有什么快速而简单的方法可以确保在给定时间内只有一个shell脚本实例在运行?
当前回答
现有的答案要么依赖于CLI实用程序群,要么没有正确地保护锁文件。flock实用程序在所有非linux系统(即FreeBSD)上都不可用,在NFS上也不能正常工作。
在我从事系统管理和系统开发的早期,有人告诉我,一种安全且相对可移植的创建锁文件的方法是使用mkemp(3)或mkemp(1)创建临时文件,将标识信息写入临时文件(即PID),然后将临时文件硬链接到锁文件。如果链接成功,那么您已经成功地获得了锁。
当在shell脚本中使用锁时,我通常会在共享概要文件中放置一个obtain_lock()函数,然后从脚本中获取它。下面是一个lock函数的例子:
obtain_lock()
{
LOCK="${1}"
LOCKDIR="$(dirname "${LOCK}")"
LOCKFILE="$(basename "${LOCK}")"
# create temp lock file
TMPLOCK=$(mktemp -p "${LOCKDIR}" "${LOCKFILE}XXXXXX" 2> /dev/null)
if test "x${TMPLOCK}" == "x";then
echo "unable to create temporary file with mktemp" 1>&2
return 1
fi
echo "$$" > "${TMPLOCK}"
# attempt to obtain lock file
ln "${TMPLOCK}" "${LOCK}" 2> /dev/null
if test $? -ne 0;then
rm -f "${TMPLOCK}"
echo "unable to obtain lockfile" 1>&2
if test -f "${LOCK}";then
echo "current lock information held by: $(cat "${LOCK}")" 1>&2
fi
return 2
fi
rm -f "${TMPLOCK}"
return 0;
};
lock功能的使用示例如下:
#!/bin/sh
. /path/to/locking/profile.sh
PROG_LOCKFILE="/tmp/myprog.lock"
clean_up()
{
rm -f "${PROG_LOCKFILE}"
}
obtain_lock "${PROG_LOCKFILE}"
if test $? -ne 0;then
exit 1
fi
trap clean_up SIGHUP SIGINT SIGTERM
# bulk of script
clean_up
exit 0
# end of script
记住在脚本中的任何退出点调用clean_up。
我在Linux和FreeBSD环境中都使用了上述方法。
其他回答
对于shell脚本,我倾向于使用mkdir而不是flock,因为它使锁更可移植。
不管怎样,使用set -e是不够的。它只在任何命令失败时退出脚本。你的锁还是会留下的。
为了正确的锁清理,你真的应该把你的陷阱设置成这样的伪代码(提取,简化和未经测试,但来自积极使用的脚本):
#=======================================================================
# Predefined Global Variables
#=======================================================================
TMPDIR=/tmp/myapp
[[ ! -d $TMP_DIR ]] \
&& mkdir -p $TMP_DIR \
&& chmod 700 $TMPDIR
LOCK_DIR=$TMP_DIR/lock
#=======================================================================
# Functions
#=======================================================================
function mklock {
__lockdir="$LOCK_DIR/$(date +%s.%N).$$" # Private Global. Use Epoch.Nano.PID
# If it can create $LOCK_DIR then no other instance is running
if $(mkdir $LOCK_DIR)
then
mkdir $__lockdir # create this instance's specific lock in queue
LOCK_EXISTS=true # Global
else
echo "FATAL: Lock already exists. Another copy is running or manually lock clean up required."
exit 1001 # Or work out some sleep_while_execution_lock elsewhere
fi
}
function rmlock {
[[ ! -d $__lockdir ]] \
&& echo "WARNING: Lock is missing. $__lockdir does not exist" \
|| rmdir $__lockdir
}
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Private Signal Traps Functions {{{2
