > >nohup command > OUTPUT 2>&1 & Whenever I have used nohup I have used it exactly the way you have mentioned. And many times I later found out my job had failed when I had logged out. Since then I have stopped using nohup and wanted to look into screen. Until I do that I just don't log out any more unless I am sure my job has finished. Maybe the unreliability I have experienced is due to the versions of nohup I use (what ever comes as default with Scientific Linux 4, thats way too old). `screen' on the other hand runs all your jobs independent of your login shell, as a post later in the thread has pointed out. It runs on the remote machine, and manages the jobs you want to execute. So unless screen itself crashes its pretty much safe to say the job will complete successfully. Hopefully this clears up any doubts for you. I should definitely find some time to get familiar with screen. :-\ >poc >

Matthew Saltzman wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 10:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > >> Screen is not an option if you want to set up a long-running job and log >> out. > > Why not?  That's the first thing I think of when I want to do just that. I concur.  That is one of the main reasons "screen" was created in the first place. There's also nohup.  Just make sure you background the command as well:        nohup command &

On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 10:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Screen is not an option if you want to set up a long-running job and log > out. Why not? That's the first thing I think of when I want to do just that.