How can I run a command which will survive terminal close?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








287















Sometimes I want to start a process and forget about it. If I start it from the command line, like this:



redshift


I can't close the terminal, or it will kill the process. Can I run a command in such a way that I can close the terminal without killing the process?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Not a default install on all distros, but screen is your friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Screen

    – Zayne S Halsall
    Nov 13 '10 at 14:23











  • To anyone facing the same problem: Remember, that even if you type yourExecutable & and the outputs keep coming on the screen and Ctrl+C does not seem to stop anything, just blindly type disown; and press Enter even if the screen is scrolling with outputs and you can't see what you're typing. The process will get disowned and you'll be able to close the terminal without the process dying.

    – Nav
    Apr 21 '16 at 11:18











  • You can use screen multiplexer such tmux. It is available via apt-get on ubuntu machines

    – Himanshu
    May 5 '16 at 11:17

















287















Sometimes I want to start a process and forget about it. If I start it from the command line, like this:



redshift


I can't close the terminal, or it will kill the process. Can I run a command in such a way that I can close the terminal without killing the process?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Not a default install on all distros, but screen is your friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Screen

    – Zayne S Halsall
    Nov 13 '10 at 14:23











  • To anyone facing the same problem: Remember, that even if you type yourExecutable & and the outputs keep coming on the screen and Ctrl+C does not seem to stop anything, just blindly type disown; and press Enter even if the screen is scrolling with outputs and you can't see what you're typing. The process will get disowned and you'll be able to close the terminal without the process dying.

    – Nav
    Apr 21 '16 at 11:18











  • You can use screen multiplexer such tmux. It is available via apt-get on ubuntu machines

    – Himanshu
    May 5 '16 at 11:17













287












287








287


169






Sometimes I want to start a process and forget about it. If I start it from the command line, like this:



redshift


I can't close the terminal, or it will kill the process. Can I run a command in such a way that I can close the terminal without killing the process?










share|improve this question
















Sometimes I want to start a process and forget about it. If I start it from the command line, like this:



redshift


I can't close the terminal, or it will kill the process. Can I run a command in such a way that I can close the terminal without killing the process?







command-line terminal process background-process






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 7 at 12:31









sondra.kinsey

1168




1168










asked Nov 12 '10 at 22:57









MatthewMatthew

1,79741411




1,79741411







  • 4





    Not a default install on all distros, but screen is your friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Screen

    – Zayne S Halsall
    Nov 13 '10 at 14:23











  • To anyone facing the same problem: Remember, that even if you type yourExecutable & and the outputs keep coming on the screen and Ctrl+C does not seem to stop anything, just blindly type disown; and press Enter even if the screen is scrolling with outputs and you can't see what you're typing. The process will get disowned and you'll be able to close the terminal without the process dying.

    – Nav
    Apr 21 '16 at 11:18











  • You can use screen multiplexer such tmux. It is available via apt-get on ubuntu machines

    – Himanshu
    May 5 '16 at 11:17












  • 4





    Not a default install on all distros, but screen is your friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Screen

    – Zayne S Halsall
    Nov 13 '10 at 14:23











  • To anyone facing the same problem: Remember, that even if you type yourExecutable & and the outputs keep coming on the screen and Ctrl+C does not seem to stop anything, just blindly type disown; and press Enter even if the screen is scrolling with outputs and you can't see what you're typing. The process will get disowned and you'll be able to close the terminal without the process dying.

    – Nav
    Apr 21 '16 at 11:18











  • You can use screen multiplexer such tmux. It is available via apt-get on ubuntu machines

    – Himanshu
    May 5 '16 at 11:17







4




4





Not a default install on all distros, but screen is your friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Screen

– Zayne S Halsall
Nov 13 '10 at 14:23





Not a default install on all distros, but screen is your friend: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Screen

– Zayne S Halsall
Nov 13 '10 at 14:23













To anyone facing the same problem: Remember, that even if you type yourExecutable & and the outputs keep coming on the screen and Ctrl+C does not seem to stop anything, just blindly type disown; and press Enter even if the screen is scrolling with outputs and you can't see what you're typing. The process will get disowned and you'll be able to close the terminal without the process dying.

– Nav
Apr 21 '16 at 11:18





To anyone facing the same problem: Remember, that even if you type yourExecutable & and the outputs keep coming on the screen and Ctrl+C does not seem to stop anything, just blindly type disown; and press Enter even if the screen is scrolling with outputs and you can't see what you're typing. The process will get disowned and you'll be able to close the terminal without the process dying.

– Nav
Apr 21 '16 at 11:18













You can use screen multiplexer such tmux. It is available via apt-get on ubuntu machines

– Himanshu
May 5 '16 at 11:17





You can use screen multiplexer such tmux. It is available via apt-get on ubuntu machines

– Himanshu
May 5 '16 at 11:17










11 Answers
11






active

oldest

votes


















289














One of the following 2 should work:



$ nohup redshift &


or



$ redshift &
$ disown


See the following for a bit more information on how this works:



  • man nohup


  • help disown


  • Difference between nohup, disown and & (be sure to read the comments too)






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    The second one (redshift & disown) worked for me on Ubuntu 10.10. It seems to work fine putting it all on one line. Is there any reason that I shouldn't do this?

    – Matthew
    Nov 13 '10 at 0:52







  • 4





    @Matthew The first should work fine too, it just doesn't background like the second (you possibly want nohup redshift & so it does background). And putting the second on one line is fine, although usually you separate with ; (redshift &; disown)

    – Michael Mrozek
    Nov 13 '10 at 3:14






  • 9





    @Michael: Both ; and & are command separators and have equal precedence. The only difference is the synchronous versus asynchronous execution (respectively). There is no need to use &; in preference to just & (it works, but it is a bit redundant).

    – Chris Johnsen
    Nov 13 '10 at 4:29







  • 4





    good answer, one might add that it would be a good idea to redirect stdout and stderr so that the terminal won't be spammed with debug output

    – Kim
    Nov 13 '10 at 6:22






  • 11





    Also, redshift &! will disown redshift immediately.

    – user26112
    Apr 21 '13 at 18:30



















137














If your program is already running you can pause it with Ctrl-Z, pull it into the background with bg and then disown it, like this:



$ sleep 1000
^Z
[1]+ Stopped sleep 1000
$ bg
$ disown
$ exit





share|improve this answer


















  • 2





    after disown how can I again read the stdout of the running process?

    – Necktwi
    May 22 '14 at 10:59






  • 1





    @neckTwi, serverfault.com/questions/55880/…

    – Stefan
    May 22 '14 at 11:23












  • This didn't work for me for some reason (centos)

    – Ian
    Apr 17 '15 at 13:42











  • How to kill the process after this procedure?

    – Palak Darji
    May 2 '16 at 8:30











  • @necktwi disown does not disconnect stdout or stderr. However nohup does, as does >/dev/null (disconnect standard out), 2>/dev/null (disconnect standard error). It (disown) disconnects job-control.

    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Jul 21 '16 at 22:08


















42














Good answer is already posted by @StevenD, yet I think this might clarify it a bit more.



