Objective: check if a host is up-and-running on the network,
with a method that can be efficiently parallelized over many hosts.

Emphasis on a QUICK turnaround of the check.

Reason to emphasise speed: multiple checks (in the hundreds) need to be performed in rapid succession and return results reasonably quickly.

Current method

The current script uses a simple ping command. The choice is not obligatory, on the contrary any suitable tool with equal or better reliability and speed may be used as replacement.

Current script

Something along these lines:

ping -c 1 -W 100 -q "$NETWORK_HOST" &> /dev/null

Obvious deficiency of this approach: responses are needed with a sub-second turn-around and this can wait up to a second, from experience.

Alternative considered

Forget about speed of sequential execution, run many ping commands in parallel using GNU parallel and collate the results at the end. This has been experimented with but seems even worse in practice.

Intuition about a better solution

It seems like ping may work just fine as a "polling health check", all it needs to be tweaked to do is to wait very little time and time-out in case of no response.

Assumption: the network is considered reliable and FAST, the hosts don't have either of the qualities necessarily.


How would you solve this? Which tool(s) would you use? Is this the right approach? Could you provide a code snippet?

  • Environment: OS X + Ubuntu hosts
  • Scripting shell: Bash
  • Can install additional software if needed.
  • Can compile/install new code for an application not in the repository and use that.
  • Why do you set ttl to 1? – Serge Sep 27 '12 at 3:51
  • @Serge: sorry, fixed. BTW, on OSX -t is "Specify a timeout, in seconds, before ping exits regardless of how many packets have been received" – Robottinosino Sep 27 '12 at 4:00
  • 2
    well it does support '-n'. I believe that adding -n will decrease delays, as it will tell ping not to resolve host name to display. Also, if you ping the host by IP, not by it's name the ping will work faster. I am pinging my router just now with no visible delays with the command 'ping -c 1 -W 1 -n $host'. And I can't call my network fast - it is a WiFi net. – Serge Sep 27 '12 at 4:19
  • 2
  • 3
    Have a look at nmap. – Ole Tange Sep 27 '12 at 7:42

Provided that ping is good enough for you, fping is an alternative that works in parallel right away.

This is simplified version of what I use. It works with a list of hosts (one per line) passed in via pipe:

probe_hosts() {
    local report
    fping 2>/dev/null | while read report;
        local host=${report/ is *}
        local state=${report/* is }
        if [ "$state" == "alive" ];
            echo $host
            echo unreachable: $host >&2

# this is how you use it:
cat list_of_hosts \
    | probe_hosts \
    | do_something_with_live_hosts
| improve this answer | |

You can give nmap a range:

$ nmap -sn
$ nmap -sn

The -sn flag means to just ping the host and return (i.e. no port scan like nmap usually does).

Edit: After reading the comments I see that bahamat mentions arp. In fact, arp with no arguments runs faster than nmap for me, and finds everything connected to my LAN:

$ time arp
real    0m0.411s
| improve this answer | |
  • arp just shows the kernel ARP cache. So it'll only show a machine if your machine has communicated with it recently. – derobert Dec 4 '14 at 20:02
  • @derobert: Thanks. I have noticed some inconsistent results with arp, now I know why! – dotancohen Dec 4 '14 at 21:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.