Hi folks,

i am new to screen command. i use screen command now frequently to monitor server logs in multiple split screens. but when i leave the office i just close the terminal. Is this ok or do i need to close that screen session?

Pls advise.

Your description is a bit on the ambiguous side, but if I'm understanding you correctly, yes, you can close the terminal window. It may be best practice to lock your screen (usu. <CTRL> + <ALT> + <L> or from a menu). If you're opening another TTY session, you can just press <CTRL> + <D> to log out, and <CTRL> + <ALT> + <F7> to switch back to the GUI.

Is it your intention to close all sessions in the terminal?

If not, detach then exit using
Ctrl then A then D and then This leaves the screen running on the target.

If you intend to close them, then Yes, exiting your terminal is just fine (unless something is running in screen...?)

Thanks guys,

to be more ambiguous,

when i come to office, i open terminal, type Screen and execute few commands that monitor logs, for example :

#screen
#tail -f /var/log/exim_mainlog
Ctrl + a
ctrl + c
#tail -f /var/log/maillog
Ctrl + a
Ctrl + S [To split the screen]

now you can see two live monitoring services are runnign on.
when i leave the office, i just close the terminal.
on the next day, same procedure, i open terminal, type screen, and type above things.

now what my doubt is, the screen session which i started yesterday to montior the logs is still running on the target machine even after i close the terminal?








actually i close the terminal when leavign the office, so i think screen commands i executed

If all you did was close the terminal window (with the X in the top corner) then the screen session is still running.

it's ok...

but if you like what it does depends on your intent

example: i telnet to pheebor.com and login as foo, i run screen, and in one (window) i run updatedb(1) (builds db for locate(1). then i ponder logging out and it's effects.

it might be my intent if I ^D^D that terminates telnet on server side, that updatedb stops running ... it might be my intent it continues running

did i run
$ screen &
or
$ screen

and same question for apps run in screen. now also note sh(1) has forking and job control, and see sh(1) manpage about whether sh(1) will attempt to terminates job controlled jobs when it exists. (and that not all sh support job control, etc)

and the answer is simple: use ps(1) to see if screen closes (do this from a different console), and see if things screen was running that you didn't exist are active

if they are and you don't want that: well that's what GNU screen loves to do: gives you ways to do as intended with your virtual consoles in a console

^ this

Use "screen -ls" to list your currently open screen sessions. You can reconnect to them with "screen -r name".

I'm a little confused though, if you open a terminal and run a tail every day, why are you running screen in the first place? The point of screen is so that you can disconnect/reconnect to a terminal session without stopping the processes running inside. This seems to be the opposite of how you're trying to use it. In other words, why are you using screen when you're just running a tail and you re-open it every morning regardless?

1 members found this post helpful.

I've noticed in my experience that if I close a terminal with a screen session inside, the screen session still thinks it's attached. So if you see
after the session you want to re-connect to, use
This detaches the session, then reattaches to it with the current terminal.