The reason that the process is killed on termination of the terminal is that the process you start is a child process of the terminal. Once you close the terminal, this will kill these child processes as well. You can see the process tree with pstree, for example when running kate & in Konsole:



init-+
├─konsole─┬─bash─┬─kate───2*[kate]
│ │ └─pstree
│ └─2*[konsole]


To make the kate process detached from konsole when you terminate konsole, use nohup with the command, like this:



nohup kate &


After closing konsole, pstree will look like this:



init-+
|-kate---2*[kate]


and kate will survive. :)



An alternative is using screen/tmux/byobu, which will keep the shell running, independent of the terminal.






share|improve this answer























  • I had problems with the disown methods. This is currently working for me, so upvoting. I also like this because I can tail -f nohup.out to see whats happening, but not worry about my session failing

    – Ian
    Apr 17 '15 at 13:44


















23














You can run the process like this in the terminal



setsid process



This will run the program in a new session.
As explained http://hanoo.org/index.php?article=run-program-in-new-session-linux






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    What do you see as the advantages of setsid over nohup?

    – itsbruce
    Oct 30 '12 at 10:52






  • 1





    1) It doesn't print an annoying message about nohup.out. 2) It doesn't remain in your shell's job list, so it doesn't clutter the output of jobs.

    – Mikel
    Nov 6 '12 at 22:24



















8














Though all of the suggestions work well, I've found my alternative is to use screen, a program that sets up a virtual terminal on your screen.



You might consider starting it with screen -S session_name. Screen can be installed on virtually all Linux and Unix derivatives. Hitting Ctrl+A and (lower case) C will start a second session. This would allow you to toggle back and forth between the initial session by hitting Ctrl+A and 0 or the newer session by hitting Ctrl+A and 1. You can have up to ten sessions in one terminal. I used to start a session at work, go home, ssh into my work machine, and then invoke screen -d -R session_name. This will reconnect you to that remote session.






share|improve this answer
































    7














    The shell-only way to do all this is to close stdin and background the command:



    command <&- & 


    Then it won't quit when you quit the shell. Redirecting stdout is a nice optional thing to do.



    Disadvantage is that you can't do this after the fact.






    share|improve this answer























    • I tried in ubuntu. Killing terminal also closed the launched process. Any idea on why this might be the case?

      – Ashok Koyi
      Nov 30 '17 at 10:57


















    7





    +50









    I have a script to:



    • Run arbitrary commands in the background


    • Stop them from being killed with the terminal window


    • Suppress their output


    • Handles exit status


    I use it mainly for gedit, evince, inkscape etc that all have lots of annoying terminal output. If the command finishes before TIMEOUT, nohup's exit status is returned instead of zero.



    #!/bin/bash

    TIMEOUT=0.1

    #use nohup to run the command, suppressing its output and allowing the terminal to be closed
    #also send nohup's output to /dev/null, supressing nohup.out
    #run nohup in the background so this script doesn't block
    nohup "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1 &
    NOHUP_PID=$!

    #kill this script after a short time, exiting with success status - command is still running
    #this is needed as there is no timeout argument for `wait` below
    MY_PID=$$
    trap "exit 0" SIGINT SIGTERM
    sleep $TIMEOUT && kill $MY_PID 2>/dev/null & #ignore "No such process" error if this exits normally

    #if the command finishes before the above timeout, everything may be just fine or there could have been an error
    wait $NOHUP_PID
    NOHUP_STATUS=$?
    #print an error if there was any. most commonly, there was a typo in the command
    [ $NOHUP_STATUS != 0 ] && echo "Error $@"
    #return the exit status of nohup, whatever it was
    exit $NOHUP_STATUS


    examples...



    >>> run true && echo success || echo fail
    success
    >>> run false && echo success || echo fail
    Error false
    fail
    >>> run sleep 1000 && echo success || echo fail
    success
    >>> run notfound && echo success || echo fail
    Error notfound
    fail





    share|improve this answer
































      4














      You can set a process (PID) to not receive a HUP signal upon logging out and closing the terminal session. Use the following command:



      nohup -p PID





      share|improve this answer
































        4














        I prefer:



        (applicationName &)



        for example:
        linux@linux-desktop:~$ (chromium-browser &)



        Make sure to use parenthesis when type the command!






        share|improve this answer




















        • 1





          Closing the terminal will kill the process, which exactly what OP (and me, thus coming here) want's to avoid

          – gromit190
          Nov 14 '16 at 14:39











        • Probably you have prompt command that I've used in my answer without parenthesis, if so closing the terminal will kill the process, otherwise it will NOT happen. I've already edited the solution above to make it clear.

          – daGo
          Nov 30 '16 at 7:13











        • work for me, tnx

          – noadev
          Jun 14 '18 at 22:14











        • I am wondering why this got not more upvotes. nohup prevents any tty output and I actually just wanted redirect the output to a file and it prevented that so this is the better solution to me.

          – redanimalwar
          Dec 3 '18 at 4:06


















        3














        Arguably similar to the answer offered by apolinsky, I use a variant on screen. The vanilla command is like this



        screen bash -c 'long_running_command_here; echo; read -p "ALL DONE:"'


        The session can be disconnected with Ctrl ACtrl D and reconnected in the simple case with screen -r. I have this wrapped in a script called session that lives in my PATH ready for convenient access:



        #!/bin/bash
        #
        if screen -ls | awk '$1 ~ /^[1-9][0-9]*.'"$1"'/' >/dev/null
        then
        echo "WARNING: session is already running (reattach with 'screen -r $1')" >&2
        else
        exec screen -S "$1" bash -c "$@; echo; echo '--------------------'; read -p 'ALL DONE (Enter to exit):'"
        echo "ERROR: 'screen' is not installed on this system" >&2
        fi
        exit 1


        This only works when you know in advance you want to disconnect a program. It does not provide for an already running program to be disconnected.






        share|improve this answer
































          2














          Similarly to other answers posted before, one can transfer a running process to use "screen" retrospectively thanks to reptyr and then close the terminal. The steps are described in this post.
          The steps to take are:



          1. Suspend the process

          2. Resume the process in the background

          3. Disown the process

          4. Launch a screen session

          5. Find the PID of the process

          6. Use reptyr to take over the process





          share|improve this answer





















            protected by slm Jun 7 '18 at 2:39



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














            11 Answers
            11






            active

            oldest

            votes








            11 Answers
            11






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            289














            One of the following 2 should work:



            $ nohup redshift &


            or



            $ redshift &
            $ disown


            See the following for a bit more information on how this works:



            • man nohup


            • help disown


            • Difference between nohup, disown and & (be sure to read the comments too)






            share|improve this answer




















            • 4





              The second one (redshift & disown) worked for me on Ubuntu 10.10. It seems to work fine putting it all on one line. Is there any reason that I shouldn't do this?

              – Matthew
              Nov 13 '10 at 0:52







            • 4





              @Matthew The first should work fine too, it just doesn't background like the second (you possibly want nohup redshift & so it does background). And putting the second on one line is fine, although usually you separate with ; (redshift &; disown)

              – Michael Mrozek
              Nov 13 '10 at 3:14






            • 9





              @Michael: Both ; and & are command separators and have equal precedence. The only difference is the synchronous versus asynchronous execution (respectively). There is no need to use &; in preference to just & (it works, but it is a bit redundant).

