Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Open Sources System Activity Reporter

Posted by Hemos on from the beginning-to-learn dept.

diabloii writes "SCO will license its System Activity Reporter (SAR) source code to the open source community in cooperation with Starnix, Inc. SAR is currently used to retrieve data for administering the UnixWare 7 System V Release 5 (SVR5) kernel. SCO is hoping that the release of SAR will help standardize kernel administrative. Read the press release here. Also more info at freshmeat. " SAR will be released under the Mozilla license, under the 2nd phase of the release. In the first phase, it will be ported to *BSD and Linux, with the help of Starnix.

44 comments

  1. What to use this for? by mwillis · · Score: 1

    From the OSAR web page, it seems like this provides a portable way of collecting performance data. There has got to be more to this than just getting the system load. Anybody know/use SAR? What goodies does it have?

    1. Re:What to use this for? by Ob+the+Rat · · Score: 2
      I used sar in my previous job. It does cpu/io/memory usage reporting. For full information on what it can do, (Including a lot of formating options) check out the following URL:


      http://www5.sco.com/cgi-bin/ssl_getmanpage?sar+A DM+OS5+sar

    2. Re:What to use this for? by irix · · Score: 3

      Well, IRIX ships with a version of sar. I'm not sure what relationship it has with the sar that SCO is donating, but it can do a lot of stuff:

      - Report CPU utilization
      - Report buffer activity
      - Report activity for each block device, i.e., disk drives
      - Report TTY device activity
      - Report system calls
      - Report system swapping and switching activity
      - Report graphics activity
      - Report use of file access system routines
      - Report average queue length while occupied, and % of time occupied
      - Report status of process, i-node, file tables and record lock tables
      - Report message and semaphore activities
      - Report paging activities
      - Report translation lookaside buffer (TLB) activities
      - Report unused memory pages and disk blocks
      - Report system heap statistics
      - Report interrupt statistics

      It will also log this activity so you can monitor things over time.


      --

      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    3. Re:What to use this for? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      Well, IRIX ships with a version of sar. I'm not sure what relationship it has with the sar that SCO is donating

      They may both be derived, ultimately, from the same chunk of code - the "sar" that came with various SV releases from AT&T, as noted elsewhere. It's not a SCOism....

  2. Good for standardisation by red_dragon · · Score: 1

    This will surely good for just about all Unix and Linux standardisation efforts, including the LSB. I wonder what the LSB people say about this (if they're awake at this moment), but this seems to me like it will add a little bit more commonality between the various Unix flavours out there. We still have a long way, though. Having a bunch of non-standard-compliant libraries doesn't help much.

    Be cautioned, though: Microsoft owns a good-sized chunk of SCO.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
  3. MS + SCO = MS Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Be cautioned, though: Microsoft owns a good-sized chunk of SCO.

    They'll buy the rest of it if they survive the anti-trust trial intact.

    If MS ever does release "MS Linux", it will be a version of SCO UNIX that runs Linux binaries, with a few scraps of source code tossed out to generate some good Open Source press.

    1. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Zack · · Score: 1

      Except that it wouldn't be Linux and we could all sue for false advertising, and Linus would assert his trademark power..

    2. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Scola · · Score: 1

      So much for free software....

      Personally, I like free software over paranoid idiot slashdot weenies. Part of free software is that anyone can go ahead and modify the code, or sell distributions of the code. If MS were ever to do this, more power to them. I like to be free more than I like to hate Microsoft.

      I severely doubt Linus would in any way block anyone who wanted to support linux.

    3. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you missed his point entirely.

      My assertion was that MS could produce a Linux compatible OS based on SCO UNIX, and Zack pointed out that MS couldn't call it Linux since Linus holds the trademark.

      This hasn't got anything to do with source code.

    4. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Scola · · Score: 1

      If that was what he meant, then he was simply stating the obvious. His point was what? Redhat can't call it's product RedHat Solaris. What is the point. Microsoft has made a UNIX before, it was called Microsoft Xenix. What makes you think if they made a UNIX again and didn't base it off of linux (aka make the MS-distrib) they'd have any desire to call it Linux, or would even think about that possibility.

