sleep command using screen command is not displayed in ps The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InUnable to 'stuff' commands into a created 'screen' immediately after creating itHow to tell if terminal session is running within screenWhy do I get “screen is terminating” without root?Running background process with screen command in xshellscreen command not showing status barCapturing screen of “perf top” or other interactive programsbash - get pid for a script using the script filenameStart detached screen session with more than 80 columns?Unable to initiate screen sessionHow do I un-freeze my vim session under screen
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
The phrase "to the numbers born"?
Did any laptop computers have a built-in 5 1/4 inch floppy drive?
Output the Arecibo Message
Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?
Why doesn't UInt have a toDouble()?
What is this business jet?
Can a flute soloist sit?
If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?
Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
How do PCB vias affect signal quality?
Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?
Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?
Why does the nucleus not repel itself?
"as much details as you can remember"
Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?
What do these terms in Caesar's Gallic Wars mean?
Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?
Old scifi movie from the 50s or 60s with men in solid red uniforms who interrogate a spy from the past
Correct punctuation for showing a character's confusion
Cooking pasta in a water boiler
Dropping list elements from nested list after evaluation
What information about me do stores get via my credit card?
sleep command using screen command is not displayed in ps
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InUnable to 'stuff' commands into a created 'screen' immediately after creating itHow to tell if terminal session is running within screenWhy do I get “screen is terminating” without root?Running background process with screen command in xshellscreen command not showing status barCapturing screen of “perf top” or other interactive programsbash - get pid for a script using the script filenameStart detached screen session with more than 80 columns?Unable to initiate screen sessionHow do I un-freeze my vim session under screen
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I'm running the sleep command in terminal using screen and in detached mode.
Once the screen immediately returns, I'm running ps
command to verify the sleep is running.
$ screen -d -m 'sleep 2m'
[raj@localhost ~]$ ps
PID TTY TIME CMD
22795 pts/0 00:00:00 bash
22869 pts/0 00:00:00 ps
But the command didn't show sleep. What is that I'm doing wrong here?
scripting gnu-screen ps
add a comment |
I'm running the sleep command in terminal using screen and in detached mode.
Once the screen immediately returns, I'm running ps
command to verify the sleep is running.
$ screen -d -m 'sleep 2m'
[raj@localhost ~]$ ps
PID TTY TIME CMD
22795 pts/0 00:00:00 bash
22869 pts/0 00:00:00 ps
But the command didn't show sleep. What is that I'm doing wrong here?
scripting gnu-screen ps
why would you want to runsleep
through a detachedscreen
? couldn’t you just run it assleep 2m &
directly from your shell ? besides,ps
alone shows only processes belonging to your terminal window, while whatever you run throughscreen
will belong to a different virtual terminal
– LL3
2 days ago
@LL3 - I'm doing it as a poc to run a command from remote machine using screen and detach from screen. I have tried usingps -a | grep sleep
still it is not showing any new process running sleep.
– Rajkumar Natarajan
2 days ago
add a comment |
I'm running the sleep command in terminal using screen and in detached mode.
Once the screen immediately returns, I'm running ps
command to verify the sleep is running.
$ screen -d -m 'sleep 2m'
[raj@localhost ~]$ ps
PID TTY TIME CMD
22795 pts/0 00:00:00 bash
22869 pts/0 00:00:00 ps
But the command didn't show sleep. What is that I'm doing wrong here?
scripting gnu-screen ps
I'm running the sleep command in terminal using screen and in detached mode.
Once the screen immediately returns, I'm running ps
command to verify the sleep is running.
$ screen -d -m 'sleep 2m'
[raj@localhost ~]$ ps
PID TTY TIME CMD
22795 pts/0 00:00:00 bash
22869 pts/0 00:00:00 ps
But the command didn't show sleep. What is that I'm doing wrong here?
scripting gnu-screen ps
scripting gnu-screen ps
edited yesterday
Monty Harder
22415
22415
asked 2 days ago
Rajkumar NatarajanRajkumar Natarajan
1447
1447
why would you want to runsleep
through a detachedscreen
? couldn’t you just run it assleep 2m &
directly from your shell ? besides,ps
alone shows only processes belonging to your terminal window, while whatever you run throughscreen
will belong to a different virtual terminal
– LL3
2 days ago
@LL3 - I'm doing it as a poc to run a command from remote machine using screen and detach from screen. I have tried usingps -a | grep sleep
still it is not showing any new process running sleep.
