On 09/01/15 11:18, Linda Walsh wrote: > > The blocks are a bit uninteresting: > > 7+0 records in > 7+0 records out > 6+0 records in > .... > > 11+0 records out > 8+0 records in > 8+0 records out > 2+0 records in > ... > 2+0 records out > 15+0 records in > 15+0 records out > --- > > Tells me nothing -- not size of recs, nor time.. nothing interesting. > > What I'd rather see: > > 983040 bytes (983 KB) copied, 0.0135631 s, 72.5 MB/s > 327680 bytes (328 KB) copied, 0.00869602 s, 37.7 MB/s > 393216 bytes (393 KB) copied, 0.00978036 s, 40.2 MB/s > 458752 bytes (459 KB) copied, 0.00906681 s, 50.6 MB/s > ... > 65536 bytes (66 KB) copied, 0.00843794 s, 7.8 MB/s > 65536 bytes (66 KB) copied, 0.00845365 s, 7.8 MB/s > 983040 bytes (983 KB) copied, 0.0128341 s, 76.6 MB/s > 262144 bytes (262 KB) copied, 0.01019 s, 25.7 MB/s > 262144 bytes (262 KB) copied, 0.00933135 s, 28.1 MB/s > 589824 bytes (590 KB) copied, 0.0124597 s, 47.3 MB/s > 1048576 bytes (1.0 MB) copied, 0.0138104 s, 75.9 MB/s > ---
There is a new status=progress option that will output the above format every second, but on a single updated line. > (Which, BTW, uses program intelligence to use the same output units as > the user used for input units, rather than giving them units in an > unfamiliar dialect). this has been discussed previously. thanks, Pádraig