    5. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Zack · · Score: 1

      His point was that if microsoft was to re-enter the *nix market that they would create as much confusion as possible to the point where no one would want to deal with all the mess.

      He jokeingly said that microsoft would base their new *nix on BSD, enable it to run Linux binaries, hence enabling them to keep all their precious source code, and call it Linux to add confusion.

      I pointed out that this wouldn't be possible because there is trademark control over the word linux.

      No one said that they had proof that microsoft was going to do this, and no one said that they would have any desire...

      I was simply stating the obvious flaw in his far fetched theorotical nonsense.

    6. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What makes you think if they made a UNIX again and didn't base it off of linux (aka make the MS-distrib) they'd have any desire to call it Linux, or would even think about that possibility.

      Hello!!!

      Linux is sort of "hot" right now, if you haven't noticed...

    7. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He jokeingly said that microsoft would base their new *nix on BSD...

      Actually, I said SCO, but BSD would work as well. And I was quite serious; I think MS will do anything to get into a hot market where there is money to be made. They can't call it Linux, but they can call is "Linux compatible" in much the same way that IBM once called OS/2 "a better Windows than Windows".

    8. Re:MS + SCO = MS Linux by Scola · · Score: 1

      No one creates hype like MS. They don't need linux's hype. Furthermore, one of the strengths of MS as a business is that they can leverage their control of the OS to force there way into other markets (how do you think they jumpstarted office and IE in the days in which both sucked). Buying into linux would counteract this. Back in the Xenix days, MS put together a pretty stable unix which they controled. They abandoned it, and it never caught on, but that's what they'd probably aim for.

      I don't think MS has much interest in linux frankly, except as an obstacle in its domination of a market it wants, but can't get into since their technology doesn't work well there. Sorry kids, MS isn't going to drop Windows and back linux any time in the near future, no matter how much you want to be paranoid about it.

  4. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure I understand why this is a big deal? Seems just about anyone could write up a sar clone in a couple of days just by pulling some info from /proc.

    % man sar
    ...
    The command sar provides usage information for individual processors, as well as summary information for average processor usage.
    ...

    % sar

    UnixWare blah 5 7.0.1 i386 06/14/99

    00:00:00 %usr %sys %wio %idle
    01:00:00 0 0 0 100
    02:00:00 0 0 0 100
    03:00:00 0 0 0 100
    04:00:00 0 0 0 100
    05:00:00 0 0 0 100
    06:00:00 0 0 0 100
    07:00:00 0 0 0 100
    08:00:00 0 0 0 100
    08:20:00 0 0 0 100
    08:40:00 0 0 0 100
    09:00:00 0 0 0 100
    09:20:00 0 0 0 100
    09:40:00 0 0 0 100
    10:00:00 0 0 0 100
    10:20:00 0 0 0 100
    10:40:00 0 0 0 100
    11:00:00 0 0 0 100
    11:20:00 0 0 0 100
    11:40:00 0 0 0 100
    12:00:00 0 0 0 100
    12:20:00 0 0 0 100
    12:40:01 0 0 0 100
    13:00:00 0 0 0 100
    13:20:00 0 0 0 100
    13:40:00 0 0 0 100
    14:00:00 0 0 0 100
    Average 0 0 0 100

    Ha! I guess this shows how much we like SCO Unixware in *our* shop! :)

    (BTW: sorry about the formatting, we need to be able to use tags on /.)

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand why this is a big deal? Seems just about anyone could write up a sar clone in a couple of days just by pulling some info from /proc.

      well for the most part your right but what you seem to be missing is the fact that nobody has done it yet. sar is a nice little tool and certainly more usefull than you're trying to mislead ppl in to believing. i for one am thankfull that this is happening, having standard tools like this that you can use on any platform makes everybodies lives easyer.

    2. Re:So what? by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      I think the big deal here is that we will now have an open standard for (unix, at least) system performance reporting.

