Bug 91034
| Summary: | [patch] minor fix to iostat(8) so that columns line up with 128KB xfers | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Base System | Reporter: | rec | ||||
| Component: | bin | Assignee: | freebsd-bugs (Nobody) <bugs> | ||||
| Status: | Open --- | ||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | Keywords: | patch | ||||
| Priority: | Normal | ||||||
| Version: | Unspecified | ||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
On 2005-12-28 21:16, Robert Cousins <rec@RCousins.com> wrote: > Iostat's output can be kind of ugly under USF2 with 128KB > transfers. Here is an example: > > tty ad0 ad1 cpu > tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id > 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 > 0 180 0.00 0 0.00 128.00 8 1.00 48 0 0 0 51 > 0 61 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 > 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 49 0 0 0 51 > > The problem comes from the KB/t column which goes one character too wide. > > The patch I'm submitting notices when this value is >= 100 and > drops from 2 decimals to 1 in this case. The result is an output > like this: > > tty ad0 ad1 cpu > tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id > 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 > 0 180 0.00 0 0.00 128.0 8 1.00 48 0 0 0 51 > 0 61 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 > 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 49 0 0 0 51 The misaligned dots seem a bit ugly. Is it ok to use %6.2Lf as the format specifier, widening the KB columns a bit to fit the new length of the text? On 2006-01-03 22:40, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote: >On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2005-12-28 21:16, Robert Cousins <rec@RCousins.com> wrote: >>> Iostat's output can be kind of ugly under USF2 with 128KB >>> transfers. Here is an example: >>> ... >>> The patch I'm submitting notices when this value is >= 100 and >>> drops from 2 decimals to 1 in this case. The result is an output >>> like this: >>> >>> tty ad0 ad1 cpu >>> tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id >>> 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 >>> 0 180 0.00 0 0.00 128.0 8 1.00 48 0 0 0 51 >>> 0 61 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 >>> 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 49 0 0 0 51 >> >> The misaligned dots seem a bit ugly. > > Indeed. They are like the -h (hideous or human-unreadable) output > in many utilities. Exponential notation and columns that aren't > lined up are hard for humans to read. > > >Is it ok to use %6.2Lf as > >the format specifier, widening the KB columns a bit to fit the > >new length of the text? > > No. There is space in the above, but most systems have more than 2 drives > (most of mine have 6, with 4 physical drives and extras from atapicam > duplicating acd0 and cam giving a virtual drive pass0). Info about 3 > drives just fits in 80 columns with %5.2Lf format. It results in 77 > coumns being used. %6.2Lf format would result in 80 columns being used > and thus ugly line wrap on some terminals (or the number of drives being > limited to 2). So, there's no way to keep the pretty format of current iostat output *and* account for larger transfer speeds? :-( Looking at an awk-formatted version of the iostat output it seems that even with 3 disks we *do* hae 3 columns to spare until 79 columns are reached: $ iostat ad0 da0 pass0 | awk '{printf "%-78s|\n",$0}' tty ad0 da0 pass0 cpu | tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id | 63 514 7.10 13 0.09 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 2 0 96 | $ Is this enough for adding an extra column to every KB/t column and still keeping everything under 80 columns? On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:50:09PM +0000 I heard the voice of Giorgos Keramidas, and lo! it spake thus: > > So, there's no way to keep the pretty format of current iostat > output *and* account for larger transfer speeds? :-( Drop to one digit after the decimal point? 100-byte granularity sounds reasonable for such an overview tool. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2006-01-03 22:40, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>> On 2005-12-28 21:16, Robert Cousins <rec@RCousins.com> wrote: >>>> Iostat's output can be kind of ugly under USF2 with 128KB >>>> transfers. Here is an example: >>>> ... >>>> The patch I'm submitting notices when this value is >= 100 and >>>> drops from 2 decimals to 1 in this case. The result is an output >>>> like this: >>> ... >>> The misaligned dots seem a bit ugly. >> ... >>> Is it ok to use %6.2Lf as >>> the format specifier, widening the KB columns a bit to fit the >>> new length of the text? >> >> No. There is space in the above, but most systems have more than 2 drives >> ... > > So, there's no way to keep the pretty format of current iostat output > *and* account for larger transfer speeds? :-( Maybe always drop %5.1Lf format for disk MB/s. If the value is < 0.10 MB/s then it is so low that you don't really care if it is 0.01 or 0.09. However, floppies have a top speed of about 0.04, and speeds below 0.10 are all too common for faster disks doing too many seeks. > Looking at an awk-formatted version of the iostat output it seems that > even with 3 disks we *do* hae 3 columns to spare until 79 columns are > reached: > > $ iostat ad0 da0 pass0 | awk '{printf "%-78s|\n",$0}' > tty ad0 da0 pass0 cpu | > tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id | > 63 514 7.10 13 0.09 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 2 0 96 | > $ > > Is this enough for adding an extra column to every KB/t column and > still keeping everything under 80 columns? No, since there are actually only 2 columns to spare. "id" sometimes takes an extra column since it is sometimes 100. I hacked its format in rev.1.25 of iostat.c from %3.0f to " %2.0f". The space keeps it from running into "in", and reducing the field width keeps the line length the same except when cpu is 100 when it doesn't fit in %2.0f. As mentioned in the log message for this, larger fixes are needed. I think they should be something like "iostat -w N | awk '{printf "%*.*s %*.*s ...\n", $1, $2, ...}'" where the awk script calculates the column widths dynamically and is actually a library function. This should also work for ps and df. It's easier for them since all the input can be read before doing any output. Except I'd like ps to have a "repeat" arg like iostat, for watching a few selected processes better than top(1) or repeatedly rerunning ps(1) can do. Bruce For bugs matching the following criteria: Status: In Progress Changed: (is less than) 2014-06-01 Reset to default assignee and clear in-progress tags. Mail being skipped Keyword:
patch
or patch-ready
– in lieu of summary line prefix:
[patch]
* bulk change for the keyword
* summary lines may be edited manually (not in bulk).
Keyword descriptions and search interface:
<https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/describekeywords.cgi>
|
Iostat's output can be kind of ugly under USF2 with 128KB transfers. Here is an example: tty ad0 ad1 cpu tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 0 180 0.00 0 0.00 128.00 8 1.00 48 0 0 0 51 0 61 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 49 0 0 0 51 The problem comes from the KB/t column which goes one character too wide. The patch I'm submitting notices when this value is >= 100 and drops from 2 decimals to 1 in this case. The result is an output like this: tty ad0 ad1 cpu tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 0 180 0.00 0 0.00 128.0 8 1.00 48 0 0 0 51 0 61 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 50 0 0 0 50 0 60 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 49 0 0 0 51 I find this much easier to read. (A better fix would be to drop down to 1 decimal digit for all values but I figured that would be up to you, not me.) Fix: My fix is trivial but functional. You probably have a better way to do it. How-To-Repeat: Run 'iostat 1' on any machine with periodic (bursty) I/O on a file system. The results will be as shown above.