Hi Ole,
you did not (yet) comment the BUG, so I've had a closer look
at the reported issue:
vmstat 1 2 2>/dev/null | tail -n1 | awk '{print $7*$8}' ||
vm_stat 1 | head -n 3 | tail -n1 | awk '{print $9*$10}'
The idea seems to be "run 'vmstat' and run 'vm_stat' in case
'vmstat' failed". But in
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Thomas Sattler wrote:
Hi Ole,
you did not (yet) comment the BUG, so I've had a closer look at the
reported issue:
vmstat 1 2 2>/dev/null | tail -n1 | awk '{print $7*$8}' ||
vm_stat 1 | head -n 3 | tail -n1 | awk '{print $9*$10}'
Better `awk` usage:
vmstat 1 2 2>/dev
>> vmstat 1 2 2>/dev/null | tail -n1 | awk '{print $7*$8}' ||
>> vm_stat 1 | head -n 3 | tail -n1 | awk '{print $9*$10}'
>
> Better `awk` usage:
>
> vmstat 1 2 2>/dev/null | awk 'END {print $7*$8}' ||
> vm_stat 1 | awk 'NR == 3 {print $9*$10 ; exit}'
Still the same problem: Whether 'vm_stat' i
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Thomas Sattler wrote:
vmstat 1 2 2>/dev/null | tail -n1 | awk '{print $7*$8}' ||
vm_stat 1 | head -n 3 | tail -n1 | awk '{print $9*$10}'
Better `awk` usage:
vmstat 1 2 2>/dev/null | awk 'END {print $7*$8}' ||
vm_stat 1 | awk 'NR == 3 {print $9*$10 ; exit}'
Still the s
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Benjamin R. Haskell
wrote:
> Not sure $9*$10 is the right expression to use. "reactive * pageins"? On a
> very lightly-loaded server, that gets: 998807890080
The wanted expression is pageouts * pageins. The idea is that pageouts
are OK (server pages out unused pa
>> This was the fourth reply with the output of 'vm_stat',
>
> (Were any of those replies on-list?)
No, only yours came via the list.
>> P.S.: Why do we use 'awk' within 'perl'?
>
> Because it runs on the remote machine, and `awk` has less
> overhead than `perl`. (Though since it's waiting for
>> This happend last week with v20120222, I'll give it another
>> try with v20120322 today.
_creating_ these files seems to work with v20120322. (I created
nearly 4,400,000 files by now.) But now deleting them is still
an issue. Luckily it's much easier to trigger this way. :-)
> As you probably
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Thomas Sattler
wrote:
>>> P.S.: Why do we use 'awk' within 'perl'?
>>
>> Because it runs on the remote machine, and `awk` has less
>> overhead than `perl`. (Though since it's waiting for at
>> least 1 second to gather stats, it may not be a
>> significant overhea
Hi Ole, thanks for the reply.
Not quite. True, I am observing the same thing (empty files 12
through 20 below), but what is bothering me is file #11, which has 13
bytes, and could have easily fit into file #10 (1092 bytes) and still
been well below the 1200 threshold.
Another way to have asked t