      You say "just pull it out of /proc". Well, that works just fine on systems with a /proc filesystem, but it ain't gonna work on the HP-UX systems I admin. Sure, they already have a "sar", but, what if I want to use the same performance monitoring scripts on the SunOS, Solaris, AIX, and Linux boxes as well?

      Will the scripts work "out of the box"?
      Do the cmdline switches to sar perform the same?
      Is the output going to be the same?

      To be honest I don't actually know the answer to these questions using the existing implementations of sar. But I would guess not.

      However, with a freely available, open version of sar, I know that the answer to both will be "yes".

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  5. Cautious Optimism by Fish+Man · · Score: 3

    Hmmm...

    I reserve a cautious optimism about this development.

    On the one hand, I'll take any contributions to the pool of open source software we can get, provided it's worth something. I'm not aware of any really decent open source performance monitoring packages previously available so this package may prove interesting.

    OTOH, SCO is not famous for being particularly friendly to Open Source concepts, and as others have pointed out, something like 25% of them is owned by Microsoft.

    It's interesting that this announcement is being made by a company who's CEO, Doug Michels, has been known to have done some truly venomous FUD spewing about Linux in the past. He has also claimed that the supposed venomous FUD spewing was actually a result of the press misquoting him or quoting him out of context.

    Maybe it's true that SCO has some respect for the open source concept and the press WAS misquoting Michels on these occasions. It wouldn't be the first time that the press tried to artificially give the impression of a conflict.

    This development may or may not be evidence of SCO's real attitude toward open source. Time will tell, and this is a development worth watching.

    1. Re:Cautious Optimism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think MSFT only owns 14% of SCO. Novel

    2. Re:Cautious Optimism by smillie · · Score: 1

      SCO has for years given out free for the asking their "skunkware" disk of free code. Most of it was GNU. I included perl and numerous SCO employee scripts and even some C code.

      --

      Dyslexics Untie!

    3. Re:Cautious Optimism by SoftwareJanitor · · Score: 1

      something like 25% of them is owned by Microsoft.

      Actually I believe that it is around 14%, with Doug Michels and his father each owning somewhere between 10-14%, and all of the rest of the outstanding shares held by people with much smaller percentage interests.

      While none of the shares would give a level of absolute control, given an agreement amongst those three shareholders, it would only take a small percentage of the rest to vote with them for them to have their way.

  6. SAR is great by Shaman · · Score: 1

    But frankly, Sun's SAR is better. Linux needs SAR though - very badly.

    --
    ...Steve
    1. Re:SAR is great by diabloii · · Score: 1

      What is your basis that Sun's SAR implementation is better? I'm curious.

      --
      ---- "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." --Henry David Thoreau(1817-1862)
  7. Re:So what?... Try running it with a -A by yomahz · · Score: 2

    support support 3.2v5.0.2 Pentium 06/14/99

    00:00:01 %usr %sys %wio %idle
    01:00:00 0 0 0 100
    02:00:00 0 0 0 100
    03:00:01 0 0 0 100
    04:00:01 0 0 0 100
    05:00:00 0 0 0 100
    06:00:00 0 0 0 100
    07:00:00 0 0 0 100
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 0 2 2 96
    08:40:00 0 1 6 92
    09:00:01 0 0 0 99
    09:20:00 1 0 0 98
    09:40:00 2 2 4 91
    10:00:00 0 0 0 99
    10:20:00 2 1 0 97
    10:40:01 2 0 0 98
    11:00:00 1 0 0 98
    11:20:00 0 0 0 99

    Average 0 0 0 99

    00:00:01 bread/s lread/s %rcache bwrit/s lwrit/s %wcache pread/s pwrit/s
    01:00:00 0 2 98 0 0 88 0 0
    02:00:00 0 2 100 0 0 90 0 0
    03:00:01 0 2 100 0 0 90 0 0
    04:00:01 0 2 99 0 0 89 0 0
    05:00:00 0 2 100 0 0 90 0 0
    06:00:00 0 2 100 0 0 89 0 0
    07:00:00 0 2 100 0 0 86 0 0
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 10 70 85 2 8 70 0 0
    08:40:00 11 161 93 3 6 58 0 0
    09:00:01 0 8 97 0 2 70 0 0
    09:20:00 2 21 89 1 5 72 0 0
    09:40:00 32 208 84 27 71 62 0 0
    10:00:00 0 8 98 0 2 78 0 0
    10:20:00 0 30 97 1 9 84 0 0
    10:40:01 3 12 73 0 3 74 0 0
    11:00:00 0 4 99 0 1 81 0 0
    11:20:00 0 3 99 0 1 82 0 0

