nohup vs screen — which is better for long running process?

Question

Background: I have a long running script that makes database schema changes that has output I would want to check after the migration. I would want to write this to a file.<

Answer 1

Both have there own + and - :

nohup:

1. nohup is good to use for running procs in background when proc don't need any user input like httpd server or any other server proc like that.
2. nohup does create log in dir of proc execution. log file name default is nohup.out
3. It avoids proc getting killed due to mistaken ctrl+C , ctrl+D . Just a safe guard.
4. It's normally installed by default with basic setup. No need to install separately like screen.
5. It's functionality is very specific to running a job in background and dumping output. Low memory intensive.

screen:

1. Got to install separately. You can NOT go to a data center or login to
   any box and expect screen is present.
2. Good to manage multiple terminals on separate subjects and give them name.
3. Its more of terminal manager and not a command to run a proc for infinite time like nohup.
4. It's more suitable if proc need user input. Like install
   scripts, yes/no prompts.
5. With tones of features, comes it's memory. But agreed, some are really great features.

To conclude, both are two different things made with different agendas so comparison is difficult.

Cheers!