On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:11:45AM EST, Gerhard Siegesmund wrote:
> Hello CJ
>
> I, for example, use the following script to monitor the number of
> messages on my mailbox:
>
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> FETCHMAIL='/usr/bin/fetchmail'
Hello CJ
I, for example, use the following script to monitor the number of
messages on my mailbox:
#!/bin/sh
FETCHMAIL='/usr/bin/fetchmail'
while true; do
$FETCHMAIL -c | sed -e 's/.* \([0-9]*\) messages* (\([0-9]*\) see
Michael Grant writes:
> Another option is to update the info in the status line in your shell
> prompt. That's what I do. It then updates the status line when you
> print your prompt (each time you press return). It obviously only
> changes when your prompt gets printed, but if you're working
Chris Jones writes:
> The problem is that, if for some reason or other, I terminate the
> GNU/sreen instance, the orphaned processes still run under the init
> process.
I also have this problem. One of my backticks is
backtick 1 0 0 tail -f ~/.emacs.d/irc-activity
which is a file that Ema
Another option is to update the info in the status line in your shell
prompt. That's what I do. It then updates the status line when you
print your prompt (each time you press return). It obviously only
changes when your prompt gets printed, but if you're working in that
window, then that's quit
Hi Malte,
just going to chip in with my own 2 cents - your points are all valid,
except for one point. Screen is actually not too good with running
constantly refreshing backticks in my experience. It will block while
firing up the processes, rendering it unusable for a couple seconds
every n
Hi Chris,
Sorry if my original post was unclear.
Some data obviously needs to be updated frequently to be useful.
My intention was to avoid the overhead of having three or four scripts
take off every second or so.
[..]
For CPU & network activity where a one-second refresh interval makes
bett
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 08:31:18AM EST, Malte Skoruppa wrote:
[..]
> >Thinking I would avoid the overhead of starting new processes,
> >particularly for stuff that requires frequent updates in order to be
> >relevant .. such as CPU utilization, I thought I'd write scripts
> >that run in the back
Hi Chris,
here's a rather simple idea...
Instead of having your scripts loop infinitely, like yours do, and
relying on the
mentioned behavior of the backtick command when the lifespan and autorefresh
parameters are zero (that is to say, the last line of output is always
printed in the
hardsta
I have written a few scripts that display monitoring counters on the
hardstatus line.
Thinking I would avoid the overhead of starting new processes,
particularly for stuff that requires frequent updates in order to be
relevant .. such as CPU utilization, I thought I'd write scripts that
run in th
10 matches
Mail list logo