    Average 2 18 89 1 4 69 0 0


    00:00:01 device %busy avque r+w/s blks/s avwait avserv
    01:00:00 Sdsk-0 0.13 1.00 0.13 0.27 0.00 9.44

    02:00:00 Sdsk-0 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.18 0.00 0.03

    03:00:01
    04:00:01 Sdsk-0 0.01 1.00 0.11 0.23 0.00 0.55

    05:00:00
    06:00:00 Sdsk-0 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.20 0.00 0.26

    07:00:00
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 Sdsk-0 10.64 1.23 4.93 24.54 4.95 21.57

    08:40:00 Sdsk-0 6.25 1.17 10.99 26.36 0.97 5.69

    09:00:01 Sdsk-0 0.12 1.00 0.56 1.55 0.00 2.16

    09:20:00 Sdsk-0 0.52 1.04 1.88 7.08 0.12 2.75

    09:40:00 Sdsk-0 5.58 1.54 12.04 118.17 2.50 4.64

    10:00:00 Sdsk-0 0.09 1.05 0.44 1.12 0.09 2.01

    10:20:00 Sdsk-0 0.29 1.07 1.69 4.71 0.12 1.69

    10:40:01 Sdsk-0 0.44 1.09 1.62 8.09 0.24 2.73

    11:00:00 Sdsk-0 0.01 1.00 0.21 0.51 0.00 0.51

    11:20:00 Sdsk-0 0.04 1.00 0.19 0.43 0.00 1.97


    Average Sdsk-0 0.74 1.27 1.14 6.21 1.77 6.49


    00:00:01 H_hits Hmisses (%Hhit) D_hits Dmisses (%Dhit)
    01:00:00 18432 286 ( 98%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    02:00:00 18328 274 ( 98%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    03:00:01 18316 274 ( 98%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    04:00:01 20533 574 ( 97%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    05:00:00 18271 271 ( 98%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    06:00:00 18831 314 ( 98%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    07:00:00 24369 669 ( 97%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 115101 10367 ( 91%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    08:40:00 23248 12277 ( 65%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    09:00:01 22807 1241 ( 94%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    09:20:00 54671 2620 ( 95%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    09:40:00 91269 6396 ( 93%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    10:00:00 19734 1386 ( 93%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    10:20:00 70310 2626 ( 96%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    10:40:01 35183 1300 ( 96%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    11:00:00 11170 491 ( 95%) 0 0 ( 0%)
    11:20:00 10449 374 ( 96%) 0 0 ( 0%)

    Average 59102 4174 ( 93%) 0 0 ( 0%)


    00:00:01 rawch/s canch/s outch/s rcvin/s xmtin/s mdmin/s
    01:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
    02:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
    03:00:01 0 0 0 0 0 0
    04:00:01 0 0 0 0 0 0
    05:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
    06:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
    07:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 2 0 53 0 0 0
    08:40:00 3 0 56 0 0 0
    09:00:01 5 0 51 0 0 0
    09:20:00 0 0 46 0 0 0
    09:40:00 0 0 185 0 0 0
    10:00:00 2 0 27 0 0 0
    10:20:00 5 0 216 0 0 0
    10:40:01 3 0 70 0 0 0
    11:00:00 0 0 2 0 0 0
    11:20:00 0 0 7 0 0 0

