On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> "Dstat is a versatile replacement for vmstat, iostat and ifstat. Dstat
> overcomes some of the limitations and adds some extra features."
>
> One important feature is missing compared to vmstat, however: vmstat has
> the ability to not only print reports once per second, but also over
> longer intervals, which is very useful if you want to measure long-term
> disk throughput.
>
> 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 ?
If you do:
dstat --noupdate 7
it should behave completely the same as vmstat. If you do:
dstat 7
It will just give intermediate updates, ie. the first second an average
for the that second, then an average of the last 2 seconds, then an
average of the last 3 seconds. The net result should be the same after 7
seconds.
BTW
dstat 7 | cat
is the same as:
dstat --noupdate --nocolor 7
> So here is my wish: dstat would be even _more_ useful if it would average,
> just as vmstat does :)
I think it does. In fact, if you run both a vmstat and a dstat with aprox.
the same interval, the numbers should be comparable (if not the same).
If it doesn't, it is a bug and I need more information :)
-- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
