Simple queuing system?
Given a commodity PC, we would like to use it to execute some tasks in the background round the clock.
Basically, we would like to have commands like:
add-task *insert command here*
list-tasks
remove-task(s)
The added tasks should simply be put in a queue and executed one after another in the background (keeping running after logout of the shell).
Is there any simple script/program that does this?
process process-management scheduling
add a comment |
Given a commodity PC, we would like to use it to execute some tasks in the background round the clock.
Basically, we would like to have commands like:
add-task *insert command here*
list-tasks
remove-task(s)
The added tasks should simply be put in a queue and executed one after another in the background (keeping running after logout of the shell).
Is there any simple script/program that does this?
process process-management scheduling
add a comment |
Given a commodity PC, we would like to use it to execute some tasks in the background round the clock.
Basically, we would like to have commands like:
add-task *insert command here*
list-tasks
remove-task(s)
The added tasks should simply be put in a queue and executed one after another in the background (keeping running after logout of the shell).
Is there any simple script/program that does this?
process process-management scheduling
Given a commodity PC, we would like to use it to execute some tasks in the background round the clock.
Basically, we would like to have commands like:
add-task *insert command here*
list-tasks
remove-task(s)
The added tasks should simply be put in a queue and executed one after another in the background (keeping running after logout of the shell).
Is there any simple script/program that does this?
process process-management scheduling
process process-management scheduling
edited Aug 26 '11 at 22:31
Gilles
540k12810931606
540k12810931606
asked Aug 26 '11 at 7:06
dagneliesdagnelies
16017
16017
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
There's a standard batch
command that does more or less what you're after. More precisely, batch
executes the jobs when the system load is not too high, one at a time (so it doesn't do any parallelization). The batch
command is part of the at
package.
echo 'command1 --foo=bar' | batch
echo 'command2 "$(wibble)"' | batch
at -q b -l # on many OSes, a slightly shorter synonym is: atq -q b
at -q b -r 1234 # Unschedule a pending task (atq gives the task ID)
It's wrong to say that thebatch
command "doesn't do any parallelization". There's usually a default 60sec delay between starting one job and starting the next; however, there's nothing to make the next job wait for the first to finish --atd
will happily kick off jobs from the batch queue as soon as the value set by the-b
option has elapsed (seeatd
man page).
– rsaw
Apr 26 '16 at 21:35
add a comment |
There are lots of queuing systems, but the are frequently very specialized.
You might look into the at
scheduler. It's like cron
in some ways but it is setup more like a queue for one time jobs than for repeat jobs. It can "schedule" things on criteria other than time, such as system load or sequence of jobs.
Your favorite distro will almost certainly have packages for it.
add a comment |
Another solution is to use lpd
, and create a custom "print driver" that runs your jobs. A friend helped me work this out when I had a similar request. Make a script like this, and put it in /tmp/batch.sh
:
#!/bin/bash
TMPFILE=$(mktemp /tmp/XXXX)
exec <"$6"
cat - > $TMPFILE
chmod a+x $TMPFILE
$TMPFILE
rm -f $TMPFILE
Then run:
lpadmin -p batch1 -E -P /tmp/batch.sh
That starts a queue, and you can create more by using other names instead of batch1. Add a job with:
lp -d batch1 /path/to/jobscript
Manage jobs with lpq
, lprm
, and lpstat
. If you want more flexibility with passing arguments to your jobs, you can make the batch.sh script fancier.
(I tried batch
before going down this route, but either it doesn't work as a queue on OSX, or I was using it wrong.)
I realize that @arnaud specified "commodity PC," which means it's probably not OSX, where I tested this solution. However, this should be portable, and it's much more flexible thanbatch
.
– Joe Fusion
Jan 28 '14 at 19:35
1
This is possible one of the most genuine hacks I've ever seen.
– Thiago Macedo
Nov 7 '17 at 21:19
add a comment |
I notice this question is several years old, so it may not help the original poster, but it may help someone else.
First: "task spooler" is the answer. It's pretty powerful and Fedora at least has it.
But a lot of the servers I use, I can't install arbitrary packages without a lot of hassle, so I need something that is ideally pure bash (or perl, or such).
After struggling with this for a while, I came up with a pure bash implementation that appears to work fine so far. You can find it at https://github.com/sitaramc/bq.
It's just one bash script so installation is trivial. However, it punts your second and third requirements (but it should be trivial to implement those too).
The script is liberally commented and you should be able to review it in a few minutes if you wish to.
