On 2006-09-10 18:04, stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:57:05AM -0400, Bob Hall wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:56:31AM -0400, stan wrote:
Can someone explain to me why top's handling of multi processor
status display is different on FreeBSD, than it is on Linux?
Can someone explain to me why top's handling of multi processor
status display is different on FreeBSD, than it is on Linux?
On Linux you can enter a 1 and the status header provides a display
for each processor. I think this is a lot more informative that the
FreeBSD way of doing this. Or am I
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:56:31AM -0400, stan wrote:
Can someone explain to me why top's handling of multi processor
status display is different on FreeBSD, than it is on Linux?
Open source started with the concept of individuals hacking the source
code to get the features they want. The
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:57:05AM -0400, Bob Hall wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:56:31AM -0400, stan wrote:
Can someone explain to me why top's handling of multi processor
status display is different on FreeBSD, than it is on Linux?
Open source started with the concept of individuals
In the last episode (Sep 10), stan said:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:57:05AM -0400, Bob Hall wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:56:31AM -0400, stan wrote:
Can someone explain to me why top's handling of multi processor
status display is different on FreeBSD, than it is on Linux?
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 07:57:52PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Sep 10), stan said:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:57:05AM -0400, Bob Hall wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:56:31AM -0400, stan wrote:
Can someone explain to me why top's handling of multi processor
status
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 06:04:04PM -0400, stan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:57:05AM -0400, Bob Hall wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:56:31AM -0400, stan wrote:
Can someone explain to me why top's handling of multi processor
status display is different on FreeBSD, than it is on