    Average 0 0 23 0 0 0



    00:00:01 scall/s sread/s swrit/s fork/s exec/s rchar/s wchar/s
    01:00:00 44 4 3 0.01 0.01 789 80
    02:00:00 44 4 3 0.01 0.01 787 80
    03:00:01 44 4 3 0.01 0.01 786 80
    04:00:01 44 4 3 0.01 0.01 794 80
    05:00:00 44 4 3 0.01 0.01 788 80
    06:00:00 44 4 3 0.01 0.01 791 80
    07:00:00 45 4 3 0.02 0.02 827 80
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 143 24 7 0.42 0.49 7883 1150
    08:40:00 141 8 4 0.06 0.05 1406 174
    09:00:01 67 11 5 0.06 0.04 1567 242
    09:20:00 86 10 5 0.10 0.10 3862 441
    09:40:00 167 18 33 0.05 0.06 33814 24821
    10:00:00 60 7 4 0.04 0.07 1739 133
    10:20:00 112 21 10 0.08 0.08 5043 941
    10:40:01 87 13 6 0.04 0.05 2723 1044
    11:00:00 77 5 5 0.02 0.02 1100 2260
    11:20:00 74 6 4 0.03 0.02 1012 1035

    Average 62 7 4 0.03 0.04 2452 1094


    00:00:01 swpin/s bswin/s swpot/s bswot/s pswch/s
    01:00:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9
    02:00:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9
    03:00:01 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9
    04:00:01 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9
    05:00:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9
    06:00:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9
    07:00:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 20
    08:40:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 23
    09:00:01 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 15
    09:20:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 15
    09:40:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 31
    10:00:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 12
    10:20:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 21
    10:40:01 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 18
    11:00:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 12
    11:20:00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 13

    Average 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 12


    00:00:01 iget/s namei/s dirbk/s
    01:00:00 5 1 0
    02:00:00 5 1 0
    03:00:01 5 1 0
    04:00:01 6 1 0
    05:00:00 5 1 0
    06:00:00 5 1 0
    07:00:00 7 1 0
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 116 21 41
    08:40:00 71 59 104
    09:00:01 19 3 4
    09:20:00 46 7 10
    09:40:00 112 42 65
    10:00:00 17 3 5
    10:20:00 60 8 11
    10:40:01 30 4 5
    11:00:00 9 2 2
    11:20:00 9 2 1

    Average 19 6 8


    00:00:01 runq-sz %runocc swpq-sz %swpocc
    01:00:00 1.0 0
    02:00:00 1.0 3
    03:00:01 3.0 1
    04:00:01 3.0 0
    05:00:00
    06:00:00 2.0 0
    07:00:00
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 2.9 6
    08:40:00 1.2 2
    09:00:01 1.0 1
    09:20:00 1.2 2
    09:40:00 1.1 5
    10:00:00
    10:20:00 1.3 4
    10:40:01 1.3 2
    11:00:00
    11:20:00 2.0 0

    Average 1.6 19


    00:00:01 proc-sz ov inod-sz ov file-sz ov lock-sz
    01:00:00 73/ 95 0 294/1126 0 276/ 341 0 4/ 128
    02:00:00 73/ 95 0 294/1126 0 276/ 341 0 4/ 128
    03:00:01 71/ 95 0 292/1126 0 274/ 341 0 4/ 128
    04:00:01 73/ 95 0 294/1228 0 276/ 341 0 4/ 128
    05:00:00 73/ 95 0 295/1228 0 277/ 341 0 4/ 128
    06:00:00 73/ 95 0 295/1228 0 277/ 341 0 4/ 128
    07:00:00 72/ 95 0 294/1228 0 276/ 341 0 4/ 128
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 84/ 95 0 350/ 870 0 326/ 341 0 11/ 128
    08:40:00 82/ 95 0 347/ 870 0 322/ 341 0 10/ 128
    09:00:01 82/ 95 0 345/ 870 0 321/ 341 0 11/ 128
    09:20:00 85/ 95 0 354/ 870 0 331/ 682 0 11/ 128
    09:40:00 83/ 95 0 352/1894 0 328/ 682 0 11/ 128
    10:00:00 89/ 95 0 366/1894 0 342/ 682 0 11/ 128
    10:20:00 88/ 95 0 360/1894 0 334/ 682 0 11/ 128
    10:40:01 90/ 95 0 365/1894 0 341/ 682 0 11/ 128
    11:00:00 89/ 95 0 363/1894 0 339/ 682 0 11/ 128
    11:20:00 89/ 95 0 363/1894 0 340/ 682 0 11/ 128



    00:00:01 msg/s sema/s
    01:00:00 0.00 0.01
    02:00:00 0.00 0.00
    03:00:01 0.00 0.00
    04:00:01 0.00 0.00
    05:00:00 0.00 0.00
    06:00:00 0.00 0.00
    07:00:00 0.00 0.00
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 0.00 0.04
    08:40:00 0.00 0.00
    09:00:01 0.00 0.00
    09:20:00 0.01 0.00
    09:40:00 0.00 0.00
    10:00:00 0.00 0.00
    10:20:00 0.01 0.00
    10:40:01 0.00 0.00
    11:00:00 0.00 0.00
    11:20:00 0.00 0.00

    Average 0.00 0.00



    00:00:01 vflt/s pflt/s pgfil/s rclm/s
    01:00:00 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.00
    02:00:00 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.00
    03:00:01 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.00
    04:00:01 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00
    05:00:00 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.00
    06:00:00 0.06 0.21 0.00 0.00
    07:00:00 0.13 0.46 0.00 0.00
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 6.52 11.39 1.83 0.00
    08:40:00 0.94 1.99 0.14 0.00
    09:00:01 0.78 2.00 0.01 0.00
    09:20:00 3.99 3.43 0.36 0.00
    09:40:00 1.55 1.65 0.32 0.00
    10:00:00 1.54 1.41 0.01 0.00
    10:20:00 3.64 3.40 0.06 0.00
    10:40:01 2.83 1.90 0.73 0.00
    11:00:00 0.48 0.72 0.01 0.00
    11:20:00 0.23 0.70 0.00 0.00

    Average 0.75 1.03 0.10 0.00

    00:00:01 freemem freeswp
    01:00:00 25464 512000
    02:00:00 25473 512000
    03:00:01 25473 512000
    04:00:01 25468 512000
    05:00:00 25468 512000
    06:00:00 25467 512000
    07:00:00 25467 512000
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 25245 512000
    08:40:00 24896 512000
    09:00:01 24858 512000
    09:20:00 24807 512000
    09:40:00 24651 512000
    10:00:00 24517 512000
    10:20:00 24323 512000
    10:40:01 23832 512000
    11:00:00 23429 512000
    11:20:00 23402 512000

    Average 25123 512000

    00:00:01 cpybuf/s slpcpybuf/s
    01:00:00 0.00 0.00
    02:00:00 0.00 0.00
    03:00:01 0.00 0.00
    04:00:01 0.00 0.00
    05:00:00 0.00 0.00
    06:00:00 0.00 0.00
    07:00:00 0.00 0.00
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 0.00 0.00
    08:40:00 0.00 0.00
    09:00:01 0.00 0.00
    09:20:00 0.00 0.00
    09:40:00 0.00 0.00
    10:00:00 0.00 0.00
    10:20:00 0.00 0.00
    10:40:01 0.00 0.00
    11:00:00 0.00 0.00
    11:20:00 0.00 0.00

    Average 0.00 0.00


    00:00:01 dptch/s idler/s swidle/s
    01:00:00 110.35 101.02 4.77
    02:00:00 110.24 100.97 4.72
    03:00:01 110.26 100.99 4.73
    04:00:01 110.30 101.00 4.74
    05:00:00 110.40 101.06 4.73
    06:00:00 110.27 100.99 4.74
    07:00:00 110.34 101.00 4.73
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 129.05 104.44 9.25
    08:40:00 139.82 112.32 16.86
    09:00:01 126.63 105.10 8.00
    09:20:00 118.74 101.75 7.46
    09:40:00 144.58 108.38 16.45
    10:00:00 118.06 102.43 6.75
    10:20:00 129.01 102.88 8.31
    10:40:01 127.32 104.02 9.16
    11:00:00 114.85 100.74 6.63
    11:20:00 116.19 101.64 6.91

