Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:24:18 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> Subject: Re: "netstat -m" and sendfile(2) statistics in STABLE Message-ID: <20040618062418.GU61448@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20040618011745.W72823@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20040618094356.O22477@is.park.rambler.ru> <20040618011745.W72823@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> [040617 23:20] wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Igor Sysoev wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I read objections in cvs-all@ about netstat's output after MFC > >of sendfile(2) statistics. > > > >How about "netstat -ms" ? > > > >Right now this switch combination is treated as simple "-m" in both -STABLE > >and -CURRENT. > > > > > >Igor Sysoev > >http://sysoev.ru/en/ > > I would prefer that sfbufs statistics either be kept in netstat -m, OR > added to an entirely different program (perhaps vmstat). Making yet > another netstat flag just because we're scared of confusing users is a > noble compromise, but will in the end just make things more confusing. I was going to suggest vmstat now that sfbufs are used for so many other things than just "sendfile bufs". -- - Alfred Perlstein - Research Engineering Development Inc. - email: bright@mu.org cell: 408-480-4684
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040618062418.GU61448>