              – Chris Johnsen
              Nov 13 '10 at 4:29







            • 4





              good answer, one might add that it would be a good idea to redirect stdout and stderr so that the terminal won't be spammed with debug output

              – Kim
              Nov 13 '10 at 6:22






            • 11





              Also, redshift &! will disown redshift immediately.

              – user26112
              Apr 21 '13 at 18:30
















            289














            One of the following 2 should work:



            $ nohup redshift &


            or



            $ redshift &
            $ disown


            See the following for a bit more information on how this works:



            • man nohup


            • help disown


            • Difference between nohup, disown and & (be sure to read the comments too)






            share|improve this answer




















            • 4





              The second one (redshift & disown) worked for me on Ubuntu 10.10. It seems to work fine putting it all on one line. Is there any reason that I shouldn't do this?

              – Matthew
              Nov 13 '10 at 0:52







            • 4





              @Matthew The first should work fine too, it just doesn't background like the second (you possibly want nohup redshift & so it does background). And putting the second on one line is fine, although usually you separate with ; (redshift &; disown)

              – Michael Mrozek
              Nov 13 '10 at 3:14






            • 9





              @Michael: Both ; and & are command separators and have equal precedence. The only difference is the synchronous versus asynchronous execution (respectively). There is no need to use &; in preference to just & (it works, but it is a bit redundant).

              – Chris Johnsen
              Nov 13 '10 at 4:29







            • 4





              good answer, one might add that it would be a good idea to redirect stdout and stderr so that the terminal won't be spammed with debug output

              – Kim
              Nov 13 '10 at 6:22






            • 11





              Also, redshift &! will disown redshift immediately.

              – user26112
              Apr 21 '13 at 18:30














            289












            289








            289







            One of the following 2 should work:



            $ nohup redshift &


            or



            $ redshift &
            $ disown


            See the following for a bit more information on how this works:



            • man nohup


            • help disown


            • Difference between nohup, disown and & (be sure to read the comments too)






            share|improve this answer















            One of the following 2 should work:



            $ nohup redshift &


            or



            $ redshift &
            $ disown


            See the following for a bit more information on how this works:



            • man nohup


            • help disown


            • Difference between nohup, disown and & (be sure to read the comments too)







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:37









            Community

            1




            1










            answered Nov 12 '10 at 23:30









            Steven DSteven D

            32.8k898108




            32.8k898108







            • 4





              The second one (redshift & disown) worked for me on Ubuntu 10.10. It seems to work fine putting it all on one line. Is there any reason that I shouldn't do this?

              – Matthew
              Nov 13 '10 at 0:52







            • 4





              @Matthew The first should work fine too, it just doesn't background like the second (you possibly want nohup redshift & so it does background). And putting the second on one line is fine, although usually you separate with ; (redshift &; disown)

              – Michael Mrozek
              Nov 13 '10 at 3:14






            • 9





              @Michael: Both ; and & are command separators and have equal precedence. The only difference is the synchronous versus asynchronous execution (respectively). There is no need to use &; in preference to just & (it works, but it is a bit redundant).

              – Chris Johnsen
              Nov 13 '10 at 4:29







            • 4





              good answer, one might add that it would be a good idea to redirect stdout and stderr so that the terminal won't be spammed with debug output

              – Kim
              Nov 13 '10 at 6:22






            • 11





              Also, redshift &! will disown redshift immediately.

              – user26112
              Apr 21 '13 at 18:30













            • 4





              The second one (redshift & disown) worked for me on Ubuntu 10.10. It seems to work fine putting it all on one line. Is there any reason that I shouldn't do this?

              – Matthew
              Nov 13 '10 at 0:52







            • 4





              @Matthew The first should work fine too, it just doesn't background like the second (you possibly want nohup redshift & so it does background). And putting the second on one line is fine, although usually you separate with ; (redshift &; disown)

              – Michael Mrozek
              Nov 13 '10 at 3:14






            • 9





              @Michael: Both ; and & are command separators and have equal precedence. The only difference is the synchronous versus asynchronous execution (respectively). There is no need to use &; in preference to just & (it works, but it is a bit redundant).

              – Chris Johnsen
              Nov 13 '10 at 4:29







            • 4





              good answer, one might add that it would be a good idea to redirect stdout and stderr so that the terminal won't be spammed with debug output

              – Kim
              Nov 13 '10 at 6:22






            • 11





              Also, redshift &! will disown redshift immediately.

              – user26112
              Apr 21 '13 at 18:30








            4




            4





            The second one (redshift & disown) worked for me on Ubuntu 10.10. It seems to work fine putting it all on one line. Is there any reason that I shouldn't do this?

            – Matthew
            Nov 13 '10 at 0:52






            The second one (redshift & disown) worked for me on Ubuntu 10.10. It seems to work fine putting it all on one line. Is there any reason that I shouldn't do this?

            – Matthew
            Nov 13 '10 at 0:52





            4




            4





            @Matthew The first should work fine too, it just doesn't background like the second (you possibly want nohup redshift & so it does background). And putting the second on one line is fine, although usually you separate with ; (redshift &; disown)

            – Michael Mrozek
            Nov 13 '10 at 3:14





            @Matthew The first should work fine too, it just doesn't background like the second (you possibly want nohup redshift & so it does background). And putting the second on one line is fine, although usually you separate with ; (redshift &; disown)

            – Michael Mrozek
            Nov 13 '10 at 3:14




            9




            9





            @Michael: Both ; and & are command separators and have equal precedence. The only difference is the synchronous versus asynchronous execution (respectively). There is no need to use &; in preference to just & (it works, but it is a bit redundant).

            – Chris Johnsen
            Nov 13 '10 at 4:29






            @Michael: Both ; and & are command separators and have equal precedence. The only difference is the synchronous versus asynchronous execution (respectively). There is no need to use &; in preference to just & (it works, but it is a bit redundant).

            – Chris Johnsen
            Nov 13 '10 at 4:29





            4




            4





            good answer, one might add that it would be a good idea to redirect stdout and stderr so that the terminal won't be spammed with debug output

            – Kim
            Nov 13 '10 at 6:22





            good answer, one might add that it would be a good idea to redirect stdout and stderr so that the terminal won't be spammed with debug output

            – Kim
            Nov 13 '10 at 6:22




            11




            11





            Also, redshift &! will disown redshift immediately.

            – user26112
            Apr 21 '13 at 18:30






            Also, redshift &! will disown redshift immediately.

            – user26112
            Apr 21 '13 at 18:30














            137














            If your program is already running you can pause it with Ctrl-Z, pull it into the background with bg and then disown it, like this:



            $ sleep 1000
            ^Z
            [1]+ Stopped sleep 1000
            $ bg
            $ disown
            $ exit





            share|improve this answer


















            • 2





              after disown how can I again read the stdout of the running process?

