Whenever I need to limit shell command output, I use less to paginate the results:
cat file_with_long_content | less
which works fine and dandy, but what I'm curious about is, less still works even if the output is never ending, consider having the following script in inf.sh file:
while true; do date; done
then I run
sh inf.sh | less
And it's still able to again paginate the results, so is it correct to say that pipe streams the result rather than waiting for the command to finish before outputting the result?
Yes, when you run sh inf.sh | less the two commands are run in parallel. Data written into the pipe by the first process is buffered (by the kernel) until it is read by the second. If the buffer is full (i.e., if the first command writes to the pipe faster than the second can read) then the next write operation will block until further space is available. A similar condition occurs when reading from an empty pipe: if the pipe buffer is empty but the input end is still open, a read will block for more data.
See the pipe(7) manual for details.
It is correct. Pipes are streams.
You can code your own version of the less tool in very few lines of C code. Take the time to do it, including a short research on files and pipes, and you'll emerge with the understanding to answer your own question and more :).
Related
I am trying to use suckless ii irc client. I can listen to a channel by tail -f out file. However is it also possible for me to input into the same console by starting an echo or cat command?
If I background the process, it actually displays the output in this console but that doesn't seem to be right way? Logically, I think I need to get the fd of the console (but how to do that) and then force the tail output to that fd and probably background it. And then use the present bash to start a cat > in.
Is it actually fine to do this or is that I am creating a lot of processes overhead for a simple task? In other words piping a lot of stuff is nice but it creates a lot of overhead which ideally has to be in a single process if you are going to repeat that task it a lot?
However is it also possible for me to input into the same console by starting an echo or cat command?
Simply NO! cat writes the current content. cat has no idea that the content will grow later. echo writes variables and results from the given command line. echo itself is not made for writing the content of files.
If I background the process, it actually displays the output in this console but that doesn't seem to be right way?
If you do not redirect the output, the output goes to the console. That is the way it is designed :-)
Logically, I think I need to get the fd of the console (but how to do that) and then force the tail output to that fd and probably background it.
As I understand that is the opposite direction. If you want to write to the stdin from the process, you simply can use a pipe for that. The ( useless ) example show that cat writes to the pipe and the next command will read from the pipe. You can extend to any other pipe read/write scenario. See link given below.
Example:
cat main.cpp | cat /dev/stdin
cat main.cpp | tail -f
The last one will not exit, because it waits that the pipe gets more content which never happens.
Is it actually fine to do this or is that I am creating a lot of processes overhead for a simple task? In other words piping a lot of stuff is nice but it creates a lot of overhead which ideally has to be in a single process if you are going to repeat that task it a lot?
I have no idea how time critical your job is, but I believe that the overhead is quite low. Doing the same things in a self written prog must not be faster. If all is done in a single process and no access to the file system is required, it will be much faster. But if you also use system calls, e.g. file system access, it will not be much faster I believe. You always have to pay for the work you get.
For IO redirection please read:
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/io-redirection.html
If your scenario is more complex, you can think of named pipes instead of IO redirection. For that you can have a look at:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/using-named-pipes-fifos-bash
What is the most straightforward way to create a "virtual" file in Linux, that would allow the read operation on it, always returning the output of some particular command (run everytime the file is being read from)? So, every read operation would cause an execution of a command, catching its output and passing it as a "content" of the file.
There is no way to create such so called "virtual file". On the other hand, you would be
able to achieve this behaviour by implementing simple synthetic filesystem in userspace via FUSE. Moreover you don't have to use c, there
are bindings even for scripting languages such as python.
Edit: And chances are that something like this already exists: see for example scriptfs.
This is a great answer I copied below.
Basically, named pipes let you do this in scripting, and Fuse let's you do it easily in Python.
You may be looking for a named pipe.
mkfifo f
{
echo 'V cebqhpr bhgchg.'
sleep 2
echo 'Urer vf zber bhgchg.'
} >f
rot13 < f
Writing to the pipe doesn't start the listening program. If you want to process input in a loop, you need to keep a listening program running.
while true; do rot13 <f >decoded-output-$(date +%s.%N); done
Note that all data written to the pipe is merged, even if there are multiple processes writing. If multiple processes are reading, only one gets the data. So a pipe may not be suitable for concurrent situations.
