问题
A typical approach to avoid two instances of the same script running simultaneously looks like this:
[ -f ".lock" ] && exit 1
touch .lock
# do something
rm .lock
Is there a better way to lock on files from a shell-script, avoiding a race condition? Must directories be used instead?
回答1:
Yes, there is indeed a race condition in the sample script. You can use bash's noclobber
option in order to get a failure in case of a race, when a different script sneaks in between the -f
test and the touch
.
The following is a sample code-snippet (inspired by this article) that illustrates the mechanism:
if (set -o noclobber; echo "$$" > "$lockfile") 2> /dev/null;
then
# This will cause the lock-file to be deleted in case of a
# premature exit.
trap 'rm -f "$lockfile"; exit $?' INT TERM EXIT
# Critical Section: Here you'd place the code/commands you want
# to be protected (i.e., not run in multiple processes at once).
rm -f "$lockfile"
trap - INT TERM EXIT
else
echo "Failed to acquire lock-file: $lockfile."
echo "Held by process $(cat $lockfile)."
fi
回答2:
Try flock command:
exec 200>"$LOCK_FILE"
flock -e -n 200 || exit 1
It will exit if the lock file is locked. It is atomic and it will work over recent version of NFS.
I did a test. I have created a counter file with 0 in it and executed the following in a loop on two servers simultaneously 500 times:
#!/bin/bash
exec 200>/nfs/mount/testlock
flock -e 200
NO=`cat /nfs/mount/counter`
echo "$NO"
let NO=NO+1
echo "$NO" > /nfs/mount/counter
One node was fighting with the other for the lock. When both runs finished the file content was 1000. I have tried multiple times and it always works!
Note: NFS client is RHEL 5.2 and server used is NetApp.
回答3:
Lock your script (against parallel run)
http://wiki.bash-hackers.org/howto/mutex
FYI.
回答4:
seems like I've found an easier solution: man lockfile
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/325628/how-to-avoid-race-condition-when-using-a-lock-file-to-avoid-two-instances-of-a-s