              – Necktwi
              May 22 '14 at 10:59






            • 1





              @neckTwi, serverfault.com/questions/55880/…

              – Stefan
              May 22 '14 at 11:23












            • This didn't work for me for some reason (centos)

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:42











            • How to kill the process after this procedure?

              – Palak Darji
              May 2 '16 at 8:30











            • @necktwi disown does not disconnect stdout or stderr. However nohup does, as does >/dev/null (disconnect standard out), 2>/dev/null (disconnect standard error). It (disown) disconnects job-control.

              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Jul 21 '16 at 22:08















            137














            If your program is already running you can pause it with Ctrl-Z, pull it into the background with bg and then disown it, like this:



            $ sleep 1000
            ^Z
            [1]+ Stopped sleep 1000
            $ bg
            $ disown
            $ exit





            share|improve this answer


















            • 2





              after disown how can I again read the stdout of the running process?

              – Necktwi
              May 22 '14 at 10:59






            • 1





              @neckTwi, serverfault.com/questions/55880/…

              – Stefan
              May 22 '14 at 11:23












            • This didn't work for me for some reason (centos)

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:42











            • How to kill the process after this procedure?

              – Palak Darji
              May 2 '16 at 8:30











            • @necktwi disown does not disconnect stdout or stderr. However nohup does, as does >/dev/null (disconnect standard out), 2>/dev/null (disconnect standard error). It (disown) disconnects job-control.

              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Jul 21 '16 at 22:08













            137












            137








            137







            If your program is already running you can pause it with Ctrl-Z, pull it into the background with bg and then disown it, like this:



            $ sleep 1000
            ^Z
            [1]+ Stopped sleep 1000
            $ bg
            $ disown
            $ exit





            share|improve this answer













            If your program is already running you can pause it with Ctrl-Z, pull it into the background with bg and then disown it, like this:



            $ sleep 1000
            ^Z
            [1]+ Stopped sleep 1000
            $ bg
            $ disown
            $ exit






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Nov 13 '10 at 5:36









            StefanStefan

            11.8k3283123




            11.8k3283123







            • 2





              after disown how can I again read the stdout of the running process?

              – Necktwi
              May 22 '14 at 10:59






            • 1





              @neckTwi, serverfault.com/questions/55880/…

              – Stefan
              May 22 '14 at 11:23












            • This didn't work for me for some reason (centos)

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:42











            • How to kill the process after this procedure?

              – Palak Darji
              May 2 '16 at 8:30











            • @necktwi disown does not disconnect stdout or stderr. However nohup does, as does >/dev/null (disconnect standard out), 2>/dev/null (disconnect standard error). It (disown) disconnects job-control.

              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Jul 21 '16 at 22:08












            • 2





              after disown how can I again read the stdout of the running process?

              – Necktwi
              May 22 '14 at 10:59






            • 1





              @neckTwi, serverfault.com/questions/55880/…

              – Stefan
              May 22 '14 at 11:23












            • This didn't work for me for some reason (centos)

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:42











            • How to kill the process after this procedure?

              – Palak Darji
              May 2 '16 at 8:30











            • @necktwi disown does not disconnect stdout or stderr. However nohup does, as does >/dev/null (disconnect standard out), 2>/dev/null (disconnect standard error). It (disown) disconnects job-control.

              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Jul 21 '16 at 22:08







            2




            2





            after disown how can I again read the stdout of the running process?

            – Necktwi
            May 22 '14 at 10:59





            after disown how can I again read the stdout of the running process?

            – Necktwi
            May 22 '14 at 10:59




            1




            1





            @neckTwi, serverfault.com/questions/55880/…

            – Stefan
            May 22 '14 at 11:23






            @neckTwi, serverfault.com/questions/55880/…

            – Stefan
            May 22 '14 at 11:23














            This didn't work for me for some reason (centos)

            – Ian
            Apr 17 '15 at 13:42





            This didn't work for me for some reason (centos)

            – Ian
            Apr 17 '15 at 13:42













            How to kill the process after this procedure?

            – Palak Darji
            May 2 '16 at 8:30





            How to kill the process after this procedure?

            – Palak Darji
            May 2 '16 at 8:30













            @necktwi disown does not disconnect stdout or stderr. However nohup does, as does >/dev/null (disconnect standard out), 2>/dev/null (disconnect standard error). It (disown) disconnects job-control.

            – ctrl-alt-delor
            Jul 21 '16 at 22:08





            @necktwi disown does not disconnect stdout or stderr. However nohup does, as does >/dev/null (disconnect standard out), 2>/dev/null (disconnect standard error). It (disown) disconnects job-control.

            – ctrl-alt-delor
            Jul 21 '16 at 22:08











            42














            Good answer is already posted by @StevenD, yet I think this might clarify it a bit more.



            The reason that the process is killed on termination of the terminal is that the process you start is a child process of the terminal. Once you close the terminal, this will kill these child processes as well. You can see the process tree with pstree, for example when running kate & in Konsole:



            init-+
            ├─konsole─┬─bash─┬─kate───2*[kate]
            │ │ └─pstree
            │ └─2*[konsole]


            To make the kate process detached from konsole when you terminate konsole, use nohup with the command, like this:



            nohup kate &


            After closing konsole, pstree will look like this:



            init-+
            |-kate---2*[kate]


            and kate will survive. :)



            An alternative is using screen/tmux/byobu, which will keep the shell running, independent of the terminal.






            share|improve this answer























            • I had problems with the disown methods. This is currently working for me, so upvoting. I also like this because I can tail -f nohup.out to see whats happening, but not worry about my session failing

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:44















            42














            Good answer is already posted by @StevenD, yet I think this might clarify it a bit more.



            The reason that the process is killed on termination of the terminal is that the process you start is a child process of the terminal. Once you close the terminal, this will kill these child processes as well. You can see the process tree with pstree, for example when running kate & in Konsole:



            init-+
            ├─konsole─┬─bash─┬─kate───2*[kate]
            │ │ └─pstree
            │ └─2*[konsole]


            To make the kate process detached from konsole when you terminate konsole, use nohup with the command, like this:



            nohup kate &


            After closing konsole, pstree will look like this:



            init-+
            |-kate---2*[kate]


            and kate will survive. :)



            An alternative is using screen/tmux/byobu, which will keep the shell running, independent of the terminal.






            share|improve this answer























            • I had problems with the disown methods. This is currently working for me, so upvoting. I also like this because I can tail -f nohup.out to see whats happening, but not worry about my session failing

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:44













            42












            42








            42







            Good answer is already posted by @StevenD, yet I think this might clarify it a bit more.



            The reason that the process is killed on termination of the terminal is that the process you start is a child process of the terminal. Once you close the terminal, this will kill these child processes as well. You can see the process tree with pstree, for example when running kate & in Konsole:



            init-+
            ├─konsole─┬─bash─┬─kate───2*[kate]
            │ │ └─pstree
            │ └─2*[konsole]


            To make the kate process detached from konsole when you terminate konsole, use nohup with the command, like this:



            nohup kate &


            After closing konsole, pstree will look like this:



            init-+
            |-kate---2*[kate]


            and kate will survive. :)



            An alternative is using screen/tmux/byobu, which will keep the shell running, independent of the terminal.






            share|improve this answer













            Good answer is already posted by @StevenD, yet I think this might clarify it a bit more.