    Average 115.44 102.08 6.28

    00:00:01 ovsiohw/s ovsiodma/s ovclist/s
    01:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    02:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    03:00:01 0.00 0.00 0.00
    04:00:01 0.00 0.00 0.00
    05:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    06:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    07:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    08:40:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    09:00:01 0.00 0.00 0.00
    09:20:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    09:40:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10:20:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10:40:01 0.00 0.00 0.00
    11:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    11:20:00 0.00 0.00 0.00

    Average 0.00 0.00 0.00

    00:00:01 mpbuf/s ompb/s mphbuf/s omphbuf/s pbuf/s spbuf/s dmabuf/s sdmabuf/s
    01:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    02:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    03:00:01 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    04:00:01 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    05:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    06:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    07:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    08:03:03 unix restarts
    08:20:00 0.00 0.00 3.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    08:40:00 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    09:00:01 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    09:20:00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    09:40:00 0.00 0.00 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10:20:00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    10:40:01 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    11:00:00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    11:20:00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

    Average 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
    #

    --
    "A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
  8. Stop the Microsoft madness by diabloii · · Score: 1

    Microsoft owns some piece of SCO. Not as large a piece as some make it out to be. They have not shaped the decisions of SCO in the past and will not in the future. There is no chance of a MS-Linux product that is tied in with SCO. The only tie Microsoft has with SCO was there royalty licensing contract for XENIX code in SCO OSs. That contract no longer exists and therefore no more ties to Microsoft.

    --
    ---- "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." --Henry David Thoreau(1817-1862)
  9. Good News... but... by Chris+Tyler · · Score: 2


    This is good news. sar is a useful utility, and the folks at Starnix are good folks.

    But SCO is rewriting history in their press releases. "SAR was developed by SCO ..." ? Bzzzt.

    sar was a standard utility in Unix SVR4.2 and was included in UnixWare and other SVR4.2 releases before SCO bought UnixWare from Novell, and before Novell bought UnixWare from USL. It may have even existed in SVR3.X

    1. Re:Good News... but... by diabloii · · Score: 1

      Your point is well taken. Yes, it's true it wasn't originally developed by SCO, but their sar is completely based on the original SVR4.2 code. The thing you have to understand is that UnixWare includes the code that came from AT&T Bell Labs -> USL -> Novell. Another thing is that many of the developers Yes, sar did exist in SVR3.x.

      --
      ---- "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." --Henry David Thoreau(1817-1862)
  10. Future vendor collaboration? by Diggety_Dank · · Score: 2

    Could this be a sign of the times to come? Major unix vendors open source'ing important apps and porting to other platforms? Sounds good to me, count me in!

    --
    --- Stampede linux for me! I play with fire to break the ice..
    1. Re:Future vendor collaboration? by Pont · · Score: 1

      or major unix vendors open sourcing little tidbits as a sacrifice to the holy open source. Either way, it's good.

      I see SCO as the Linux alternative for companies that really need an x86 UNIX, don't feel good about open source, and don't want to deal with Sun. SCO has its little nitch market, and I fully understand why they'd be annoyed at all the super-hype linux gets. Still, it's not good strategy for a CEO to whine publically (if he actually did).
      --
      "I got it running, grabbed a rocket launcher, and fired down a hallway." --John Carmack

  11. Mozilla License by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    Nice to see a vendor using one of the existing free software licenses. The Mozilla license is quite good, very similar to the LGPL.

  12. MS-Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There is no chance of a MS-Linux product that is tied in with SCO.

    How do you know that?

    SCO has already announced Linux binary compatibility.

    1. Re:MS-Linux by Scola · · Score: 1

      Oh, God forbid.

    2. Re:MS-Linux by diabloii · · Score: 1

      Yes, Linux binary compatibility is there through lxrun. My point was that there will not be a Linux distro from the combined efforts of SCO and MS.

      --
      ---- "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." --Henry David Thoreau(1817-1862)
    3. Re:MS-Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My point was that there will not be a Linux distro from the combined efforts of SCO and MS.

      Well, I'm assuming that that's an unofficial position, but I'm still entertaining the idea. Stranger things have happened.

