From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr  5 14:20:51 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2615737B404
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat,  5 Apr 2003 14:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (alpha.siliconlandmark.com
	[209.69.98.4])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EB443FE9
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat,  5 Apr 2003 14:20:47 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com)
Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	h35MKlwV086564
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 17:20:47 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com)
Received: from localhost (andy@localhost)h35MKlpD086561
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 17:20:47 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.siliconlandmark.com: andy owned process doing
	-bs
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 17:20:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Andre Guibert de Bruet <andy@siliconlandmark.com>
To: current@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20030405171455.F77315@alpha.siliconlandmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: systat -v on -CURRENT
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 22:20:51 -0000

Hi,

I've noticed that 'systat -v' sometimes reports a negative disk activity
percentile. Has anyone else noticed this behavior?

Before I look into the problem, is someone already working on a fix?

Regards,

> Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant >
> Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/    >