            The reason that the process is killed on termination of the terminal is that the process you start is a child process of the terminal. Once you close the terminal, this will kill these child processes as well. You can see the process tree with pstree, for example when running kate & in Konsole:



            init-+
            ├─konsole─┬─bash─┬─kate───2*[kate]
            │ │ └─pstree
            │ └─2*[konsole]


            To make the kate process detached from konsole when you terminate konsole, use nohup with the command, like this:



            nohup kate &


            After closing konsole, pstree will look like this:



            init-+
            |-kate---2*[kate]


            and kate will survive. :)



            An alternative is using screen/tmux/byobu, which will keep the shell running, independent of the terminal.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Dec 5 '12 at 11:31









            gertvdijkgertvdijk

            7,51253045




            7,51253045












            • I had problems with the disown methods. This is currently working for me, so upvoting. I also like this because I can tail -f nohup.out to see whats happening, but not worry about my session failing

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:44

















            • I had problems with the disown methods. This is currently working for me, so upvoting. I also like this because I can tail -f nohup.out to see whats happening, but not worry about my session failing

              – Ian
              Apr 17 '15 at 13:44
















            I had problems with the disown methods. This is currently working for me, so upvoting. I also like this because I can tail -f nohup.out to see whats happening, but not worry about my session failing

            – Ian
            Apr 17 '15 at 13:44





            I had problems with the disown methods. This is currently working for me, so upvoting. I also like this because I can tail -f nohup.out to see whats happening, but not worry about my session failing

            – Ian
            Apr 17 '15 at 13:44











            23














            You can run the process like this in the terminal



            setsid process



            This will run the program in a new session.
            As explained http://hanoo.org/index.php?article=run-program-in-new-session-linux






            share|improve this answer


















            • 1





              What do you see as the advantages of setsid over nohup?

              – itsbruce
              Oct 30 '12 at 10:52






            • 1





              1) It doesn't print an annoying message about nohup.out. 2) It doesn't remain in your shell's job list, so it doesn't clutter the output of jobs.

              – Mikel
              Nov 6 '12 at 22:24
















            23














            You can run the process like this in the terminal



            setsid process



            This will run the program in a new session.
            As explained http://hanoo.org/index.php?article=run-program-in-new-session-linux






            share|improve this answer


















            • 1





              What do you see as the advantages of setsid over nohup?

              – itsbruce
              Oct 30 '12 at 10:52






            • 1





              1) It doesn't print an annoying message about nohup.out. 2) It doesn't remain in your shell's job list, so it doesn't clutter the output of jobs.

              – Mikel
              Nov 6 '12 at 22:24














            23












            23








            23







            You can run the process like this in the terminal



            setsid process



            This will run the program in a new session.
            As explained http://hanoo.org/index.php?article=run-program-in-new-session-linux






            share|improve this answer













            You can run the process like this in the terminal



            setsid process



            This will run the program in a new session.
            As explained http://hanoo.org/index.php?article=run-program-in-new-session-linux







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Oct 30 '12 at 5:55









            hanoohanoo

            33123




            33123







            • 1





              What do you see as the advantages of setsid over nohup?

              – itsbruce
              Oct 30 '12 at 10:52






            • 1





              1) It doesn't print an annoying message about nohup.out. 2) It doesn't remain in your shell's job list, so it doesn't clutter the output of jobs.

              – Mikel
              Nov 6 '12 at 22:24













            • 1





              What do you see as the advantages of setsid over nohup?

              – itsbruce
              Oct 30 '12 at 10:52






            • 1





              1) It doesn't print an annoying message about nohup.out. 2) It doesn't remain in your shell's job list, so it doesn't clutter the output of jobs.

              – Mikel
              Nov 6 '12 at 22:24








            1




            1





            What do you see as the advantages of setsid over nohup?

            – itsbruce
            Oct 30 '12 at 10:52





            What do you see as the advantages of setsid over nohup?

            – itsbruce
            Oct 30 '12 at 10:52




            1




            1





            1) It doesn't print an annoying message about nohup.out. 2) It doesn't remain in your shell's job list, so it doesn't clutter the output of jobs.

            – Mikel
            Nov 6 '12 at 22:24






            1) It doesn't print an annoying message about nohup.out. 2) It doesn't remain in your shell's job list, so it doesn't clutter the output of jobs.

            – Mikel
            Nov 6 '12 at 22:24












            8














            Though all of the suggestions work well, I've found my alternative is to use screen, a program that sets up a virtual terminal on your screen.



            You might consider starting it with screen -S session_name. Screen can be installed on virtually all Linux and Unix derivatives. Hitting Ctrl+A and (lower case) C will start a second session. This would allow you to toggle back and forth between the initial session by hitting Ctrl+A and 0 or the newer session by hitting Ctrl+A and 1. You can have up to ten sessions in one terminal. I used to start a session at work, go home, ssh into my work machine, and then invoke screen -d -R session_name. This will reconnect you to that remote session.






            share|improve this answer





























              8














              Though all of the suggestions work well, I've found my alternative is to use screen, a program that sets up a virtual terminal on your screen.



              You might consider starting it with screen -S session_name. Screen can be installed on virtually all Linux and Unix derivatives. Hitting Ctrl+A and (lower case) C will start a second session. This would allow you to toggle back and forth between the initial session by hitting Ctrl+A and 0 or the newer session by hitting Ctrl+A and 1. You can have up to ten sessions in one terminal. I used to start a session at work, go home, ssh into my work machine, and then invoke screen -d -R session_name. This will reconnect you to that remote session.






              share|improve this answer



























                8












                8








                8







                Though all of the suggestions work well, I've found my alternative is to use screen, a program that sets up a virtual terminal on your screen.



                You might consider starting it with screen -S session_name. Screen can be installed on virtually all Linux and Unix derivatives. Hitting Ctrl+A and (lower case) C will start a second session. This would allow you to toggle back and forth between the initial session by hitting Ctrl+A and 0 or the newer session by hitting Ctrl+A and 1. You can have up to ten sessions in one terminal. I used to start a session at work, go home, ssh into my work machine, and then invoke screen -d -R session_name. This will reconnect you to that remote session.






                share|improve this answer















                Though all of the suggestions work well, I've found my alternative is to use screen, a program that sets up a virtual terminal on your screen.



                You might consider starting it with screen -S session_name. Screen can be installed on virtually all Linux and Unix derivatives. Hitting Ctrl+A and (lower case) C will start a second session. This would allow you to toggle back and forth between the initial session by hitting Ctrl+A and 0 or the newer session by hitting Ctrl+A and 1. You can have up to ten sessions in one terminal. I used to start a session at work, go home, ssh into my work machine, and then invoke screen -d -R session_name. This will reconnect you to that remote session.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Oct 23 '15 at 7:42









                G-Man

                13.6k93770




                13.6k93770










                answered Feb 18 '15 at 23:07









                apolinskyapolinsky

                45038




                45038





















                    7














                    The shell-only way to do all this is to close stdin and background the command:



                    command <&- & 


                    Then it won't quit when you quit the shell. Redirecting stdout is a nice optional thing to do.



