Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 13:45:02 +0200 From: Wolfram Schneider <wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Subject: Re: New options for lastcomm(1) Message-ID: <199507241145.NAA09809@caramba.cs.tu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <199507240130.SAA17222@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> References: <199507231009.MAA01071@localhost> <199507240130.SAA17222@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rodney W. Grimes writes: >> I use accounting as poor man's (k)trace, for debugging and >> optimization of shell/perl scripts. > >Why do that when we have ktrace in FreeBSD??? ktrace is to low level :-) ktrace.out grow rapidly. Ktrace is slow, and you must call ktrace explict. Accounting run in 'background' for all processes. I don't want know which system call start sh(1), I want see how many subshell (heavy system time) or if perl use exec instead 'sh -c'. E.g. start accounting and make world. You see thousands sh(1), test(1), cpp(1), gzip(1) etc. Wolfram
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507241145.NAA09809>