From owner-cvs-all  Tue Oct  5 15:53:19 1999
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 67B8514D10; Tue,  5 Oct 1999 15:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@wintelcom.net)
Received: from localhost (bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26078;
	Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 16:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>,
	Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, thyerm@camtech.net.au,
	Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org,
	cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: top with < 1 second delay (was: cvs commit: src/bin/sleep sleep.1
 sleep.c)
In-Reply-To: <19991005091744.W40186@freebie.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910051608430.6368-100000@fw.wintelcom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:

> On Monday,  4 October 1999 at  9:35:10 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >>> I think it would be good to be able to run "top -s0.5"
> >>
> >> I don't think so. The output of top(1) (especially the CPU usage
> >> breakdown) becomes essentially useless if it is updated too often.
> >>
> >> As to adding funtionality to contributed software, we've already added
> >> functionality to top(1) (specifically, the -t flag and the 't'
> >> command). The maintainer never even bothered to reply when asked to
> >> review (and possibly integrate) the patches.
> >>
> >> Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no
> >
> >     top is kinda cpu-heavy.  Occassionally I'll use 's0<return>' just to
> >     watch the display go nuts, but beyond the laughs having a less then
> >     one second update time isn't all that useful for top.
> 
> I think that depends on what you're looking at.  I could imagine that
> people look at other things besides the CPU time breakdown.  I
> personally think that it would be a useful thing to have.

For some reason I think that at some point in time our 'top' did support
polling on fractions of a second, or at least some vendor's implementation
did.

This is so far back that the only other OS It could have been was SunOS's
'top' install when built from sources.  (the only other unix I was using
at the time when I remeber this functionality)

or maybe it was a dream...
-Alfred



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message