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.
>
> But I think you're actually asking for output like this:
>
Uh, not really.
I would be equally happy with your original thought about using "-u"
and "-n".
Speaking just for my self, either change (or none) is acceptable.
("None" would
be a little disappointing, but I wouldn't argue if you decided on that.)
I'd suggest that you propose the method *you* prefer.
- thanks for thinking about this,
- jek3
> # ./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
>