New contributor
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
});
}
});
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%2f19458%2fsimple-queuing-system%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
There's a standard batch
command that does more or less what you're after. More precisely, batch
executes the jobs when the system load is not too high, one at a time (so it doesn't do any parallelization). The batch
command is part of the at
package.
echo 'command1 --foo=bar' | batch
echo 'command2 "$(wibble)"' | batch
at -q b -l # on many OSes, a slightly shorter synonym is: atq -q b
at -q b -r 1234 # Unschedule a pending task (atq gives the task ID)
It's wrong to say that thebatch
command "doesn't do any parallelization". There's usually a default 60sec delay between starting one job and starting the next; however, there's nothing to make the next job wait for the first to finish --atd
will happily kick off jobs from the batch queue as soon as the value set by the-b
option has elapsed (seeatd
man page).
– rsaw
Apr 26 '16 at 21:35
add a comment |
There's a standard batch
command that does more or less what you're after. More precisely, batch
executes the jobs when the system load is not too high, one at a time (so it doesn't do any parallelization). The batch
command is part of the at
package.
echo 'command1 --foo=bar' | batch
echo 'command2 "$(wibble)"' | batch
at -q b -l # on many OSes, a slightly shorter synonym is: atq -q b
at -q b -r 1234 # Unschedule a pending task (atq gives the task ID)
It's wrong to say that thebatch
command "doesn't do any parallelization". There's usually a default 60sec delay between starting one job and starting the next; however, there's nothing to make the next job wait for the first to finish --atd
will happily kick off jobs from the batch queue as soon as the value set by the-b
option has elapsed (seeatd
man page).
– rsaw
Apr 26 '16 at 21:35
add a comment |
There's a standard batch
command that does more or less what you're after. More precisely, batch
executes the jobs when the system load is not too high, one at a time (so it doesn't do any parallelization). The batch
command is part of the at
package.
echo 'command1 --foo=bar' | batch
echo 'command2 "$(wibble)"' | batch
at -q b -l # on many OSes, a slightly shorter synonym is: atq -q b
at -q b -r 1234 # Unschedule a pending task (atq gives the task ID)
There's a standard batch
command that does more or less what you're after. More precisely, batch
executes the jobs when the system load is not too high, one at a time (so it doesn't do any parallelization). The batch
command is part of the at
package.
echo 'command1 --foo=bar' | batch
echo 'command2 "$(wibble)"' | batch
at -q b -l # on many OSes, a slightly shorter synonym is: atq -q b
at -q b -r 1234 # Unschedule a pending task (atq gives the task ID)
answered Aug 26 '11 at 22:39
GillesGilles
540k12810931606
540k12810931606
It's wrong to say that thebatch
command "doesn't do any parallelization". There's usually a default 60sec delay between starting one job and starting the next; however, there's nothing to make the next job wait for the first to finish --atd
will happily kick off jobs from the batch queue as soon as the value set by the-b
option has elapsed (seeatd
man page).
– rsaw
Apr 26 '16 at 21:35
add a comment |
It's wrong to say that thebatch
command "doesn't do any parallelization". There's usually a default 60sec delay between starting one job and starting the next; however, there's nothing to make the next job wait for the first to finish --atd
will happily kick off jobs from the batch queue as soon as the value set by the-b
option has elapsed (seeatd
man page).
– rsaw
Apr 26 '16 at 21:35
It's wrong to say that the
batch
command "doesn't do any parallelization". There's usually a default 60sec delay between starting one job and starting the next; however, there's nothing to make the next job wait for the first to finish -- atd
will happily kick off jobs from the batch queue as soon as the value set by the -b
option has elapsed (see atd
man page).– rsaw
Apr 26 '16 at 21:35
It's wrong to say that the
batch
command "doesn't do any parallelization". There's usually a default 60sec delay between starting one job and starting the next; however, there's nothing to make the next job wait for the first to finish -- atd
will happily kick off jobs from the batch queue as soon as the value set by the -b
option has elapsed (see atd
man page).– rsaw
Apr 26 '16 at 21:35
add a comment |
There are lots of queuing systems, but the are frequently very specialized.
You might look into the at
scheduler. It's like cron
in some ways but it is setup more like a queue for one time jobs than for repeat jobs. It can "schedule" things on criteria other than time, such as system load or sequence of jobs.
Your favorite distro will almost certainly have packages for it.
add a comment |
There are lots of queuing systems, but the are frequently very specialized.
You might look into the at
scheduler. It's like cron
in some ways but it is setup more like a queue for one time jobs than for repeat jobs. It can "schedule" things on criteria other than time, such as system load or sequence of jobs.
