Re^5: Correct way to use Net:SSH2 module

in reply to Re^4: Correct way to use Net:SSH2 module
in thread Correct way to use Net:SSH2 module

Sorry, I misread your code

My code? I suppose you mean GrandFather code in Re: Correct way to use Net:SSH2 module!

if I connect with shell instead of exec would I be correct in saying there is no way to tell when the end of the response has been received?

Yes, if you run a shell, you have to use some heuristic as looking for the prompt or delaying for a while to detect or ensure that the command is done.

why does a poll time of 500ms work perfectly well with a command like "ls;sleep 5;ls;"? When I reduce the poll time to 100ms it times out

Because that code is broken!

As the SSH object is not set to work in non-blocking mode, once some data becomes available in the channel the code gets stuck in the inner loop where read is called until the channel is closed by the remote side. Then, it runs again the outer loop where it gets the channel_closed event and exits.

When the timeout is set to 100ms, sometimes it will expire before any data from the first ls command arrives and so never entering the inner loop.

Comment on Re^5: Correct way to use Net:SSH2 module Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Correct way to use Net:SSH2 module by MikeKulls2 (Novice) on Mar 25, 2013 at 21:40 UTC
Oh yes, I meant GrandFather's code. I guess the answer is that shell is for humans and programming against it will always be flawed. The number of ways it can fail is quite extensive, eg differences between OSes, differences between versions of the same OS, path not setup correctly, different environment settings etc. With regards to the code being flawed I was wondering the same thing. Basically the only thing stopping it locking up is that the channel is closed.	[reply]
Re^7: Correct way to use Net:SSH2 module by salva (Canon) on Mar 26, 2013 at 09:14 UTC
Not necessarily, nowadays all UNIX systems follow the POSIX standard so it is possible to write fairly portable shell code. Network equipment (switches, routers, etc.) exposing custom shells, often on top of crippled SSH implementations are another matter. In any case, what it is unreliable is talking (via stdio) to a shell running in interactive mode. Using the SSH capability to launch individual commands on the remote host, creating a new channel for every command, is quite reliable.	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom