On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 11:26:36AM +0200, Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dstat also has an option to print a report less frequent, but it only
> > does a random sampling (i.e. "vmstat 7" outputs a report for 7 secodns,
> > every 7 seconds, while dstat outputs a report for the last second, every 7
> > seconds, which is much less useful, as the variance is very high).
>
> Hmm, are you sure about what you're saying ?
No, I was just guessing form the output. with, say, "vmstat 7", I get,
in the disk/io r column, values like 723, 726, 850 etc., while a dstat 7
running in parallel tends to give me values like 506k, 1003k, 502k and so
on, while I was streaming a few files on my vidoe recorder system, and so
it looked as if vmstat would give me averages while dstat doesn't.
However, dstat is definitely doing averaging, as further testing showed
(dstat is my new toy...).
It's possible that the difference in starting time of dstat and vmstat did
the trick, as I can reproduce the different behaviour in only in about 4
out of 10 cases.
So, sorry for the bogus report.
> I think it does.
It does indeed. I still wonder why vmstat tends to give me nicer numbers,
though, but it might just have been luck.
--
The choice of a
-----==- _GNU_
----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