– Rajkumar Natarajan
2 days ago
add a comment |
why would you want to runsleep
through a detachedscreen
? couldn’t you just run it assleep 2m &
directly from your shell ? besides,ps
alone shows only processes belonging to your terminal window, while whatever you run throughscreen
will belong to a different virtual terminal
– LL3
2 days ago
@LL3 - I'm doing it as a poc to run a command from remote machine using screen and detach from screen. I have tried usingps -a | grep sleep
still it is not showing any new process running sleep.
– Rajkumar Natarajan
2 days ago
why would you want to run
sleep
through a detached screen
? couldn’t you just run it as sleep 2m &
directly from your shell ? besides, ps
alone shows only processes belonging to your terminal window, while whatever you run through screen
will belong to a different virtual terminal– LL3
2 days ago
why would you want to run
sleep
through a detached screen
? couldn’t you just run it as sleep 2m &
directly from your shell ? besides, ps
alone shows only processes belonging to your terminal window, while whatever you run through screen
will belong to a different virtual terminal– LL3
2 days ago
@LL3 - I'm doing it as a poc to run a command from remote machine using screen and detach from screen. I have tried using
ps -a | grep sleep
still it is not showing any new process running sleep.– Rajkumar Natarajan
2 days ago
@LL3 - I'm doing it as a poc to run a command from remote machine using screen and detach from screen. I have tried using
ps -a | grep sleep
still it is not showing any new process running sleep.– Rajkumar Natarajan
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This was confusing to me initially as well. I then re-read the local screen
man page for the SYNOPSIS -- the online man page does not give a synopsis) -- and noticed that it said:
screen [ -options ] [ cmd [ args ] ]
... which led me to believe that it wanted to see the cmd
and args
as independent arguments.
Since you gave that first argument as a quoted value -- 'sleep 2m
' -- it tried to execute a command named (exactly) 'sleep 2m
', as opposed to what you really wanted, which was sleep
with its own argument of 2m
. The screen
command exited successfully (in my testing), but it did not successfully execute your command.
Use, instead:
screen -d -m sleep 2m
Instead of ps
, which will only show processes associated with the current terminal (of which the SCREEN and related processes are not), use:
ps x
which will show it:
$ ps x
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
# ...
7514 pts/1 Ss 0:00 -bash
7761 ? Ss 0:00 SCREEN -d -m sleep 2m
7762 pts/2 Ss+ 0:00 sleep 2m
7880 pts/1 R+ 0:00 ps x
# ...
You say “screen
expected the command in the first argument”, and then you show a command line where the secondary command (the command to be invoked by the primary command) is spread out overargv[3]
andargv[4]
. I expect that some people will be confused by this.
– G-Man
yesterday
Would it help if I said "first non-option argument"? I intended the translation to be from "'sleep 2m'
" to "sleep
", but I want to reduce confusion, not generate more!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
1
I suppose that would be less unclear, but not really better. Maybe you want to say that the secondary command verb and the arguments to the secondary command must be separate arguments to the primary command, like withfind -exec
,sudo
andxargs
, and different from the waysh -c
and some other commands require it.
– G-Man
yesterday
I've updated the post to include some more analysis of the commands & args. Please take a look and see if that helps, and let me know if you see any further improvements. Thank you!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
Very good. I might have mentionedfind -exec
,sudo
,xargs
, andsh -c
in the answer, but perhaps that would be information overload. If we leave my second comment, I don’t believe that the answer needs any more changes.
– G-Man
yesterday
add a comment |
Would using nohup
suffice? It will show in ps
where as running it in screen may make the process hidden within the screen process.
An example of this would be from bash..
nohup your-command &
If you want to exit this terminal session you may want to use an at
job command..
at now + 1 minute
nohup your-command &
(ctrl-d)
New contributor
(1) This is confusing. You talk about a script and redirecting the standard output, neither of which is in the question. On the other hand, the question features asleep
command, which your answer doesn’t mention. (2) Can you explain why you believe thatnohup
will help? Do you believe that some process (e.g.,sleep
) is getting a hangup signal? … (Cont’d)
– G-Man
yesterday
(Cont’d) … (3) Usingnohup
would probably not suffice. Jeff’s answer presents two reasons why the user is not seeing the result they’re expecting. Addingnohup
might be necessary also, but, by itself, it’s not likely to be enough.