Your favorite distro will almost certainly have packages for it.
add a comment |
There are lots of queuing systems, but the are frequently very specialized.
You might look into the at
scheduler. It's like cron
in some ways but it is setup more like a queue for one time jobs than for repeat jobs. It can "schedule" things on criteria other than time, such as system load or sequence of jobs.
Your favorite distro will almost certainly have packages for it.
There are lots of queuing systems, but the are frequently very specialized.
You might look into the at
scheduler. It's like cron
in some ways but it is setup more like a queue for one time jobs than for repeat jobs. It can "schedule" things on criteria other than time, such as system load or sequence of jobs.
Your favorite distro will almost certainly have packages for it.
answered Aug 26 '11 at 9:34
CalebCaleb
51.3k9149192
51.3k9149192
add a comment |
add a comment |
Another solution is to use lpd
, and create a custom "print driver" that runs your jobs. A friend helped me work this out when I had a similar request. Make a script like this, and put it in /tmp/batch.sh
:
#!/bin/bash
TMPFILE=$(mktemp /tmp/XXXX)
exec <"$6"
cat - > $TMPFILE
chmod a+x $TMPFILE
$TMPFILE
rm -f $TMPFILE
Then run:
lpadmin -p batch1 -E -P /tmp/batch.sh
That starts a queue, and you can create more by using other names instead of batch1. Add a job with:
lp -d batch1 /path/to/jobscript
Manage jobs with lpq
, lprm
, and lpstat
. If you want more flexibility with passing arguments to your jobs, you can make the batch.sh script fancier.
(I tried batch
before going down this route, but either it doesn't work as a queue on OSX, or I was using it wrong.)
I realize that @arnaud specified "commodity PC," which means it's probably not OSX, where I tested this solution. However, this should be portable, and it's much more flexible thanbatch
.
– Joe Fusion
Jan 28 '14 at 19:35
1
This is possible one of the most genuine hacks I've ever seen.
– Thiago Macedo
Nov 7 '17 at 21:19
add a comment |
Another solution is to use lpd
, and create a custom "print driver" that runs your jobs. A friend helped me work this out when I had a similar request. Make a script like this, and put it in /tmp/batch.sh
:
#!/bin/bash
TMPFILE=$(mktemp /tmp/XXXX)
exec <"$6"
cat - > $TMPFILE
chmod a+x $TMPFILE
$TMPFILE
rm -f $TMPFILE
Then run:
lpadmin -p batch1 -E -P /tmp/batch.sh
That starts a queue, and you can create more by using other names instead of batch1. Add a job with:
lp -d batch1 /path/to/jobscript
Manage jobs with lpq
, lprm
, and lpstat
. If you want more flexibility with passing arguments to your jobs, you can make the batch.sh script fancier.
(I tried batch
before going down this route, but either it doesn't work as a queue on OSX, or I was using it wrong.)
I realize that @arnaud specified "commodity PC," which means it's probably not OSX, where I tested this solution. However, this should be portable, and it's much more flexible thanbatch
.
– Joe Fusion
Jan 28 '14 at 19:35
1
This is possible one of the most genuine hacks I've ever seen.
– Thiago Macedo
Nov 7 '17 at 21:19
add a comment |
Another solution is to use lpd
, and create a custom "print driver" that runs your jobs. A friend helped me work this out when I had a similar request. Make a script like this, and put it in /tmp/batch.sh
:
#!/bin/bash
TMPFILE=$(mktemp /tmp/XXXX)
exec <"$6"
cat - > $TMPFILE
chmod a+x $TMPFILE
$TMPFILE
rm -f $TMPFILE
Then run:
lpadmin -p batch1 -E -P /tmp/batch.sh
That starts a queue, and you can create more by using other names instead of batch1. Add a job with:
lp -d batch1 /path/to/jobscript
Manage jobs with lpq
, lprm
, and lpstat
. If you want more flexibility with passing arguments to your jobs, you can make the batch.sh script fancier.
(I tried batch
before going down this route, but either it doesn't work as a queue on OSX, or I was using it wrong.)
