Training, Open Source computer languages
PerlPHPPythonMySQLApache / TomcatTclRubyJavaC and C++LinuxCSS 
Search for:
Home Accessibility Courses Diary The Mouth Forum Resources Site Map About Us Contact
 
For 2023 (and 2024 ...) - we are now fully retired from IT training.
We have made many, many friends over 25 years of teaching about Python, Tcl, Perl, PHP, Lua, Java, C and C++ - and MySQL, Linux and Solaris/SunOS too. Our training notes are now very much out of date, but due to upward compatability most of our examples remain operational and even relevant ad you are welcome to make us if them "as seen" and at your own risk.

Lisa and I (Graham) now live in what was our training centre in Melksham - happy to meet with former delegates here - but do check ahead before coming round. We are far from inactive - rather, enjoying the times that we are retired but still healthy enough in mind and body to be active!

I am also active in many other area and still look after a lot of web sites - you can find an index ((here))
job control in expect with ssh

Posted by that_guy (that_guy), 5 August 2003
Hi. I'm writing a program that logs the output of programs that are launched on several remote machines to which I am connecting via ssh. Each machine potentially needs to run several different programs, all of which need to be logged and started in a specified order. I'm wondering where the job control here would sit. Should I spawn a new ssh+ command_I_want_to_run, for each command and call expect -i on that? or would it be possible to spawn one ssh process to each machine and then background jobs in this single shell ?  Right now, I've only tested running programs serially (wait for each one to finish before continuing) using one ssh process per host.  So far the logging for this works, but being able to scale up to multiple programs per host is crucial.

Posted by admin (Graham Ellis), 7 August 2003
I would tend to spawn multiple ssh's per machine; not elegant, but otherwise you're left trying to catch all the job completed messages for the things you're backgrounded which would be very tough I think.

Posted by that_guy (that_guy), 7 August 2003
thanks. I think I'm going to have to follow that route because as you point out, the alternative is quite complicated. My only concern is that spawning new ssh connections is relatively slow, hopefully this won't become an issue.

Posted by admin (Graham Ellis), 7 August 2003
Thought - as a bit of a compromise, you could keep ssh sessions open when you finish a command (in a pool), and then just run anything else that's needed on a remote machine on an "old" ssh that has finished.  More programming, but could solve the time issue if it did become a problem



This page is a thread posted to the opentalk forum at www.opentalk.org.uk and archived here for reference. To jump to the archive index please follow this link.

You can Add a comment or ranking to this page

© WELL HOUSE CONSULTANTS LTD., 2024: Well House Manor • 48 Spa Road • Melksham, Wiltshire • United Kingdom • SN12 7NY
PH: 01144 1225 708225 • FAX: 01144 1225 793803 • EMAIL: info@wellho.net • WEB: http://www.wellho.net • SKYPE: wellho