  13. IBM will buy them out first. by zak · · Score: 1

    According to their agreement, IBM has first buying rights. If anyone makes a move, IBM will buy out SCO first. This won't matter much anyway - with all the AIX-UnixWare-ptx integration stuff that's going on, SCO can just lie back and live off the royalties.

  14. Another gun on the unified front. by zak · · Score: 3

    This is good news; one of the things I miss most on Linux/*BSD is SAR (and SysV ps).
    Two notes:
    1) Regarding Doug Michels' "FUD"Ding: check out
    http://www.sco.com/linux/letter.html. Not the big bad wolf you thought he is; why wasn't _this_ put up here? (yes Rob, you _do_ have a sensationalist streak :)
    2) AFAIK Microsoft owns less than 10% of SCO, and can't make a move to grab the rest: SCO's contract with IBM says IBM've got dibs. It's also an employee-owned company (although I really don't know exactly how that's supposed to stop takeover - not an economistic bone in my body).

  15. SARGE: System Activity Reporter Graphing Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    SARGE and other Sys Admin goodies are freely available at http://www.vais.net/~efinch


    Best regards,
    Ed Finch

  16. SAR existed in SVR2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SAR existed on a SVR2 Ironics 68010 unix
    box (w/4MB ram) that we used circa 1985.

    -- cary

  17. Aack! Use a link please! by CarlPatten · · Score: 1


    I'm sure you meant well, but please, if you have this much information just post a link to it. Otherwise it takes up too much space in the message forums.

    1. Re:Aack! Use a link please! by yomahz · · Score: 0

      echo "Wow! Someone is just a little too anal. Relax man.. You'll live longer than stressing yourself over clicking on a link in a message board and having to download an extra 7k. If you like, I can even compress it next time." > /tmp/file.for.anal.guy;tar cvfz /tmp/tarball.for.anal.guy.tar.gz

      --
      "A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
  18. SCO and NT are competitors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You make some good points, but I'd like to add a few of my own. SCO and NT are arch-rivals, in case anyone has forgotten. (SCO even offers competitive upgrades -- reduced prices for people trading in NT for UNIX.) This means several things:

    1. Under various conflict-of-interest clauses, MS has no control over SCO, in spite of their stock holdings. The relationship is purely financial...(and based on SCO's stock price, the investment has done nothing positive for MS.)

    2. MS would much rather crush SCO competitively in the marketplace than buy them out. If MS bought SCO, they would be implicitly endorsing *IX (meaning all of their competition, including Linux) as a valuable, viable, and useful thing. This is exactly the opposite of what they want to do.

    Finally, I find it interesting that the same Linux supporters who cry foul at Doug Michaels' FUD are the people who perpetuate this equally-FUDdy nonsense about SCO being some sort of appendage of Bill Gates.

    1. Re:SCO and NT are competitors! by diabloii · · Score: 1

      Finally someone that makes sense with the lack of a relationship between SCO and Microsoft. Thanks for the good explanation.

      --
      ---- "It is never too late to give up our prejudices." --Henry David Thoreau(1817-1862)
  19. SysV ps is here already!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you miss SysV ps? Upgrade the damn thing!
    If all your software is that obsolete, you
    should get Red Hat 6.0 or Debian-unstable.

    Otherwise...

    http://www.cs.uml.edu/~acahalan/linux/procps-990 520.tar.gz

    That gets you full SysV syntax, full GNU syntax,
    and nearly all BSD syntax. You can even mix the
    options in sick ways.

  20. What sar is and why Linux needs it by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    The previous posts have done a good job of reporting what sar is for. It's a system activity logger that reports a very wide range of different system activity measurements over a period of time. It's very useful when you're trying to pin down why your system is being slow, or what resource your running out of and need to buy more of.

    From what I've seen in my week or two of playing with Linux is that Linux has the best realtime system performance monitoring I've ever seen in a UNIX, but very little long-term reporting like what sar does. For this reason, sar could be very useful.

    Of course, writing a little shell script in Linux that cats certain /proc files into a log periodically may be able to duplicate much of the functionality of sar.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop