procps 2.x vs. procps 3.x

procps 2.x vs. procps 3.x

[Dan Kegel]

Albert Cahalan wrote in message "[ANNOUNCE] procps 3.1.3":
> This release includes user selection in top, the sysctl -e
> option needed to support the Red Hat 8.0 boot scripts, and
> the use of /proc/*/wchan on recent 2.5.xx kernels.
> 
> For those of you still upgrading from procps 2.0.xx releases,
> you can expect:
 > ...
> There's a procps-feedback@lists.sf.net mailing list you can
> use for feature requests, bug reports, and so on. Use it!

and

Robert Love wrote in message "[announce] procps 2.0.11":
> Rik and I are pleased to announce version 2.0.11 of procps, the package
> that contains ps, top, free, vmstat, etc.
> 
> Newer versions of procps are required for 2.5 kernels.
 > ...
> 
> Procps discussion, bugs, and patches are welcome at:
> 	procps-list@redhat.com

Which one should distributions use?
Or is that a matter of taste?

- Dan

Re: procps 2.x vs. procps 3.x

[Brandon Low]

Well at Gentoo, we are kinda using both right now.  We've noticed
some querkiness with the 3.x series where TOP will miss certain
characters in output, but the 3.x series is much prettier and
feature rich than the 2.x series.  On the other hand, 2.x is 
consistently more up to date with kernel changes since RML and Riel
maintain it and are intimately familiar with current kernel
development.  

For the moment, we are on 2.x in stable and 3.x in unstable,
awaiting fixage for the minor querks of 3.x before switching up 
to 3.x for the stable.

Hope that helps,

Brandon Low
Gentoo Linux Kernel Release Manager


On Thu, 12/12/02 at 17:53:13 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Albert Cahalan wrote in message "[ANNOUNCE] procps 3.1.3":
> > This release includes user selection in top, the sysctl -e
> > option needed to support the Red Hat 8.0 boot scripts, and
> > the use of /proc/*/wchan on recent 2.5.xx kernels.
> > 
> > For those of you still upgrading from procps 2.0.xx releases,
> > you can expect:
>  > ...
> > There's a procps-feedback@lists.sf.net mailing list you can
> > use for feature requests, bug reports, and so on. Use it!
> 
> and
> 
> Robert Love wrote in message "[announce] procps 2.0.11":
> > Rik and I are pleased to announce version 2.0.11 of procps, the package
> > that contains ps, top, free, vmstat, etc.
> > 
> > Newer versions of procps are required for 2.5 kernels.
>  > ...
> > 
> > Procps discussion, bugs, and patches are welcome at:
> > 	procps-list@redhat.com
> 
> Which one should distributions use?
> Or is that a matter of taste?
> 
> - Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: procps 2.x vs. procps 3.x

[Albert D. Cahalan]

Brandon Low writes:

> Well at Gentoo, we are kinda using both right now.  We've noticed
> some querkiness with the 3.x series where TOP will miss certain
> characters in output,

If nobody else knows about it, it's not too likely to get fixed.
Send bug reports to procps-feedback@lists.sf.net please.

Before you do: "certain characters" will need some explaining.
(position? value? completely gone or turned into a space?)

> but the 3.x series is much prettier and
> feature rich than the 2.x series.  On the other hand, 2.x is 
> consistently more up to date with kernel changes since RML and Riel
> maintain it and are intimately familiar with current kernel
> development.  

I just got the last bit, /proc/*/wchan usage on 2.5.xx kernels.
Oddly, I'm ahead right now. I have a vmstat that uses a fast O(1)
algorithm on 2.5.xx kernels and reports the IO-wait time. I also
have a sysctl that handles the 2.5.xx VLAN interfaces.

Re: procps 2.x vs. procps 3.x

[Brandon Low]

> If nobody else knows about it, it's not too likely to get fixed.
> Send bug reports to procps-feedback@lists.sf.net please.
> 
Sorry about that, sent bug report and link to our bug track on it.

> Before you do: "certain characters" will need some explaining.
> (position? value? completely gone or turned into a space?)

In the bug report.
> 
> > but the 3.x series is much prettier and
> > feature rich than the 2.x series.  On the other hand, 2.x is 
> > consistently more up to date with kernel changes since RML and Riel
> > maintain it and are intimately familiar with current kernel
> > development.  
> 
> I just got the last bit, /proc/*/wchan usage on 2.5.xx kernels.
> Oddly, I'm ahead right now. I have a vmstat that uses a fast O(1)
> algorithm on 2.5.xx kernels and reports the IO-wait time. I also
> have a sysctl that handles the 2.5.xx VLAN interfaces.

Amazing work, thanks!  I hope to get your procps into Gentoo Stable RSN :)

--Brandon