What are the differences between
$ nohup foo
and
$ foo &
and
$ foo &
$ disown
Let's first look at what happens if a program is started from an interactive shell (connected to a terminal) without & (and without any redirection). So let's assume you've just typed foo:
foo is created.SIGHUP, it also sends a SIGHUP to the process (which normally causes the process to terminate).Now, let's look what happens if you put the process in the background, that is, type foo &:
foo is created.jobs and can be accessed using %n (where n is the job number).fg, in which case it continues as if you would not have used & on it (and if it was stopped due to trying to read from standard input, it now can proceed to read from the terminal).SIGHUP, it also sends a SIGHUP to the process. Depending on the shell and possibly on options set for the shell, when terminating the shell it will also send a SIGHUP to the process.Now disown removes the job from the shell's job list, so all the subpoints above don't apply any more (including the process being sent a SIGHUP by the shell). However note that it still is connected to the terminal, so if the terminal is destroyed (which can happen if it was a pty, like those created by xterm or ssh, and the controlling program is terminated, by closing the xterm or terminating the SSH connection), the program will fail as soon as it tries to read from standard input or write to standard output.
What nohup does, on the other hand, is to effectively separate the process from the terminal:
EOF).nohup.out, so the program won't fail for writing to standard output if the terminal fails, so whatever the process writes is not lost.SIGHUP (thus the name).Note that nohup does not remove the process from the shell's job control and also doesn't put it in the background (but since a foreground nohup job is more or less useless, you'd generally put it into the background using &). For example, unlike with disown, the shell will still tell you when the nohup job has completed (unless the shell is terminated before, of course).
So to summarize:
& puts the job in the background, that is, makes it block on attempting to read input, and makes the shell not wait for its completion.disown removes the process from the shell's job control, but it still leaves it connected to the terminal. One of the results is that the shell won't send it a SIGHUP. Obviously, it can only be applied to background jobs, because you cannot enter it when a foreground job is running.nohup disconnects the process from the terminal, redirects its output to nohup.out and shields it from SIGHUP. One of the effects (the naming one) is that the process won't receive any sent SIGHUP. It is completely independent from job control and could in principle be used also for foreground jobs (although that's not very useful).nohup alone doesn't save a google-chrome process from being closed, when the terminal from which it was started is closed?
(foo&) subshell
nohup disconnects from the controlling terminal is wrong. nohup closes some standard I/O streams and opens them elsewhere. It does not change session, attempt to affect the session's connection to a controlling terminal, or deal in process groups.
Using & causes the program to run in the background, so you'll get a new shell prompt instead of blocking until the program ends. nohup and disown are largely unrelated; they suppress SIGHUP (hangup) signals so the program isn't automatically killed when the controlling terminal is closed. nohup does this when the job first begins. If you don't nohup a job when it begins, you can use disown to modify a running job; with no arguments it modifies the current job, which is the one that was just backgrounded
nohup and disown both can be said to suppress SIGHUP, but in different ways. nohup makes the program ignore the signal initially (the program may change this). nohup also tries to arrange for the program not to have a controlling terminal, so that it won't be sent SIGHUP by the kernel when the terminal is closed. disown is purely internal to the shell; it causes the shell not to send SIGHUP when it terminates.
disown removing the job from the jobs list. If you don't specify an option, it does remove it from the jobs list. However, if you specify the -h option, each jobspec is not removed from the table. Instead, it makes it so that SIGHUP is not sent to the job if the shell receives a SIGHUP.
& does not give you a terminal, it detaches stdin from the process and causes it to run in the background, but both stdout and stderr is still attached to the current tty. This means that you may get text from different programs mixed up together, which can be quite annoying if you do gimp & and get lots of GTK+ errors while trying to use that tty for something else.
Here is my experience trying to run soffice in the background, following a non-terminating command (e.g. tail). For this example I will use sleep 100.
In all the cases below I execute like this:
./scriptfile
<Ctl-C>
#!/bin/bash
/opt/libreoffice4.4/program/soffice -invisible -nofirststartwizard &
sleep 100
I see soffice logs / by pressing Ctrl-C soffice stops
#!/bin/bash
nohup /opt/libreoffice4.4/program/soffice -invisible -nofirststartwizard &
sleep 100
I don't see soffice logs / by pressing Ctrl-C soffice stops
#!/bin/bash
/opt/libreoffice4.4/program/soffice -invisible -nofirststartwizard & disown
sleep 100
I see soffice logs / by pressing Ctrl-C soffice stops
#!/bin/bash
setsid /opt/libreoffice4.4/program/soffice -invisible -nofirststartwizard &
sleep 100
I see soffice logs / by pressing Ctrl-C soffice DOES NOT STOP
To save space:
nohup setsid .. : does not show logs / soffice DOES NOT STOP on Ctrl-C
nohup with & disown at the end : does not show logs / soffice stops on Ctrl-C
nohup ⟨command⟩ & disown the created process does not stop on Ctrl+C.
soffice? soffice command seems to have something different. So I considered adding it here as a rule exception. e.g. when using: nohup .. & , pressing Ctrl-c normally does not cause the command to stop, but with soffice it does. I wait until someone steps on this and explains why this happens with soffice :)
nohup soffice & and pressed Ctrl+C. Nothing happened, as expected.
Short answer:
& when you want your command to run in the background, so you can run the next one without waiting for it to finishnohup if you want your command to ignore the SIGHUP signal, so when you close the terminal or log out from ssh session the process keeps runningdisown if you forgot to run the command with nohup and want to log out without killing the process (it will disown all processes in the background). To put a process in the background and disown it:
bg to put stopped process to the backgrounddisown to make process ignore terminal terminationSee also the daemonize(1) utility, which handles all of the chores about running a "true background" process. As of its docs:
daemonize runs a command as a Unix daemon. As defined in W. Richard Stevens' 1990 book, Unix Network Programming (Addison-Wesley, 1990), a daemon is “a process that executes `in the background' (i.e., without an associated terminal or login shell) either waiting for some event to occur, or waiting to perform some specified task on a periodic basis.” Upon startup, a typical daemon program will:
Most programs that are designed to be run as daemons do that work for themselves. However, you'll occasionally run across one that does not. When you must run a daemon program that does not properly make itself into a true Unix daemon, you can use daemonize to force it to run as a true daemon.
It superseeds all of the &/nohup/disown mess.
& puts the job in the background, i.e. makes it block input from the shell, and makes the shell not wait for its completion.
nohup and disown both can be said to suppress stdin from the terminal and SIGHUP, but in different ways. nohup works when the job is initialized, disown works after the fact.
nohup also redirects stderr to stdout and stdout to $HOME/nohup.out. It does not block other signals being sent indirectly from the original shell.
disown does not redirect stdout or stderr. It simply removes the process from the shells job table, so no signals will be indirectly sent to the process from the original shell.
SIGTERM, SIGKILL, SIGINT, SIGQUIT, etc. from the parent process. This may result in a process exiting when you expect it to not to.
foo &!which should be equal to disowning it right from the start.set -mto enable job control. See unix.stackexchange.com/questions/196603/…