– G-Man
yesterday
I’ve made it more clear. Was just pasting a real life example and hadn’t considered the confusion. Sorry.
– Strainger
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f511443%2fsleep-command-using-screen-command-is-not-displayed-in-ps%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This was confusing to me initially as well. I then re-read the local screen
man page for the SYNOPSIS -- the online man page does not give a synopsis) -- and noticed that it said:
screen [ -options ] [ cmd [ args ] ]
... which led me to believe that it wanted to see the cmd
and args
as independent arguments.
Since you gave that first argument as a quoted value -- 'sleep 2m
' -- it tried to execute a command named (exactly) 'sleep 2m
', as opposed to what you really wanted, which was sleep
with its own argument of 2m
. The screen
command exited successfully (in my testing), but it did not successfully execute your command.
Use, instead:
screen -d -m sleep 2m
Instead of ps
, which will only show processes associated with the current terminal (of which the SCREEN and related processes are not), use:
ps x
which will show it:
$ ps x
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
# ...
7514 pts/1 Ss 0:00 -bash
7761 ? Ss 0:00 SCREEN -d -m sleep 2m
7762 pts/2 Ss+ 0:00 sleep 2m
7880 pts/1 R+ 0:00 ps x
# ...
You say “screen
expected the command in the first argument”, and then you show a command line where the secondary command (the command to be invoked by the primary command) is spread out overargv[3]
andargv[4]
. I expect that some people will be confused by this.
– G-Man
yesterday
Would it help if I said "first non-option argument"? I intended the translation to be from "'sleep 2m'
" to "sleep
", but I want to reduce confusion, not generate more!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
1
I suppose that would be less unclear, but not really better. Maybe you want to say that the secondary command verb and the arguments to the secondary command must be separate arguments to the primary command, like withfind -exec
,sudo
andxargs
, and different from the waysh -c
and some other commands require it.
– G-Man
yesterday
I've updated the post to include some more analysis of the commands & args. Please take a look and see if that helps, and let me know if you see any further improvements. Thank you!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
Very good. I might have mentionedfind -exec
,sudo
,xargs
, andsh -c
in the answer, but perhaps that would be information overload. If we leave my second comment, I don’t believe that the answer needs any more changes.
– G-Man
yesterday
add a comment |
This was confusing to me initially as well. I then re-read the local screen
man page for the SYNOPSIS -- the online man page does not give a synopsis) -- and noticed that it said:
screen [ -options ] [ cmd [ args ] ]
... which led me to believe that it wanted to see the cmd
and args
as independent arguments.
Since you gave that first argument as a quoted value -- 'sleep 2m
' -- it tried to execute a command named (exactly) 'sleep 2m
', as opposed to what you really wanted, which was sleep
with its own argument of 2m
. The screen
command exited successfully (in my testing), but it did not successfully execute your command.
Use, instead:
screen -d -m sleep 2m
Instead of ps
, which will only show processes associated with the current terminal (of which the SCREEN and related processes are not), use:
ps x
which will show it:
$ ps x
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
# ...
7514 pts/1 Ss 0:00 -bash
7761 ? Ss 0:00 SCREEN -d -m sleep 2m
7762 pts/2 Ss+ 0:00 sleep 2m
7880 pts/1 R+ 0:00 ps x
# ...
You say “screen
expected the command in the first argument”, and then you show a command line where the secondary command (the command to be invoked by the primary command) is spread out overargv[3]
andargv[4]
. I expect that some people will be confused by this.
– G-Man
yesterday
Would it help if I said "first non-option argument"? I intended the translation to be from "'sleep 2m'
" to "sleep
", but I want to reduce confusion, not generate more!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
1
I suppose that would be less unclear, but not really better. Maybe you want to say that the secondary command verb and the arguments to the secondary command must be separate arguments to the primary command, like withfind -exec
,sudo
andxargs
, and different from the waysh -c
and some other commands require it.