                    Disadvantage is that you can't do this after the fact.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • I tried in ubuntu. Killing terminal also closed the launched process. Any idea on why this might be the case?

                      – Ashok Koyi
                      Nov 30 '17 at 10:57















                    7














                    The shell-only way to do all this is to close stdin and background the command:



                    command <&- & 


                    Then it won't quit when you quit the shell. Redirecting stdout is a nice optional thing to do.



                    Disadvantage is that you can't do this after the fact.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • I tried in ubuntu. Killing terminal also closed the launched process. Any idea on why this might be the case?

                      – Ashok Koyi
                      Nov 30 '17 at 10:57













                    7












                    7








                    7







                    The shell-only way to do all this is to close stdin and background the command:



                    command <&- & 


                    Then it won't quit when you quit the shell. Redirecting stdout is a nice optional thing to do.



                    Disadvantage is that you can't do this after the fact.






                    share|improve this answer













                    The shell-only way to do all this is to close stdin and background the command:



                    command <&- & 


                    Then it won't quit when you quit the shell. Redirecting stdout is a nice optional thing to do.



                    Disadvantage is that you can't do this after the fact.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Mar 14 '14 at 4:55









                    w00tw00t

                    25827




                    25827












                    • I tried in ubuntu. Killing terminal also closed the launched process. Any idea on why this might be the case?

                      – Ashok Koyi
                      Nov 30 '17 at 10:57

















                    • I tried in ubuntu. Killing terminal also closed the launched process. Any idea on why this might be the case?

                      – Ashok Koyi
                      Nov 30 '17 at 10:57
















                    I tried in ubuntu. Killing terminal also closed the launched process. Any idea on why this might be the case?

                    – Ashok Koyi
                    Nov 30 '17 at 10:57





                    I tried in ubuntu. Killing terminal also closed the launched process. Any idea on why this might be the case?

                    – Ashok Koyi
                    Nov 30 '17 at 10:57











                    7





                    +50









                    I have a script to:



                    • Run arbitrary commands in the background


                    • Stop them from being killed with the terminal window


                    • Suppress their output


                    • Handles exit status


                    I use it mainly for gedit, evince, inkscape etc that all have lots of annoying terminal output. If the command finishes before TIMEOUT, nohup's exit status is returned instead of zero.



                    #!/bin/bash

                    TIMEOUT=0.1

                    #use nohup to run the command, suppressing its output and allowing the terminal to be closed
                    #also send nohup's output to /dev/null, supressing nohup.out
                    #run nohup in the background so this script doesn't block
                    nohup "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1 &
                    NOHUP_PID=$!

                    #kill this script after a short time, exiting with success status - command is still running
                    #this is needed as there is no timeout argument for `wait` below
                    MY_PID=$$
                    trap "exit 0" SIGINT SIGTERM
                    sleep $TIMEOUT && kill $MY_PID 2>/dev/null & #ignore "No such process" error if this exits normally

                    #if the command finishes before the above timeout, everything may be just fine or there could have been an error
                    wait $NOHUP_PID
                    NOHUP_STATUS=$?
                    #print an error if there was any. most commonly, there was a typo in the command
                    [ $NOHUP_STATUS != 0 ] && echo "Error $@"
                    #return the exit status of nohup, whatever it was
                    exit $NOHUP_STATUS


                    examples...



                    >>> run true && echo success || echo fail
                    success
                    >>> run false && echo success || echo fail
                    Error false
                    fail
                    >>> run sleep 1000 && echo success || echo fail
                    success
                    >>> run notfound && echo success || echo fail
                    Error notfound
                    fail





                    share|improve this answer





























                      7





                      +50









                      I have a script to:



                      • Run arbitrary commands in the background


                      • Stop them from being killed with the terminal window


                      • Suppress their output


                      • Handles exit status


                      I use it mainly for gedit, evince, inkscape etc that all have lots of annoying terminal output. If the command finishes before TIMEOUT, nohup's exit status is returned instead of zero.



                      #!/bin/bash

                      TIMEOUT=0.1

                      #use nohup to run the command, suppressing its output and allowing the terminal to be closed
                      #also send nohup's output to /dev/null, supressing nohup.out
                      #run nohup in the background so this script doesn't block
                      nohup "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1 &
                      NOHUP_PID=$!

                      #kill this script after a short time, exiting with success status - command is still running
                      #this is needed as there is no timeout argument for `wait` below
                      MY_PID=$$
                      trap "exit 0" SIGINT SIGTERM
                      sleep $TIMEOUT && kill $MY_PID 2>/dev/null & #ignore "No such process" error if this exits normally

                      #if the command finishes before the above timeout, everything may be just fine or there could have been an error
                      wait $NOHUP_PID
                      NOHUP_STATUS=$?
                      #print an error if there was any. most commonly, there was a typo in the command
                      [ $NOHUP_STATUS != 0 ] && echo "Error $@"
                      #return the exit status of nohup, whatever it was
                      exit $NOHUP_STATUS


                      examples...



                      >>> run true && echo success || echo fail
                      success
                      >>> run false && echo success || echo fail
                      Error false
                      fail
                      >>> run sleep 1000 && echo success || echo fail
                      success
                      >>> run notfound && echo success || echo fail
                      Error notfound
                      fail





                      share|improve this answer



























                        7





                        +50







                        7





                        +50



                        7




                        +50





                        I have a script to:



                        • Run arbitrary commands in the background


                        • Stop them from being killed with the terminal window


                        • Suppress their output


                        • Handles exit status


                        I use it mainly for gedit, evince, inkscape etc that all have lots of annoying terminal output. If the command finishes before TIMEOUT, nohup's exit status is returned instead of zero.



                        #!/bin/bash

                        TIMEOUT=0.1

                        #use nohup to run the command, suppressing its output and allowing the terminal to be closed
                        #also send nohup's output to /dev/null, supressing nohup.out
                        #run nohup in the background so this script doesn't block
                        nohup "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1 &
                        NOHUP_PID=$!

                        #kill this script after a short time, exiting with success status - command is still running
                        #this is needed as there is no timeout argument for `wait` below
                        MY_PID=$$
                        trap "exit 0" SIGINT SIGTERM
                        sleep $TIMEOUT && kill $MY_PID 2>/dev/null & #ignore "No such process" error if this exits normally

                        #if the command finishes before the above timeout, everything may be just fine or there could have been an error
                        wait $NOHUP_PID
                        NOHUP_STATUS=$?
                        #print an error if there was any. most commonly, there was a typo in the command
                        [ $NOHUP_STATUS != 0 ] && echo "Error $@"
                        #return the exit status of nohup, whatever it was
                        exit $NOHUP_STATUS


                        examples...



                        >>> run true && echo success || echo fail
                        success
                        >>> run false && echo success || echo fail
                        Error false
                        fail
                        >>> run sleep 1000 && echo success || echo fail
                        success
                        >>> run notfound && echo success || echo fail
                        Error notfound
                        fail





                        share|improve this answer















                        I have a script to:



                        • Run arbitrary commands in the background


                        • Stop them from being killed with the terminal window


                        • Suppress their output


                        • Handles exit status


                        I use it mainly for gedit, evince, inkscape etc that all have lots of annoying terminal output. If the command finishes before TIMEOUT, nohup's exit status is returned instead of zero.



