<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: run multiple shell via script to copy file in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205284#M948733</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Actual copy command(s)?&amp;nbsp; (cp?&amp;nbsp; scp?&amp;nbsp; ftp?&amp;nbsp; ...)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;scp&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;gt;Why, exactly?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Oracle exported 5 files by script and immediately I'd like to start scp copy of these files to remote server inside the same export script.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I thought to ease job making to start all the copies in the same time but I think It's the same result if I start copy sequentially.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What do you think ?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:22:16 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>RiclyLeRoy</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-01-25T21:22:16Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>run multiple shell via script to copy file</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205000#M948730</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I need to copy 5 file from server to another one, I scheduled this copy by script in cron but I want to parallelize copy opening multiple shell.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What do you think ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can you suggest command to invoke a new shell for every file copy without to wait copy ends ? My target is to get 5 shell processes which are copying files.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 04:30:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205000#M948730</guid>
      <dc:creator>RiclyLeRoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-23T04:30:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: run multiple shell via script to copy file</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205053#M948731</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; [...] copy by script [...]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Actual copy command(s)?&amp;nbsp; (cp?&amp;nbsp; scp?&amp;nbsp; ftp?&amp;nbsp; ...)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; [...] I want to parallelize copy opening multiple shell.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Why, exactly?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; Can you suggest command to invoke a new shell for every file copy&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;gt; without to wait copy ends ? [...]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Append an ampersand to your file-copy command?&amp;nbsp; For example, change:&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; cp source destination&lt;BR /&gt;to:&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; cp source destination &amp;amp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; You might want to consult the documentation for your shell to learn&lt;BR /&gt;how to determine when all the background jobs have completed.&lt;BR /&gt;(Something you don't need to worry about if the operations are&lt;BR /&gt;sequential.)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; What do you think ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I suspect that you're making a simple job into a compicated job with&lt;BR /&gt;little if any benefit.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; [...] I want to parallelize copy opening multiple shell.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Why, exactly?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; If there's some communication bottleneck between these servers, then&lt;BR /&gt;I would not expect performance to improve much if you try to push more&lt;BR /&gt;data through that bottleneck by having multiple processes try to do it&lt;BR /&gt;simultaneously.&amp;nbsp; The bottleneck will still be there, no matter how many&lt;BR /&gt;processes are fighting over it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Have you tried manually running these copy operations simultaneously&lt;BR /&gt;(in separate interactive shells)?&amp;nbsp; Did you see any real benefit?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; [...] My target is to get 5 shell processes which are copying files.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I wouldn't expect five (or ten) background jobs to cause any special&lt;BR /&gt;problems.&amp;nbsp; (Or provide any significant benefit.&amp;nbsp; But only one of us (at&lt;BR /&gt;most) knows what you want to achieve by doing this.)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:33:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205053#M948731</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven Schweda</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-22T18:33:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: run multiple shell via script to copy file</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205284#M948733</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Actual copy command(s)?&amp;nbsp; (cp?&amp;nbsp; scp?&amp;nbsp; ftp?&amp;nbsp; ...)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;scp&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;gt;Why, exactly?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Oracle exported 5 files by script and immediately I'd like to start scp copy of these files to remote server inside the same export script.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I thought to ease job making to start all the copies in the same time but I think It's the same result if I start copy sequentially.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What do you think ?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:22:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205284#M948733</guid>
      <dc:creator>RiclyLeRoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-25T21:22:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: run multiple shell via script to copy file</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205297#M948734</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; What do you think ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; If the files are created sequentially, then copying them as they are&lt;BR /&gt;created might make sense.&amp;nbsp; The actual benefit would depend on the time&lt;BR /&gt;required to create a file, the time required to copy a file, and how&lt;BR /&gt;much interference there is between the create and copy operations (how&lt;BR /&gt;much copying one file slows creation of the next file).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; If creating a file is slower than copying it (and copying a file&lt;BR /&gt;doesn't slow creation of the next file much), then I'd expect copying&lt;BR /&gt;multiple files to be about as fast as copying one (the last one).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; If creating a file is faster than copying it, then I'd worry more&lt;BR /&gt;about a communication bottleneck making simultaneous copying no (or not&lt;BR /&gt;much) faster than sequential copying.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Knowing nothing about the time needed to do any of these tasks, I'd&lt;BR /&gt;need to run the experiment to see how big the benefit might be.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt; Append an ampersand [...]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The relevant topic in the shell documentation seems to be "job&lt;BR /&gt;control".&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:27:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/run-multiple-shell-via-script-to-copy-file/m-p/7205297#M948734</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven Schweda</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-26T01:27:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