– G-Man
yesterday
I've updated the post to include some more analysis of the commands & args. Please take a look and see if that helps, and let me know if you see any further improvements. Thank you!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
Very good. I might have mentionedfind -exec
,sudo
,xargs
, andsh -c
in the answer, but perhaps that would be information overload. If we leave my second comment, I don’t believe that the answer needs any more changes.
– G-Man
yesterday
add a comment |
This was confusing to me initially as well. I then re-read the local screen
man page for the SYNOPSIS -- the online man page does not give a synopsis) -- and noticed that it said:
screen [ -options ] [ cmd [ args ] ]
... which led me to believe that it wanted to see the cmd
and args
as independent arguments.
Since you gave that first argument as a quoted value -- 'sleep 2m
' -- it tried to execute a command named (exactly) 'sleep 2m
', as opposed to what you really wanted, which was sleep
with its own argument of 2m
. The screen
command exited successfully (in my testing), but it did not successfully execute your command.
Use, instead:
screen -d -m sleep 2m
Instead of ps
, which will only show processes associated with the current terminal (of which the SCREEN and related processes are not), use:
ps x
which will show it:
$ ps x
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
# ...
7514 pts/1 Ss 0:00 -bash
7761 ? Ss 0:00 SCREEN -d -m sleep 2m
7762 pts/2 Ss+ 0:00 sleep 2m
7880 pts/1 R+ 0:00 ps x
# ...
This was confusing to me initially as well. I then re-read the local screen
man page for the SYNOPSIS -- the online man page does not give a synopsis) -- and noticed that it said:
screen [ -options ] [ cmd [ args ] ]
... which led me to believe that it wanted to see the cmd
and args
as independent arguments.
Since you gave that first argument as a quoted value -- 'sleep 2m
' -- it tried to execute a command named (exactly) 'sleep 2m
', as opposed to what you really wanted, which was sleep
with its own argument of 2m
. The screen
command exited successfully (in my testing), but it did not successfully execute your command.
Use, instead:
screen -d -m sleep 2m
Instead of ps
, which will only show processes associated with the current terminal (of which the SCREEN and related processes are not), use:
ps x
which will show it:
$ ps x
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
# ...
7514 pts/1 Ss 0:00 -bash
7761 ? Ss 0:00 SCREEN -d -m sleep 2m
7762 pts/2 Ss+ 0:00 sleep 2m
7880 pts/1 R+ 0:00 ps x
# ...
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Jeff Schaller♦Jeff Schaller
45k1164147
45k1164147
You say “screen
expected the command in the first argument”, and then you show a command line where the secondary command (the command to be invoked by the primary command) is spread out overargv[3]
andargv[4]
. I expect that some people will be confused by this.
– G-Man
yesterday
Would it help if I said "first non-option argument"? I intended the translation to be from "'sleep 2m'
" to "sleep
", but I want to reduce confusion, not generate more!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
1
I suppose that would be less unclear, but not really better. Maybe you want to say that the secondary command verb and the arguments to the secondary command must be separate arguments to the primary command, like withfind -exec
,sudo
andxargs
, and different from the waysh -c
and some other commands require it.
– G-Man
yesterday
I've updated the post to include some more analysis of the commands & args. Please take a look and see if that helps, and let me know if you see any further improvements. Thank you!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
Very good. I might have mentionedfind -exec
,sudo
,xargs
, andsh -c
in the answer, but perhaps that would be information overload. If we leave my second comment, I don’t believe that the answer needs any more changes.
– G-Man
yesterday
add a comment |
You say “screen
expected the command in the first argument”, and then you show a command line where the secondary command (the command to be invoked by the primary command) is spread out overargv[3]
andargv[4]
. I expect that some people will be confused by this.
– G-Man
yesterday
Would it help if I said "first non-option argument"? I intended the translation to be from "'sleep 2m'
" to "sleep
", but I want to reduce confusion, not generate more!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
1
I suppose that would be less unclear, but not really better. Maybe you want to say that the secondary command verb and the arguments to the secondary command must be separate arguments to the primary command, like withfind -exec
,sudo
andxargs
, and different from the waysh -c
and some other commands require it.
