On 22/05/2025 05:04, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote: >> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 08:43:37AM +0000, Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) wrote: >> [...] >>>> After this change, sample output (default, no "-a" specified): >>>> >>>> Status: postcopy-active >>>> Time (ms): total=40504, setup=14, down=145 >>>> RAM info: >>>> Bandwidth (mbps): 6102.65 >>>> Sizes (KB): psize=4, total=16777992 >>>> transferred=37673019, remain=2136404, >>>> precopy=3, multifd=26108780, postcopy=11563855 >>>> Pages: normal=9394288, zero=600672, rate_per_sec=185875 >>>> Others: dirty_syncs=3, dirty_pages_rate=278378, postcopy_req=4078 >>> >>> (Feel free to ignore my comment if you have reached a consensus.) >>> >>> Putting multiple fields in one line is a true need for human reading? >> >> It definitely helps me but I agree that can be subjective. So I'm happy to >> collect opinions. >> >> So my above layout was trying to leverage more on screens where width is >> bigger than the height (which is pretty much the default). > > I think perhaps the problem with the on-one-line layout is that the grouping > is wrong; grouping by unit probably doesn't make sense. > > So it makes sense to me to have: > Sizes: psize=4/KB > Transfer: total=16777992 kB transferred=37673019 kB remain=11563855 kB > Pages: normal=9394288 zero=600672 > Page rates: transferred=185875/s dirtied=278378/s > Other: dirty_sync=3 postcopy_req=4078
Oh, I vote this !!, more clear to me.