#
# DANGER: SIGKILL cannot be trapped. So, try not to `kill -9 PID` or
# there will be *NO CLEAN UP*. You'll have to manually remove
# any locks in place.
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
function __sig_exit {
# Place your clean up logic here
# Remove the LOCK
[[ -n $LOCK_EXISTS ]] && rmlock
}
function __sig_int {
echo "WARNING: SIGINT caught"
exit 1002
}
function __sig_quit {
echo "SIGQUIT caught"
exit 1003
}
function __sig_term {
echo "WARNING: SIGTERM caught"
exit 1015
}
#=======================================================================
# Main
#=======================================================================
# Set TRAPs
trap __sig_exit EXIT # SIGEXIT
trap __sig_int INT # SIGINT
trap __sig_quit QUIT # SIGQUIT
trap __sig_term TERM # SIGTERM
mklock
# CODE
exit # No need for cleanup code here being in the __sig_exit trap function
接下来会发生什么。所有陷阱都会产生一个出口,所以__sig_exit函数总是会发生(除非SIGKILL),它会清理你的锁。
注意:我的退出值不是低值。为什么?各种批处理系统生成或期望数字0到31。将它们设置为其他内容,我可以让我的脚本和批处理流对前一个批处理作业或脚本做出相应的反应。
我有一个基于文件名的简单解决方案
#!/bin/bash
MY_FILENAME=`basename "$BASH_SOURCE"`
MY_PROCESS_COUNT=$(ps a -o pid,cmd | grep $MY_FILENAME | grep -v grep | grep -v $$ | wc -
l)
if [ $MY_PROCESS_COUNT -ne 0 ]; then
echo found another process
exit 0
if
# Follows the code to get the job done.
测试“锁文件”是否存在的简单方法是有缺陷的。
为什么?因为它们不会检查文件是否存在,也不会在单个原子操作中创建文件。因为这个;有一个竞争条件会使你的互斥失败。
相反,您可以使用mkdir。Mkdir创建一个目录,如果它还不存在,如果它存在,它设置一个退出码。更重要的是,它在一个原子动作中完成了所有这些操作,这使得它非常适合这个场景。
if ! mkdir /tmp/myscript.lock 2>/dev/null; then
echo "Myscript is already running." >&2
exit 1
fi
有关所有细节,请参阅优秀的BashFAQ: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/045
如果你想要处理陈旧的锁,fuser(1)会派上用场。唯一的缺点是这个操作大约需要一秒钟,所以它不是即时的。
下面是我曾经写过的一个函数,它使用fuser解决了这个问题:
# mutex file
#
# Open a mutual exclusion lock on the file, unless another process already owns one.
#
# If the file is already locked by another process, the operation fails.
# This function defines a lock on a file as having a file descriptor open to the file.
# This function uses FD 9 to open a lock on the file. To release the lock, close FD 9:
# exec 9>&-
#
mutex() {
local file=$1 pid pids
exec 9>>"$file"
{ pids=$(fuser -f "$file"); } 2>&- 9>&-
for pid in $pids; do
[[ $pid = $$ ]] && continue
exec 9>&-
return 1 # Locked by a pid.
done
}
你可以像这样在脚本中使用它:
mutex /var/run/myscript.lock || { echo "Already running." >&2; exit 1; }
如果您不关心可移植性(这些解决方案应该适用于几乎任何UNIX机器),Linux的fuser(1)提供了一些额外的选项,还有flock(1)。
为什么我们不用像这样的东西
pgrep -f $cmd || $cmd
这个例子是在man flock中解释的,但它需要一些改进,因为我们应该管理bug和退出代码:
#!/bin/bash
#set -e this is useful only for very stupid scripts because script fails when anything command exits with status more than 0 !! without possibility for capture exit codes. not all commands exits >0 are failed.
( #start subprocess
# Wait for lock on /var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock (fd 200) for 10 seconds
flock -x -w 10 200
if [ "$?" != "0" ]; then echo Cannot lock!; exit 1; fi
echo $$>>/var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock #for backward lockdir compatibility, notice this command is executed AFTER command bottom ) 200>/var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock.
# Do stuff
# you can properly manage exit codes with multiple command and process algorithm.
# I suggest throw this all to external procedure than can properly handle exit X commands
) 200>/var/lock/.myscript.exclusivelock #exit subprocess
FLOCKEXIT=$? #save exitcode status
#do some finish commands
exit $FLOCKEXIT #return properly exitcode, may be usefull inside external scripts
你可以用另一种方法,列出我过去用过的过程。但这比上面的方法要复杂得多。你应该按ps列出进程,按其名称过滤,附加过滤器grep -v grep清除寄生虫,最后按grep -c计数。和数字比较。这是复杂而不确定的