2

Let's say I have 20,000 BAT files, and I want to execute them all in one shot. But instead of typing line after line: "Start/Call file1.bat...." "Start/Call file2.bat...." "Start/Call file3.bat...."

Is there a quicker way I can execute all 20,000 bat files with one command? If you wanted to execute all files in a folder in Linux, you would use the command: ./(path)/*

Improve this question
3
  • 3
    Consider using a pause or some sort of delay too if you have load issues on the machine running the 20k scripted processes.
    – Vomit IT - Chunky Mess Style
    Jun 12, 2019 at 1:01
  • @PimpJuiceIT Is there a system out there that won't fall over with 20,000 jobs starting all at once? That's an awful lot of memory that will be demanded.
    – Loren Pechtel
    Jun 12, 2019 at 3:21
  • 1
    The OP did not say they should start all at once - he said with one command. I imagine he would want them to run consecutively.
    – davidgo
    Jun 12, 2019 at 4:51

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Running ./(path)/* won't work on Linux, either -- it will just run the first one and pass the rest of them as parameters to it. You need to use a loop.

On Linux that would be, e.g.:

for i in path/* ; do $i ; done

The equivalent on Windows batch is, if you run it on the commandline:

for %i in (path\*) do @call %i

Or if you put it inside a batch file:

for %%i in (path\*) do @call %%i

You will run into issues with the length of the command if you have 20,000 files, so you might need a different scheme for iterating over them. If they are all numbered sequentially, you could just iterate the numbers.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    Using call or start tho for Windows batch scripts and maybe consider using some variable substitutions specifying the full path and batch script file names explicitly and double quoted.
    – Vomit IT - Chunky Mess Style
    Jun 12, 2019 at 1:00
  • 1
    Regarding your last paragraph about "length of the command". Not sure what you mean. If you mean time to execute 20,000 files, yes that is a concern, but iterating numbers wouldn't make it any faster. If you mean the number of bytes in the command line, then no, that is not an issue.
    – dbenham
    Jun 12, 2019 at 14:13
  • @dbenham On Linux (bash) there is a limit to the length, as the file names are actually expanded into the command, but yes, on Windows it behaves differently.
    – vlumi
    Jun 12, 2019 at 23:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .