Hello Anyone,
Does anyone still use TOP in Solaris 10? Many people say TOP does not
provide an accurate system health view for Solaris 10 after the June
06 release. I am finding a tool which can tell me where my physical
memory goes. I will very appreciate if anyone can point me into a
right direction.

thanks!

perry811 wrote:
> Hello Anyone,
> Does anyone still use TOP in Solaris 10? Many people say TOP does not
> provide an accurate system health view for Solaris 10 after the June
> 06 release. I am finding a tool which can tell me where my physical
> memory goes. I will very appreciate if anyone can point me into a
> right direction.
>
> thanks!
>
i dont know about top, solaris $ prstat is about the same.
a graphic version is /usr/dt/bin/sdtprocess
if you have plenty cpu's mpstat will be nice.
/Jorgen

perry811 wrote:
> Hello Anyone,
> Does anyone still use TOP in Solaris 10? Many people say TOP does not
> provide an accurate system health view for Solaris 10 after the June
> 06 release. I am finding a tool which can tell me where my physical
> memory goes. I will very appreciate if anyone can point me into a
> right direction.
>
> thanks!
>


I've just updated to the 08/07 release (forget which one I had before).
I notice top shows the CPU usage in a different way. I have 4 CPUs and
previously top showed the total would never exceed 100%, with a CPU
bound process that was single threaded using no more than 25%.

Now the total can be as much as 400% and a single CPU bound process
which is single threaded can be as much as 100%.

I could have changed the version of top too, so I'm not sure if this is
due to a change in Solaris or top (I'm using 3.6 now).

I suspect the Sun tools are more accurate, although I do like top - I
still prefer the format of top's output to that of prstat, even though I
would not be surprised if prstat was the more accurate tool. I generally
just need to know what is hogging the CPU, and top works for me for that.

perry811 schrieb:
> Hello Anyone,
> Does anyone still use TOP in Solaris 10? Many people say TOP does not
> provide an accurate system health view for Solaris 10 after the June
> 06 release. I am finding a tool which can tell me where my physical
> memory goes. I will very appreciate if anyone can point me into a
> right direction.
>
> thanks!
>

you might want to take a look at sysstat
(http://www.maier-komor.de/sysstat.html), which has a similar layout as
top, but much more detailed information.

HTH,
Thomas

On Oct 8, 12:14 am, Thomas Maier-Komor <tho...@maier-komor.de> wrote:

> you might want to take a look at sysstat
> (http://www.maier-komor.de/sysstat.html), which has a similar layout as
> top, but much more detailed information.
>
> HTH,
> Thomas

Thomas, I am afraid sysstat - may not work with ZFS in Solaris 10?!
The following errors happen in 2 of my systems which uses ZFS:

Assertion failed: err != -1, file fsstats.c, line 116

My other Solaris 10 systems just run fine without ZFS configured. Or,
can you tell me if i m doing anything wrong?
sysstat -V

sysstat version 20070922
Copyright 2006-2007, Thomas Maier-Komor
This software is licensed under the GPLv2. See file COPYING for
details.

perry811 schrieb:
> On Oct 8, 12:14 am, Thomas Maier-Komor <tho...@maier-komor.de> wrote:
>
>> you might want to take a look at sysstat
>> (http://www.maier-komor.de/sysstat.html), which has a similar layout as
>> top, but much more detailed information.
>>
>> HTH,
>> Thomas
>
> Thomas, I am afraid sysstat - may not work with ZFS in Solaris 10?!
> The following errors happen in 2 of my systems which uses ZFS:
>
> Assertion failed: err != -1, file fsstats.c, line 116
>
> My other Solaris 10 systems just run fine without ZFS configured. Or,
> can you tell me if i m doing anything wrong?
> sysstat -V
>
> sysstat version 20070922
> Copyright 2006-2007, Thomas Maier-Komor
> This software is licensed under the GPLv2. See file COPYING for
> details.
>

That looks like you are running nevada/Solaris Express... On October
11th, I've published an update for sysstat that handles the recent
changes of libzfs.so in Nevada. Try downloading that one. If you still
encounter an error, please contact me. But I'm pretty sure that this
assertion failure is fixed in the latest release.

HTH,
Thomas