On 14 Nov., 03:46, bsh <brian_hi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2:05 am, bine <sabine.hubrig-schaumb...@sungard.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have the confusing fact that in contrary to Linux (UnitedLinux or
> > SuseEnterpriseServer)
> > I miss some informations I write to a file.
> > It seems that defining this file to be used for stdout+stderr in a csh-
> > call like in
> > myprog ... >>& mylog
> > prevents later in the callhirarchy,
> > that is by things called from myprog,
> > and other scripts running in parallel as well
> > (because this csh is running with nohup parallel to those)
> > to put their output explicitly, e.g. by
> > echo ... >> mylog
> > into the same file.
>
> > Is there some parameter or "set" command to make AIX behave like the
> > others?
> > I know that if those messages REALLY come in parallel, there MUST be
> > some conflict
> > due to the serialization of the output, so I might get things in a
> > "wrong" order
> > (I really don't want to discuss if this application is very
> > sophisticated
> > or should be modernized/recoded to a certain extent ;-),
> > but I miss EVERYTHING of the other processes, not only some of the
> > letters,
> > so the question occurs if it's a configurable behavior of AIX?
>
> > The highest level of any bos.*-module of the machine in lslpp-output
> > is 5.3.0.61,
> > but I think the behaviour hasn't changed and was the same (and always
> > frustrating) in former releases?
>
> > Thanks in advance
> > bine
>
> I cannot tell by your description whether you do or do not
> ultimately require _either_ serialization or just successul
> writes to "mylog" of your "other scripts". Only for SGI Irix
> can I specifically say that shell-level output redirection
> is written line-by-line atomically. For other OSes I cannot
> say what the behavior is or should be.
>
> The common wisdom is that t/csh is problematic for scripting
> purposes; under AIX and anything goes! 
>
> D,"comp.unix.shell -- Csh Programming Considered Harmful",
> 1993-08-11,http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/;http://www.cs.uleth.ca/~holzmann/C/shells/csh.avoidit,$0,"webpage","Tom
> Christiansen" <tchr...@wraeththu.cs.colorado.edu>
>
> "Csh Programming Considered Harmful"http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
>
> I know it's more than you want to do, but for robust and
> portable coding, not relying on the underlying I/O of your
> OS, you will want to explicitly control process serialization.
> The best overall library I have found and used is:
>
> "semaphore.ksh" and "qjob.ksh":http://www.unixreview.com/documents/...04/aug2004.zip
> Schaefer, Ed and John Spurgeon. "Queuing Jobs with qjob". 2005-07. Sys
> Admin. 14(8):XXX. <http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=9823/sam0508h/
> 0508h.htm>.
>
> There are a zillion others of inferior quality, but are
> perhaps better suited to simpler demands -- just do a search
> in C.U.S. or try:
>
> "mklock.sh"http://www.shelldorado.com/scripts/quickies/mklockhttp://www.shelldorado.com/newsletter/issues/2003-1-Jul.html
>
> "lock_unlock.ksh"http://www.unixlabplus.com/unix-prog/lock_unlock/http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=9040/ur0402g/
>
> ... and so on. Note that absolutely none of them are t/csh
> scripts....
>
> =Brian- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
thanks brian,
I do not require absolute serialization of the outputs, I risk to have
some lines mixed, but at the moment i MISS a lot of output which
brought me to the idea that on AIX there might be some locking-
mechanism involved whereras on my other systems I get the lines.
And I have no chance to recode that stuff so I was just looking for
some "kernel"parameter (smit ... whatsoever) where I might hve
influence on that behaviour.
but thank you anyway for at least a reaction
bine