Chad Mynhier wrote: > On 10/15/07, Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: > >> Seems good. Even great. >> >> However, a bit of effort has been made to provide "more user friendly" >> output >> for many utilities. For example, df(1M): >> >> >> -h Like -k, except that sizes are >> in a more human readable format. >> >> Was any thought given to this? >> >> Just a poorly thought out question from my questionable mind... >> >> - jek3 >> > > My original thought was to provide -u (microsecond) and -n > (nanosecond) options to allow users to specify the resolution. For > these I would have left the default resolution at milliseconds for > backwards-compatibility. That was the closest I came to the -h/-k > equivalent. > That's makes sense to me, so why were the options dropped from the consideration? > But I think you're actually asking for output like this: > That's what I thought but only if '-h' had been provided on the command line.
> # ./ptime -m -p `pgrep syslogd` > > real 49h06m53s > user 35.72ms > sys 34.10ms > trap 154.1us > tflt 0 > dflt 0 > kflt 0 > lock 343h48m03s > slp 245h34m21s > lat 65.53ms > stop 43.64us > # > > Part of me wants to argue against this, given that order-of-magnitude > differences jump out from the default output, but this wouldn't be > changing the default, so my argument would have no teeth. > > I'll add this to the modifications. > > Thanks, > Chad > Stace