– G-Man
yesterday
I've updated the post to include some more analysis of the commands & args. Please take a look and see if that helps, and let me know if you see any further improvements. Thank you!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
Very good. I might have mentionedfind -exec
,sudo
,xargs
, andsh -c
in the answer, but perhaps that would be information overload. If we leave my second comment, I don’t believe that the answer needs any more changes.
– G-Man
yesterday
You say “
screen
expected the command in the first argument”, and then you show a command line where the secondary command (the command to be invoked by the primary command) is spread out over argv[3]
and argv[4]
. I expect that some people will be confused by this.– G-Man
yesterday
You say “
screen
expected the command in the first argument”, and then you show a command line where the secondary command (the command to be invoked by the primary command) is spread out over argv[3]
and argv[4]
. I expect that some people will be confused by this.– G-Man
yesterday
Would it help if I said "first non-option argument"? I intended the translation to be from "
'sleep 2m'
" to "sleep
", but I want to reduce confusion, not generate more!– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
Would it help if I said "first non-option argument"? I intended the translation to be from "
'sleep 2m'
" to "sleep
", but I want to reduce confusion, not generate more!– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
1
1
I suppose that would be less unclear, but not really better. Maybe you want to say that the secondary command verb and the arguments to the secondary command must be separate arguments to the primary command, like with
find -exec
, sudo
and xargs
, and different from the way sh -c
and some other commands require it.– G-Man
yesterday
I suppose that would be less unclear, but not really better. Maybe you want to say that the secondary command verb and the arguments to the secondary command must be separate arguments to the primary command, like with
find -exec
, sudo
and xargs
, and different from the way sh -c
and some other commands require it.– G-Man
yesterday
I've updated the post to include some more analysis of the commands & args. Please take a look and see if that helps, and let me know if you see any further improvements. Thank you!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
I've updated the post to include some more analysis of the commands & args. Please take a look and see if that helps, and let me know if you see any further improvements. Thank you!
– Jeff Schaller♦
yesterday
Very good. I might have mentioned
find -exec
, sudo
, xargs
, and sh -c
in the answer, but perhaps that would be information overload. If we leave my second comment, I don’t believe that the answer needs any more changes.– G-Man
yesterday
Very good. I might have mentioned
find -exec
, sudo
, xargs
, and sh -c
in the answer, but perhaps that would be information overload. If we leave my second comment, I don’t believe that the answer needs any more changes.– G-Man
yesterday
add a comment |
Would using nohup
suffice? It will show in ps
where as running it in screen may make the process hidden within the screen process.
An example of this would be from bash..
nohup your-command &
If you want to exit this terminal session you may want to use an at
job command..
at now + 1 minute
nohup your-command &
(ctrl-d)
New contributor
(1) This is confusing. You talk about a script and redirecting the standard output, neither of which is in the question. On the other hand, the question features asleep
command, which your answer doesn’t mention. (2) Can you explain why you believe thatnohup
will help? Do you believe that some process (e.g.,sleep
) is getting a hangup signal? … (Cont’d)
– G-Man
yesterday
(Cont’d) … (3) Usingnohup
would probably not suffice. Jeff’s answer presents two reasons why the user is not seeing the result they’re expecting. Addingnohup
might be necessary also, but, by itself, it’s not likely to be enough.
– G-Man
yesterday
I’ve made it more clear. Was just pasting a real life example and hadn’t considered the confusion. Sorry.
– Strainger
yesterday
add a comment |
Would using nohup
suffice? It will show in ps
where as running it in screen may make the process hidden within the screen process.
An example of this would be from bash..
nohup your-command &
If you want to exit this terminal session you may want to use an at
job command..
at now + 1 minute
nohup your-command &
(ctrl-d)
New contributor
(1) This is confusing. You talk about a script and redirecting the standard output, neither of which is in the question. On the other hand, the question features asleep
command, which your answer doesn’t mention. (2) Can you explain why you believe thatnohup
will help? Do you believe that some process (e.g.,sleep
) is getting a hangup signal? … (Cont’d)
– G-Man
yesterday
(Cont’d) … (3) Usingnohup
would probably not suffice. Jeff’s answer presents two reasons why the user is not seeing the result they’re expecting. Addingnohup
might be necessary also, but, by itself, it’s not likely to be enough.
– G-Man
yesterday
I’ve made it more clear. Was just pasting a real life example and hadn’t considered the confusion. Sorry.
– Strainger
yesterday
add a comment |
Would using nohup
suffice? It will show in ps
where as running it in screen may make the process hidden within the screen process.
An example of this would be from bash..
nohup your-command &
If you want to exit this terminal session you may want to use an at
job command..
at now + 1 minute
nohup your-command &
(ctrl-d)
New contributor
Would using nohup
suffice? It will show in ps
where as running it in screen may make the process hidden within the screen process.
An example of this would be from bash..
nohup your-command &
If you want to exit this terminal session you may want to use an at
job command..
at now + 1 minute
nohup your-command &
(ctrl-d)
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered yesterday
StraingerStrainger
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
(1) This is confusing. You talk about a script and redirecting the standard output, neither of which is in the question. On the other hand, the question features asleep
command, which your answer doesn’t mention. (2) Can you explain why you believe thatnohup
will help? Do you believe that some process (e.g.,sleep
) is getting a hangup signal? … (Cont’d)
– G-Man
yesterday
(Cont’d) … (3) Usingnohup
would probably not suffice. Jeff’s answer presents two reasons why the user is not seeing the result they’re expecting. Addingnohup
might be necessary also, but, by itself, it’s not likely to be enough.
– G-Man
yesterday
I’ve made it more clear. Was just pasting a real life example and hadn’t considered the confusion. Sorry.
– Strainger
yesterday
add a comment |
(1) This is confusing. You talk about a script and redirecting the standard output, neither of which is in the question. On the other hand, the question features asleep
command, which your answer doesn’t mention. (2) Can you explain why you believe thatnohup
will help? Do you believe that some process (e.g.,sleep
) is getting a hangup signal? … (Cont’d)
– G-Man
yesterday
(Cont’d) … (3) Usingnohup
would probably not suffice. Jeff’s answer presents two reasons why the user is not seeing the result they’re expecting. Addingnohup
might be necessary also, but, by itself, it’s not likely to be enough.
– G-Man
yesterday
I’ve made it more clear. Was just pasting a real life example and hadn’t considered the confusion. Sorry.
– Strainger
yesterday
(1) This is confusing. You talk about a script and redirecting the standard output, neither of which is in the question. On the other hand, the question features a
sleep
command, which your answer doesn’t mention. (2) Can you explain why you believe that nohup
will help? Do you believe that some process (e.g., sleep
) is getting a hangup signal? … (Cont’d)– G-Man
yesterday
(1) This is confusing. You talk about a script and redirecting the standard output, neither of which is in the question. On the other hand, the question features a
sleep
command, which your answer doesn’t mention. (2) Can you explain why you believe that nohup
will help? Do you believe that some process (e.g., sleep
) is getting a hangup signal? … (Cont’d)– G-Man
yesterday
(Cont’d) … (3) Using
nohup
would probably not suffice. Jeff’s answer presents two reasons why the user is not seeing the result they’re expecting. Adding nohup
might be necessary also, but, by itself, it’s not likely to be enough.– G-Man
yesterday
(Cont’d) … (3) Using
nohup
would probably not suffice. Jeff’s answer presents two reasons why the user is not seeing the result they’re expecting. Adding nohup
might be necessary also, but, by itself, it’s not likely to be enough.– G-Man
yesterday
I’ve made it more clear. Was just pasting a real life example and hadn’t considered the confusion. Sorry.
– Strainger
yesterday
I’ve made it more clear. Was just pasting a real life example and hadn’t considered the confusion. Sorry.
– Strainger
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f511443%2fsleep-command-using-screen-command-is-not-displayed-in-ps%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
why would you want to run
sleep
through a detachedscreen
? couldn’t you just run it assleep 2m &
directly from your shell ? besides,ps
alone shows only processes belonging to your terminal window, while whatever you run throughscreen
will belong to a different virtual terminal– LL3
2 days ago
@LL3 - I'm doing it as a poc to run a command from remote machine using screen and detach from screen. I have tried using
ps -a | grep sleep
still it is not showing any new process running sleep.– Rajkumar Natarajan
2 days ago