Hi!
I have just noticed this strange thing:
% top
last pid: 50566; load averages: 0.28, 0.26, 0.23 up 1+18:25:52 16:48:31
90 processes: 3 running, 87 sleeping
CPU states: 4.3% user, 0.0% nice, 6.2% system, 1.9% interrupt, 87.5% idle
Mem: 315M Active, 39M Inact, 120M Wired, 18M Cache, 60M Buf,
On 2005-05-11 13:50, Gavin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, yes! Good thought. This could affect the width of the USERNAME
column and push everything too far to the right. If this is the case,
I'd probably vote for optionally limiting the length of the username
column to, say, 8
On Thursday 12 May 2005 11:39, you wrote:
On 2005-05-11 13:50, Gavin Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, yes! Good thought. This could affect the width of the USERNAME
column and push everything too far to the right. If this is the case,
I'd probably vote for optionally limiting the
On 2005-05-12 13:49, Dominic Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 12 May 2005 11:39, you wrote:
That's an option too. I'm currently trying to get top to display
something like this (80 columns are used for text, so use a slightly
wider terminal to view this properly:
Dominic Marks wrote:
This includes at least the following changes (some not visible):
+ The entire header line is limited to the window width too.
+ The USERNAME column is hard-limited to 8 characters.
...
I suppose it could be argued that using usernames of that format is a poor
choice on my
On Thursday 12 May 2005 14:13, Tuomo Latto wrote:
Dominic Marks wrote:
This includes at least the following changes (some not visible):
+ The entire header line is limited to the window width too.
+ The USERNAME column is hard-limited to 8 characters.
...
I suppose it could be
On 5/12/05, Tuomo Latto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dominic Marks wrote:
This includes at least the following changes (some not visible):
+ The entire header line is limited to the window width too.
+ The USERNAME column is hard-limited to 8 characters.
...
If this behaviour could be
On 5/12/2005 8:12 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-05-12 13:49, Dominic Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 12 May 2005 11:39, you wrote:
That's an option too. I'm currently trying to get top to display
something like this (80 columns are used for text, so use a slightly
wider terminal
Jonathan Noack wrote:
What happens if the command is long enough to overrun the screen? Is
the thread information truncated and lost? I believe this was the
argument for making a separate column for the thread info.
How about leaving either SIZE or RES out, the one which makes less sense
On 5/12/2005 9:58 AM, Matthias Buelow wrote:
Jonathan Noack wrote:
What happens if the command is long enough to overrun the screen? Is
the thread information truncated and lost? I believe this was the
argument for making a separate column for the thread info.
How about leaving either SIZE or
Jonathan Noack wrote:
I think you will have a very hard time removing anything from top
because someone will always pipe up and say, I've been using
random_option since the days when computers were measured in
MILLIhertz... *shaking fist* Why not add an option to switch between
SIZE and
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:21:18 +0200, Matthias Buelow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Noack wrote:
I think you will have a very hard time removing anything from top
because someone will always pipe up and say, I've been using
random_option since the days when computers were measured in
Hello!
In message to freebsd-stable@freebsd.org sent Wed, 11 May 2005 13:50:07
+0100 you wrote:
Ah, yes! Good thought. This could affect the width of the USERNAME
column and push everything too far to the right. If this is the case,
I'd probably vote for optionally limiting the length of
On 2005-05-12 09:33, Scot Hetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/05, Tuomo Latto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dominic Marks wrote:
This includes at least the following changes (some not visible):
+ The entire header line is limited to the window width too.
+ The USERNAME column is hard-limited
On 2005-05-12 09:43, Jonathan Noack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/2005 8:12 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-05-12 13:49, Dominic Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ When the view is toggled between processes/threads, the NTHR part
becomes the thread ID of the particular thread.
Okay,
On 5/12/2005 10:21 AM, Matthias Buelow wrote:
Jonathan Noack wrote:
I think you will have a very hard time removing anything from top
because someone will always pipe up and say, I've been using
random_option since the days when computers were measured in
MILLIhertz... *shaking fist* Why not add
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 19:40:43 +0300
From: Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2005-05-12 09:33, Scot Hetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/12/05, Tuomo Latto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dominic Marks wrote:
This includes at least the following changes (some not
Kevin Oberman wrote:
top(1) could check the width of the display and tailor the display to
that width. May screen based tools already do this and it provides a lot
of flexibility. It's best to check the width for width on every update
so that the screen (if its a soft terminal) may be
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 18:26 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-05-10 10:41, Andre Guibert de Bruet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Skip Ford wrote:
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATETIME WCPUCPU
COMM
AND
1352 skip 1 960
19 matches
Mail list logo