A named socket can handle concurrent connections, but this is beyond the capabilities for basic shell scripts.
At the most complex end of the scale are custom filesystems, which lets you design and mount a filesystem where each open, write, etc., triggers a function in a program. The minimum investment is tens of lines of nontrivial coding, for example in Python. If you only want to execute commands when reading files, you can use scriptfs or fuseflt.
No one mentioned this but if you can choose the path to the file you can use the standard input /dev/stdin.
Everytime the cat program runs, it ends up reading the output of the program writing to the pipe which is simply echo my input here:
for i in 1 2 3; do
echo my input | cat /dev/stdin
done
outputs:
my input
my input
my input
I'm afraid this is not easily possible. When a process reads from a file, it uses system calls like open, fstat, read. You would need to intercept these calls and output something different from what they would return. This would require writing some sort of kernel module, and even then it may turn out to be impossible.
However, if you simply need to trigger something whenever a certain file is accessed, you could play with inotifywait:
#!/bin/bash
while inotifywait -qq -e access /path/to/file; do
echo "$(date +%s)" >> /tmp/access.txt
done
Run this as a background process, and you will get an entry in /tmp/access.txt each time your file is being read.
I have a very long command running on a very large file. It involves sort, uniq, grep and awk commands in the single command that pipes the results of one command to another.
Once I issue this command for execution, the command prompt doesn't return back until the command has completely executed.
Is there a way to know what is the progress of the command in terms of how much of its execution it has completed or anything similar that gives us an idea of how much of a particular command inside this main command has completed?
Without knowing exactly what you're doing I can't say whether or not it would work for you, but have a look at pv. It might fit the bill.
Perl was originally created because AWK wasn't quite powerful enough for the task at hand. With commands like sort and grep, and a syntax very similar to AWK's, it should not be hard to translate a command line using those programs into a short Perl script.
The advantage of Perl is that you can easily communicate the progress of your script via print statements. For example, you could indicate when the input file was done being loaded, when the sort was completed, etc.
Can somebody explain what actually happens internally(the system calls called) for the command ls | grep 'xxx' ?
First, pipe(2,3p) is called in order to create the pipe with read and write ends. fork(2,3p) is then called twice, once for each command. Then dup2(2,3p) is used to replace the appropriate file descriptor in each forked child with each end of the pipe. Finally exec(3) is called in each child to actually run the commands.
The standard output of the first command is fed as standard input to the second command in the pipeline. There are a couple of system calls that you may be interested to understand what is happening in more detail, in particular, fork(2), execve(2), pipe(2), dup2(2), read(2) and write(2).
In effect the shell arranges STDIN_FILENO and STDOUT_FILENO to be the read end and the write end of the pipe respectively. When the first process in the pipeline performs a write(2) the standard output of that process is duplicated to be the write end of the pipe, similarly when the second process does a read(2) on the standard input it ends up reading from the read end of the pipe.
There are of course more details to be considered, please check out a book such as Advanced programming in the UNIX environment by Richard Stevens.
Is there a way to create non blocking/asynchronous named pipe or something similar in shell? So that programs could place lines in it, those lines would stay in ram, and when some program could read some lines from pipe, while leaving what it did not read in fifo? It is also very probable that programs can be writing and reading to this fifo at the same time. At first I though maybe this could be done using files, but after searching a web for a bit it seems nothing good can come from the fact that file is read and written at same time. Named pipes would almost work, just there are two problems: first they block reads/writes if there is no one at the other end, second even if I let writing to blocked and set two processes to write to pipe while no one is reading, by trying to write one line with each process, and then try head -n 1 <fifo> I get just one line as I need, but both writing processes terminate, and second line is lost. Any suggestions?
Edit: maybe some intermediate program could be used to help with this, acting like mediator between writers and readers?
You can use special program for this purpose - buffer. Buffer is designed to try and keep the writer side continuously busy so that it can stream when writing to tape drives, but you can use for other purposes. Internally buffer is a pair of processes communicating via a large circular queue held in shared memory, so your processes will work asynchronously. Your reader process will be blocked in case the queue is full and the writer process - in case the queue is empty. Example:
bzcat archive.bz2 | buffer -m 16000000 -b 100000 | processing_script | bzip2 > archive_processed.bz2
http://linux.die.net/man/1/buffer