                        #!/bin/bash

                        TIMEOUT=0.1

                        #use nohup to run the command, suppressing its output and allowing the terminal to be closed
                        #also send nohup's output to /dev/null, supressing nohup.out
                        #run nohup in the background so this script doesn't block
                        nohup "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1 &
                        NOHUP_PID=$!

                        #kill this script after a short time, exiting with success status - command is still running
                        #this is needed as there is no timeout argument for `wait` below
                        MY_PID=$$
                        trap "exit 0" SIGINT SIGTERM
                        sleep $TIMEOUT && kill $MY_PID 2>/dev/null & #ignore "No such process" error if this exits normally

                        #if the command finishes before the above timeout, everything may be just fine or there could have been an error
                        wait $NOHUP_PID
                        NOHUP_STATUS=$?
                        #print an error if there was any. most commonly, there was a typo in the command
                        [ $NOHUP_STATUS != 0 ] && echo "Error $@"
                        #return the exit status of nohup, whatever it was
                        exit $NOHUP_STATUS


                        examples...



                        >>> run true && echo success || echo fail
                        success
                        >>> run false && echo success || echo fail
                        Error false
                        fail
                        >>> run sleep 1000 && echo success || echo fail
                        success
                        >>> run notfound && echo success || echo fail
                        Error notfound
                        fail






                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited Jan 20 '15 at 4:56

























                        answered Feb 15 '14 at 4:12









                        jozxyqkjozxyqk

                        376510




                        376510





















                            4














                            You can set a process (PID) to not receive a HUP signal upon logging out and closing the terminal session. Use the following command:



                            nohup -p PID





                            share|improve this answer





























                              4














                              You can set a process (PID) to not receive a HUP signal upon logging out and closing the terminal session. Use the following command:



                              nohup -p PID





                              share|improve this answer



























                                4












                                4








                                4







                                You can set a process (PID) to not receive a HUP signal upon logging out and closing the terminal session. Use the following command:



                                nohup -p PID





                                share|improve this answer















                                You can set a process (PID) to not receive a HUP signal upon logging out and closing the terminal session. Use the following command:



                                nohup -p PID






                                share|improve this answer














                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer








                                edited Feb 18 '16 at 6:05









                                Anthon

                                61.5k17107170




                                61.5k17107170










                                answered Feb 18 '16 at 5:30









                                tonytony

                                513




                                513





















                                    4














                                    I prefer:



                                    (applicationName &)



                                    for example:
                                    linux@linux-desktop:~$ (chromium-browser &)



                                    Make sure to use parenthesis when type the command!






                                    share|improve this answer




















                                    • 1





                                      Closing the terminal will kill the process, which exactly what OP (and me, thus coming here) want's to avoid

                                      – gromit190
                                      Nov 14 '16 at 14:39











                                    • Probably you have prompt command that I've used in my answer without parenthesis, if so closing the terminal will kill the process, otherwise it will NOT happen. I've already edited the solution above to make it clear.

                                      – daGo
                                      Nov 30 '16 at 7:13











                                    • work for me, tnx

                                      – noadev
                                      Jun 14 '18 at 22:14











                                    • I am wondering why this got not more upvotes. nohup prevents any tty output and I actually just wanted redirect the output to a file and it prevented that so this is the better solution to me.

                                      – redanimalwar
                                      Dec 3 '18 at 4:06















                                    4














                                    I prefer:



                                    (applicationName &)



                                    for example:
                                    linux@linux-desktop:~$ (chromium-browser &)



                                    Make sure to use parenthesis when type the command!






                                    share|improve this answer




















                                    • 1





                                      Closing the terminal will kill the process, which exactly what OP (and me, thus coming here) want's to avoid

                                      – gromit190
                                      Nov 14 '16 at 14:39











                                    • Probably you have prompt command that I've used in my answer without parenthesis, if so closing the terminal will kill the process, otherwise it will NOT happen. I've already edited the solution above to make it clear.

                                      – daGo
                                      Nov 30 '16 at 7:13











                                    • work for me, tnx

                                      – noadev
                                      Jun 14 '18 at 22:14











                                    • I am wondering why this got not more upvotes. nohup prevents any tty output and I actually just wanted redirect the output to a file and it prevented that so this is the better solution to me.

                                      – redanimalwar
                                      Dec 3 '18 at 4:06













                                    4












                                    4








                                    4







                                    I prefer:



                                    (applicationName &)



                                    for example:
                                    linux@linux-desktop:~$ (chromium-browser &)



                                    Make sure to use parenthesis when type the command!






                                    share|improve this answer















                                    I prefer:



                                    (applicationName &)



                                    for example:
                                    linux@linux-desktop:~$ (chromium-browser &)



                                    Make sure to use parenthesis when type the command!







                                    share|improve this answer














                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer








                                    edited Nov 30 '16 at 7:15

























                                    answered Mar 2 '16 at 11:15









                                    daGodaGo

                                    1494




                                    1494







                                    • 1





                                      Closing the terminal will kill the process, which exactly what OP (and me, thus coming here) want's to avoid

                                      – gromit190
                                      Nov 14 '16 at 14:39











                                    • Probably you have prompt command that I've used in my answer without parenthesis, if so closing the terminal will kill the process, otherwise it will NOT happen. I've already edited the solution above to make it clear.

                                      – daGo
                                      Nov 30 '16 at 7:13











                                    • work for me, tnx

                                      – noadev
                                      Jun 14 '18 at 22:14











                                    • I am wondering why this got not more upvotes. nohup prevents any tty output and I actually just wanted redirect the output to a file and it prevented that so this is the better solution to me.

                                      – redanimalwar
                                      Dec 3 '18 at 4:06












                                    • 1





                                      Closing the terminal will kill the process, which exactly what OP (and me, thus coming here) want's to avoid

                                      – gromit190
                                      Nov 14 '16 at 14:39











                                    • Probably you have prompt command that I've used in my answer without parenthesis, if so closing the terminal will kill the process, otherwise it will NOT happen. I've already edited the solution above to make it clear.

                                      – daGo
                                      Nov 30 '16 at 7:13











                                    • work for me, tnx

                                      – noadev
                                      Jun 14 '18 at 22:14











                                    • I am wondering why this got not more upvotes. nohup prevents any tty output and I actually just wanted redirect the output to a file and it prevented that so this is the better solution to me.

                                      – redanimalwar
                                      Dec 3 '18 at 4:06







                                    1




                                    1





                                    Closing the terminal will kill the process, which exactly what OP (and me, thus coming here) want's to avoid

                                    – gromit190
                                    Nov 14 '16 at 14:39





                                    Closing the terminal will kill the process, which exactly what OP (and me, thus coming here) want's to avoid

                                    – gromit190
                                    Nov 14 '16 at 14:39













                                    Probably you have prompt command that I've used in my answer without parenthesis, if so closing the terminal will kill the process, otherwise it will NOT happen. I've already edited the solution above to make it clear.

