sleep command using screen command is not displayed in ps

.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?

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

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

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?

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

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

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?

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

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

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

edited yesterday

Monty Harder

22415

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

asked 2 days ago

Rajkumar Natarajan

1447

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

add a comment |

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

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

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

 # ...

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

Jeff Schaller♦

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 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

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'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

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)

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Strainger

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 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

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
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

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

Name

Required, but never shown

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

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.

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♦

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 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

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'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

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.

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♦

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 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

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'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

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.

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♦

45k1164147

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.

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♦

45k1164147

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

Jeff Schaller♦

45k1164147

answered 2 days ago

Jeff Schaller♦

45k1164147

answered 2 days ago

Jeff Schaller♦

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 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

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'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

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 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

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'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

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

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

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)

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Strainger

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 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

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)

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Strainger

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 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

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)

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Strainger

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)

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Strainger

New contributor

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Strainger

New contributor

answered yesterday

Strainger

answered yesterday

Strainger

New contributor

Strainger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

(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

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 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

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

(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

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

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.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Jtdcftul