Another solution is to use lpd
, and create a custom "print driver" that runs your jobs. A friend helped me work this out when I had a similar request. Make a script like this, and put it in /tmp/batch.sh
:
#!/bin/bash
TMPFILE=$(mktemp /tmp/XXXX)
exec <"$6"
cat - > $TMPFILE
chmod a+x $TMPFILE
$TMPFILE
rm -f $TMPFILE
Then run:
lpadmin -p batch1 -E -P /tmp/batch.sh
That starts a queue, and you can create more by using other names instead of batch1. Add a job with:
lp -d batch1 /path/to/jobscript
Manage jobs with lpq
, lprm
, and lpstat
. If you want more flexibility with passing arguments to your jobs, you can make the batch.sh script fancier.
(I tried batch
before going down this route, but either it doesn't work as a queue on OSX, or I was using it wrong.)
answered Jan 28 '14 at 19:19
Joe FusionJoe Fusion
213
213
I realize that @arnaud specified "commodity PC," which means it's probably not OSX, where I tested this solution. However, this should be portable, and it's much more flexible thanbatch
.
– Joe Fusion
Jan 28 '14 at 19:35
1
This is possible one of the most genuine hacks I've ever seen.
– Thiago Macedo
Nov 7 '17 at 21:19
add a comment |
I realize that @arnaud specified "commodity PC," which means it's probably not OSX, where I tested this solution. However, this should be portable, and it's much more flexible thanbatch
.
– Joe Fusion
Jan 28 '14 at 19:35
1
This is possible one of the most genuine hacks I've ever seen.
– Thiago Macedo
Nov 7 '17 at 21:19
I realize that @arnaud specified "commodity PC," which means it's probably not OSX, where I tested this solution. However, this should be portable, and it's much more flexible than
batch
.– Joe Fusion
Jan 28 '14 at 19:35
I realize that @arnaud specified "commodity PC," which means it's probably not OSX, where I tested this solution. However, this should be portable, and it's much more flexible than
batch
.– Joe Fusion
Jan 28 '14 at 19:35
1
1
This is possible one of the most genuine hacks I've ever seen.
– Thiago Macedo
Nov 7 '17 at 21:19
This is possible one of the most genuine hacks I've ever seen.
– Thiago Macedo
Nov 7 '17 at 21:19
add a comment |
I notice this question is several years old, so it may not help the original poster, but it may help someone else.
First: "task spooler" is the answer. It's pretty powerful and Fedora at least has it.
But a lot of the servers I use, I can't install arbitrary packages without a lot of hassle, so I need something that is ideally pure bash (or perl, or such).
After struggling with this for a while, I came up with a pure bash implementation that appears to work fine so far. You can find it at https://github.com/sitaramc/bq.
It's just one bash script so installation is trivial. However, it punts your second and third requirements (but it should be trivial to implement those too).
The script is liberally commented and you should be able to review it in a few minutes if you wish to.
New contributor
add a comment |
I notice this question is several years old, so it may not help the original poster, but it may help someone else.
First: "task spooler" is the answer. It's pretty powerful and Fedora at least has it.
But a lot of the servers I use, I can't install arbitrary packages without a lot of hassle, so I need something that is ideally pure bash (or perl, or such).
After struggling with this for a while, I came up with a pure bash implementation that appears to work fine so far. You can find it at https://github.com/sitaramc/bq.
It's just one bash script so installation is trivial. However, it punts your second and third requirements (but it should be trivial to implement those too).
The script is liberally commented and you should be able to review it in a few minutes if you wish to.
New contributor
add a comment |
I notice this question is several years old, so it may not help the original poster, but it may help someone else.
First: "task spooler" is the answer. It's pretty powerful and Fedora at least has it.
But a lot of the servers I use, I can't install arbitrary packages without a lot of hassle, so I need something that is ideally pure bash (or perl, or such).
After struggling with this for a while, I came up with a pure bash implementation that appears to work fine so far. You can find it at https://github.com/sitaramc/bq.
It's just one bash script so installation is trivial. However, it punts your second and third requirements (but it should be trivial to implement those too).
The script is liberally commented and you should be able to review it in a few minutes if you wish to.
New contributor
I notice this question is several years old, so it may not help the original poster, but it may help someone else.
First: "task spooler" is the answer. It's pretty powerful and Fedora at least has it.
But a lot of the servers I use, I can't install arbitrary packages without a lot of hassle, so I need something that is ideally pure bash (or perl, or such).
After struggling with this for a while, I came up with a pure bash implementation that appears to work fine so far. You can find it at https://github.com/sitaramc/bq.
It's just one bash script so installation is trivial. However, it punts your second and third requirements (but it should be trivial to implement those too).
The script is liberally commented and you should be able to review it in a few minutes if you wish to.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 10 mins ago
sitaramsitaram
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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%2f19458%2fsimple-queuing-system%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