                                    – daGo
                                    Nov 30 '16 at 7:13





                                    Probably you have prompt command that I've used in my answer without parenthesis, if so closing the terminal will kill the process, otherwise it will NOT happen. I've already edited the solution above to make it clear.

                                    – daGo
                                    Nov 30 '16 at 7:13













                                    work for me, tnx

                                    – noadev
                                    Jun 14 '18 at 22:14





                                    work for me, tnx

                                    – noadev
                                    Jun 14 '18 at 22:14













                                    I am wondering why this got not more upvotes. nohup prevents any tty output and I actually just wanted redirect the output to a file and it prevented that so this is the better solution to me.

                                    – redanimalwar
                                    Dec 3 '18 at 4:06





                                    I am wondering why this got not more upvotes. nohup prevents any tty output and I actually just wanted redirect the output to a file and it prevented that so this is the better solution to me.

                                    – redanimalwar
                                    Dec 3 '18 at 4:06











                                    3














                                    Arguably similar to the answer offered by apolinsky, I use a variant on screen. The vanilla command is like this



                                    screen bash -c 'long_running_command_here; echo; read -p "ALL DONE:"'


                                    The session can be disconnected with Ctrl ACtrl D and reconnected in the simple case with screen -r. I have this wrapped in a script called session that lives in my PATH ready for convenient access:



                                    #!/bin/bash
                                    #
                                    if screen -ls | awk '$1 ~ /^[1-9][0-9]*.'"$1"'/' >/dev/null
                                    then
                                    echo "WARNING: session is already running (reattach with 'screen -r $1')" >&2
                                    else
                                    exec screen -S "$1" bash -c "$@; echo; echo '--------------------'; read -p 'ALL DONE (Enter to exit):'"
                                    echo "ERROR: 'screen' is not installed on this system" >&2
                                    fi
                                    exit 1


                                    This only works when you know in advance you want to disconnect a program. It does not provide for an already running program to be disconnected.






                                    share|improve this answer





























                                      3














                                      Arguably similar to the answer offered by apolinsky, I use a variant on screen. The vanilla command is like this



                                      screen bash -c 'long_running_command_here; echo; read -p "ALL DONE:"'


                                      The session can be disconnected with Ctrl ACtrl D and reconnected in the simple case with screen -r. I have this wrapped in a script called session that lives in my PATH ready for convenient access:



                                      #!/bin/bash
                                      #
                                      if screen -ls | awk '$1 ~ /^[1-9][0-9]*.'"$1"'/' >/dev/null
                                      then
                                      echo "WARNING: session is already running (reattach with 'screen -r $1')" >&2
                                      else
                                      exec screen -S "$1" bash -c "$@; echo; echo '--------------------'; read -p 'ALL DONE (Enter to exit):'"
                                      echo "ERROR: 'screen' is not installed on this system" >&2
                                      fi
                                      exit 1


                                      This only works when you know in advance you want to disconnect a program. It does not provide for an already running program to be disconnected.






                                      share|improve this answer



























                                        3












                                        3








                                        3







                                        Arguably similar to the answer offered by apolinsky, I use a variant on screen. The vanilla command is like this



                                        screen bash -c 'long_running_command_here; echo; read -p "ALL DONE:"'


                                        The session can be disconnected with Ctrl ACtrl D and reconnected in the simple case with screen -r. I have this wrapped in a script called session that lives in my PATH ready for convenient access:



                                        #!/bin/bash
                                        #
                                        if screen -ls | awk '$1 ~ /^[1-9][0-9]*.'"$1"'/' >/dev/null
                                        then
                                        echo "WARNING: session is already running (reattach with 'screen -r $1')" >&2
                                        else
                                        exec screen -S "$1" bash -c "$@; echo; echo '--------------------'; read -p 'ALL DONE (Enter to exit):'"
                                        echo "ERROR: 'screen' is not installed on this system" >&2
                                        fi
                                        exit 1


                                        This only works when you know in advance you want to disconnect a program. It does not provide for an already running program to be disconnected.






                                        share|improve this answer















                                        Arguably similar to the answer offered by apolinsky, I use a variant on screen. The vanilla command is like this



                                        screen bash -c 'long_running_command_here; echo; read -p "ALL DONE:"'


                                        The session can be disconnected with Ctrl ACtrl D and reconnected in the simple case with screen -r. I have this wrapped in a script called session that lives in my PATH ready for convenient access:



                                        #!/bin/bash
                                        #
                                        if screen -ls | awk '$1 ~ /^[1-9][0-9]*.'"$1"'/' >/dev/null
                                        then
                                        echo "WARNING: session is already running (reattach with 'screen -r $1')" >&2
                                        else
                                        exec screen -S "$1" bash -c "$@; echo; echo '--------------------'; read -p 'ALL DONE (Enter to exit):'"
                                        echo "ERROR: 'screen' is not installed on this system" >&2
                                        fi
                                        exit 1


                                        This only works when you know in advance you want to disconnect a program. It does not provide for an already running program to be disconnected.







                                        share|improve this answer














                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer








                                        edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:37









                                        Community

                                        1




                                        1










                                        answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:10









                                        roaimaroaima

                                        46k758124




                                        46k758124





















                                            2














                                            Similarly to other answers posted before, one can transfer a running process to use "screen" retrospectively thanks to reptyr and then close the terminal. The steps are described in this post.
                                            The steps to take are:



                                            1. Suspend the process

                                            2. Resume the process in the background

                                            3. Disown the process

                                            4. Launch a screen session

                                            5. Find the PID of the process

                                            6. Use reptyr to take over the process





                                            share|improve this answer



























                                              2














                                              Similarly to other answers posted before, one can transfer a running process to use "screen" retrospectively thanks to reptyr and then close the terminal. The steps are described in this post.
                                              The steps to take are:



                                              1. Suspend the process

                                              2. Resume the process in the background

                                              3. Disown the process

                                              4. Launch a screen session

                                              5. Find the PID of the process

                                              6. Use reptyr to take over the process





                                              share|improve this answer

























                                                2












                                                2








                                                2







                                                Similarly to other answers posted before, one can transfer a running process to use "screen" retrospectively thanks to reptyr and then close the terminal. The steps are described in this post.
                                                The steps to take are:



                                                1. Suspend the process

                                                2. Resume the process in the background

                                                3. Disown the process

                                                4. Launch a screen session

                                                5. Find the PID of the process

                                                6. Use reptyr to take over the process





                                                share|improve this answer













                                                Similarly to other answers posted before, one can transfer a running process to use "screen" retrospectively thanks to reptyr and then close the terminal. The steps are described in this post.
                                                The steps to take are:



                                                1. Suspend the process

                                                2. Resume the process in the background

                                                3. Disown the process

                                                4. Launch a screen session

                                                5. Find the PID of the process

                                                6. Use reptyr to take over the process






                                                share|improve this answer












                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer










                                                answered May 1 '18 at 20:15









                                                user308879user308879

                                                211




                                                211















                                                    protected by slm Jun 7 '18 at 2:39



                                                    Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                                                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?