Bash – On Redhat, what does “kernel.suid_dumpable = 1” mean

So, does /tmp/configLog exist? If so, your script is firing, and it's just dying somewhere.

Start with the basics:

1. Put a simple, one-liner in /etc/rc.local, like this.

   touch /tmp/itworked

   Did that work? After rebooting, does /tmp/itworked exist? If so, then rc.local is being executed.
2. Another common gotcha is that if your script is a daemon it either needs to handle forking to the background, or it needs to be backgrounded in rc.local. If your script is /bin/myscript, then rc.local should have:

   /bin/myscript &

   in it. Does it take a long time to run? There may be a timeout somewhere in the init scripts to prevent users from halting the boot process - backgrounding the process will get you around that if it exists.
3. If the 'touch' works, and you're backgrounding, it has to be in your script somewhere. What does it do when you run

   /bin/sh /etc/rc.local

   from the command line?
4. Like Jason said, check dmesg, as well as /var/log/messages for any clues.
5. When the script is ran from rc.local, it will not have the full set of environment variables that your root user has when logged in - e.g. $PATH may be different. Don't rely on $PATH. You can also test your script by scheduling an 'at' job which will come close to simulating the environment.

There are several differences. In my opinion, a few of the most important are:

1. [ is a builtin in Bash and many other modern shells. The builtin [ is similar to test with the additional requirement of a closing ]. The builtins [ and test imitate the functionality /bin/[ and /bin/test along with their limitations so that scripts would be backwards compatible. The original executables still exist mostly for POSIX compliance and backwards compatibility. Running the command type [ in Bash indicates that [ is interpreted as a builtin by default. (Note: which [ only looks for executables on the PATH and is equivalent to type -P [. You can execute type --help for details)
2. [[ is not as compatible, it won't necessarily work with whatever /bin/sh points to. So [[ is the more modern Bash / Zsh / Ksh option.
3. Because [[ is built into the shell and does not have legacy requirements, you don't need to worry about word splitting based on the IFS variable to mess up on variables that evaluate to a string with spaces. Therefore, you don't really need to put the variable in double quotes.

For the most part, the rest is just some nicer syntax. To see more differences, I recommend this link to an FAQ answer: What is the difference between test, [ and [[ ?. In fact, if you are serious about bash scripting, I recommend reading the entire wiki, including the FAQ, Pitfalls, and Guide. The test section from the guide section explains these differences as well, and why the author(s) think [[ is a better choice if you don't need to worry about being as portable. The main reasons are:

1. You don't have to worry about quoting the left-hand side of the test so that it actually gets read as a variable.
2. You don't have to escape less than and greater than < > with backslashes in order for them not to get evaluated as input redirection, which can really mess some stuff up by overwriting files. This again goes back to [[ being a builtin. If [ (test) is an external program the shell would have to make an exception in the way it evaluates < and > only if /bin/test is being called, which wouldn't really make sense.