How to plan a task to run after another already running task in bash?











up vote
9
down vote

favorite
1












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).










share|improve this question




























    up vote
    9
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    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).










    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      9
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      9
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      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).










      share|improve this question















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago

























      asked 15 hours ago









      czerny

      4731311




      4731311






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          13
          down vote















          1. start a command



            command1


          2. pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z



          3. 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



          4. let command1 continue in background



            bg



          5. plan execution of command2 to await finish of command1



            wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2



          Documentation Job Control Builtins






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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
            14 hours ago






          • 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
            14 hours ago






          • 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
            12 hours ago






          • 1




            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
            8 hours ago






          • 1




            command1 & proceed_after=$! then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
            – studog
            7 hours ago


















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2





          1. Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.

          2. Optionally bg, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.


          3. 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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            Stick a bg in there and win!
            – Joshua
            5 hours ago






          • 1




            @Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
            – The Guy with The Hat
            5 hours ago


















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          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 if top 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 ***"







          share|improve this answer






























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            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 &





            share|improve this answer





















            • 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
              14 hours ago










            • @czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
              – Tomasz
              14 hours ago










            • I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
              – czerny
              14 hours ago






            • 1




              @czerny Then just use ;. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
              – Tomasz
              13 hours ago


















            up vote
            -2
            down vote













            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.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.














            • 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
              14 hours ago










            • @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
              12 hours ago











            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',
            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


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487955%2fhow-to-plan-a-task-to-run-after-another-already-running-task-in-bash%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes








            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            13
            down vote















            1. start a command



              command1


            2. pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z



            3. 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



            4. let command1 continue in background



              bg



            5. plan execution of command2 to await finish of command1



              wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2



            Documentation Job Control Builtins






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              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
              8 hours ago






            • 1




              command1 & proceed_after=$! then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
              – studog
              7 hours ago















            up vote
            13
            down vote















            1. start a command



              command1


            2. pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z



            3. 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



            4. let command1 continue in background



              bg



            5. plan execution of command2 to await finish of command1



              wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2



            Documentation Job Control Builtins






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              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
              8 hours ago






            • 1




              command1 & proceed_after=$! then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
              – studog
              7 hours ago













            up vote
            13
            down vote










            up vote
            13
            down vote











            1. start a command



              command1


            2. pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z



            3. 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



            4. let command1 continue in background



              bg



            5. plan execution of command2 to await finish of command1



              wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2



            Documentation Job Control Builtins






            share|improve this answer














            1. start a command



              command1


            2. pause the execution by pressing Ctrl+Z



            3. 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



            4. let command1 continue in background



              bg



            5. plan execution of command2 to await finish of command1



              wait -n <command1 job number> ; command2



            Documentation Job Control Builtins







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 14 hours ago









            czerny

            4731311




            4731311












            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              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
              8 hours ago






            • 1




              command1 & proceed_after=$! then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
              – studog
              7 hours ago


















            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              14 hours ago






            • 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
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              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
              8 hours ago






            • 1




              command1 & proceed_after=$! then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
              – studog
              7 hours ago
















            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
            14 hours ago




            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
            14 hours ago




            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
            14 hours ago




            @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
            14 hours ago




            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
            12 hours ago




            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
            12 hours ago




            1




            1




            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
            8 hours ago




            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
            8 hours ago




            1




            1




            command1 & proceed_after=$! then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
            – studog
            7 hours ago




            command1 & proceed_after=$! then when you've got the next command figured out wait -n $proceed_after; command 2
            – studog
            7 hours ago












            up vote
            6
            down vote













            Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2





            1. Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.

            2. Optionally bg, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.


            3. 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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Stick a bg in there and win!
              – Joshua
              5 hours ago






            • 1




              @Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
              – The Guy with The Hat
              5 hours ago















            up vote
            6
            down vote













            Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2





            1. Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.

            2. Optionally bg, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.


            3. 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.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Stick a bg in there and win!
              – Joshua
              5 hours ago






            • 1




              @Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
              – The Guy with The Hat
              5 hours ago













            up vote
            6
            down vote










            up vote
            6
            down vote









            Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2





            1. Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.

            2. Optionally bg, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.


            3. 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.






            share|improve this answer














            Generally what I do is: Ctrl+Z fg && command2





            1. Ctrl+Z to pause it and let you type more in the shell.

            2. Optionally bg, to resume command1 in the background while you type out command2.


            3. 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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 4 hours ago

























            answered 10 hours ago









            The Guy with The Hat

            1716




            1716








            • 1




              Stick a bg in there and win!
              – Joshua
              5 hours ago






            • 1




              @Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
              – The Guy with The Hat
              5 hours ago














            • 1




              Stick a bg in there and win!
              – Joshua
              5 hours ago






            • 1




              @Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
              – The Guy with The Hat
              5 hours ago








            1




            1




            Stick a bg in there and win!
            – Joshua
            5 hours ago




            Stick a bg in there and win!
            – Joshua
            5 hours ago




            1




            1




            @Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
            – The Guy with The Hat
            5 hours ago




            @Joshua okay, what do I win now :P
            – The Guy with The Hat
            5 hours ago










            up vote
            2
            down vote













            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 if top 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 ***"







            share|improve this answer



























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              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 if top 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 ***"







              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                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 if top 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 ***"







                share|improve this answer














                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 if top 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 ***"








                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 2 hours ago

























                answered 14 hours ago









                sudodus

                73616




                73616






















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    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 &





                    share|improve this answer





















                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
                      – Tomasz
                      14 hours ago










                    • I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
                      – czerny
                      14 hours ago






                    • 1




                      @czerny Then just use ;. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
                      – Tomasz
                      13 hours ago















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    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 &





                    share|improve this answer





















                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
                      – Tomasz
                      14 hours ago










                    • I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
                      – czerny
                      14 hours ago






                    • 1




                      @czerny Then just use ;. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
                      – Tomasz
                      13 hours ago













                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    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 &





                    share|improve this answer












                    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 &






                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 15 hours ago









                    Tomasz

                    9,17052964




                    9,17052964












                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
                      – Tomasz
                      14 hours ago










                    • I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
                      – czerny
                      14 hours ago






                    • 1




                      @czerny Then just use ;. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
                      – Tomasz
                      13 hours ago


















                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
                      – Tomasz
                      14 hours ago










                    • I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
                      – czerny
                      14 hours ago






                    • 1




                      @czerny Then just use ;. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
                      – Tomasz
                      13 hours ago
















                    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
                    14 hours ago




                    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
                    14 hours ago












                    @czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
                    – Tomasz
                    14 hours ago




                    @czerny So you want the second one to start while the first one is still running, when it's already finished, or?
                    – Tomasz
                    14 hours ago












                    I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
                    – czerny
                    14 hours ago




                    I'd like the second command to be started when the first command finishes
                    – czerny
                    14 hours ago




                    1




                    1




                    @czerny Then just use ;. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
                    – Tomasz
                    13 hours ago




                    @czerny Then just use ;. Or do you want to do something while the first one is still running?
                    – Tomasz
                    13 hours ago










                    up vote
                    -2
                    down vote













                    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.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.














                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @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
                      12 hours ago















                    up vote
                    -2
                    down vote













                    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.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.














                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @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
                      12 hours ago













                    up vote
                    -2
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    -2
                    down vote









                    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.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    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.







                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer






                    New contributor




                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered 14 hours ago









                    Prasanna

                    1012




                    1012




                    New contributor




                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    Prasanna is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.








                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @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
                      12 hours ago














                    • 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
                      14 hours ago










                    • @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
                      12 hours ago








                    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
                    14 hours ago




                    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
                    14 hours ago












                    @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
                    12 hours ago




                    @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
                    12 hours ago


















                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487955%2fhow-to-plan-a-task-to-run-after-another-already-running-task-in-bash%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Costa Masnaga

                    Fotorealismo

                    Sidney Franklin