About:
procps is a package of utilities which includes ps, vmstat, top, w, skill, snice, pgrep, pkill, free, sysctl, pmap, uptime, and kill. These utilities report what is running, who is logged in, how long the system has been running, and what is using up memory. They can be used to kill processes and change run-time kernel configuration values.

Author:
Albert Cahalan [contact developer]

Rating:	reset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8.23/10.00 (4 votes)

Homepage:
http://procps.sf.net/
Tar/GZ:
http://procps.sourceforge.net/procps-3.2.7.tar.gz
Changelog:
http://procps.sf.net/changelog.html
CVS tree (cvsweb):
http://procps.cvs.sourceforge.net/procps/procps/

Trove categories: [change]

[Development Status]		5 - Production/Stable
[Environment]		Console (Text Based), Console (Text Based) :: Curses
[Intended Audience]		Advanced End Users, System Administrators
[License]		DFSG approved, OSI Approved, OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License (GPL), OSI Approved :: GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
[Operating System]		POSIX :: Linux
[Programming Language]		C
[Topic]		System :: Monitoring, System :: Systems Administration, Utilities

Dependencies: [change]
Linux (required)
ncurses (required)
GNU C library (recommended)
[download links]

 Branches

Branch	Version	Last release	License	URLs
Default	3.2.7	24-Jun-2006	OSI Approved

 Comments

[»] Poll: proper "O" behavior?
by Albert Cahalan - Mar 26th 2004 21:48:58

Should the "O" option print command arguments or not?
It was originally designed to match the Digital UNIX ps,
which doesn't print arguments for either "-O" or "O".
FreeBSD prints the command arguments for "O" and does
not distinguish "O" from "-O".

[reply] [top]

[»] toprc anybody?
by hackel - Nov 13th 2003 12:39:20

Could someone post a .toprc file that will give a happy- colored, multi-column output like the one in the screenshot? I realize I'm horribly lazy for not simply figuring it out myself, but that's okay. Thanks!

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: toprc anybody?
by hackel - Nov 13th 2003 12:50:44

Don't mind my being an idiot...
A - switch to alternate display mode
Z - edit color mapping for windows 1-4
W - write .toprc

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed one of the oldest unix utilities has such a nice gui conf-file editor built-in! ;-)

[reply] [top]

---

[»] LATE
by driz - Mar 18th 2003 22:38:04

This always happens to me, I installed lfs, using the 2.5 kernel.. and the last version of procps.. what happens 3 days later? A new procps comes out. Hopefully I can just install right on top.. i'll have to check the README. Thanks for the updates, and fixes to the 2.5 refresh problem.

[reply] [top]

[»] Feedback is welcome
by Albert Cahalan - Dec 10th 2002 23:34:50

There's a procps-feedback@lists.sf.net mailing list you can
use for feature requests, bug reports, and so on. Use it!
Feedback makes things happen.

[reply] [top]

[»] This is confusing
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Oct 12th 2002 11:59:22

There's another procps maintained by Rik van Riel.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: This is confusing
by Albert Cahalan - Oct 14th 2002 02:36:42

Rik needed some experimental kernel statistics. He's a kernel developer.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: This is confusing
by Xose - May 15th 2003 08:06:17

Red Hat brings rik version, Debian this one, SuSE.......... Where is the problem to not make ONE? An unnecessary fork is waste the time. o is there any special reason?

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: This is confusing
by Albert Cahalan - May 15th 2003 16:47:54

Rik and Robert are free to waste time as they wish. Debian, SuSE, and Mandrake all have procps-3.x.x, now or for their next release.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: This is confusing
by Xose - May 28th 2003 20:04:51


> Rik and Robert are free to waste time as
> they wish.
> Debian, SuSE, and Mandrake all have
> procps-3.x.x,
> now or for their next release.

There is more people that thinks that to have two procps :-( is to waste resources:

-- http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0305.3/1236.html --


Re: [announce] procps 2.0.13 with NPTL enhancements
From: Miquel van Smoorenburg (miquels@cistron-office.nl)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 18:59:51 EST

In article , Robert Love wrote:

>On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 23:19, Phil Oester wrote:
>
>> Any comment on the procps v3.1.8 located here:
>>
>> http://procps.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> Seems it is actively maintained...
>
>It is a fork of the original procps tree.

Well, you could also argue that the current 2.0 tree is a retroactive fork of an older version of procps.

I don't understand why you don't work together.

Mike. --

[reply] [top]

---

[»] No kidding. Drop it.
by Albert Cahalan - May 29th 2003 16:59:39

Red Hat has a long history of shipping hacked up forks. Does gcc 2.96 ring a bell? How about plain old GNU sort, broken to the extent that a simple 'sort -n' would randomize the input? The KDE developers have been screaming for ages and ages. What else is new? Stop encouraging them. Update: it appears that Slackware 9 is now shipping procps-3 code.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: No kidding. Drop it.
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Jun 10th 2003 14:54:43


> Update: it appears that Slackware 9 is
> now
> shipping procps-3 code.
>

Yes, 9.0, but -current (future 9.1) not anymore.

Sat May 31 21:34:22 PDT 2003 a/procps-2.0.13-i486-1.tgz: Upgraded to procps-2.0.13. Will the real procps please stand up. ;-) After noticing Robert Love's post on lkml, I realized we've been using the wrong version of procps. This version seems considerably better, requiring only 1 of the 5 patches I usually apply to procps (I'm not a fan of the bold white text in 'top').

The new and old patches.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Slackware doesn't send patches upstream.
by Albert Cahalan - Jun 10th 2003 16:08:37

I have not ever seen these patches before. How am I supposed to contact the Slackware maintainer to discuss them??? Anyway, I'll take a look at the patches right now...

procps.ksyms.nowhine.diff.gz
Hides the symptom of a minor problem. OK. (it's some over-aggressive sanity checking code)

procps.nowarning.diff.gz
The warning is important. See the FAQ for why. The warning has been modified to print out the URL of the FAQ now.

procps.top.COMMAND.diff.gz
Somebody likes COMMAND better than Command. No problem. I'll apply this now even. It sure would have been nice to have even got an email!

procps.top.nobright.diff.gz
Somebody hates bold. Well, procps-3.x.xx has less bold than procps-2.x.xx does, and even includes a switch to turn it off. I don't think I can please everyone! How should I call a vote?

procps.w.showfrom.diff.gz
This changes the default to show "from". Uh, maybe this is good. I think Debian does the same thing, so maybe I'll change the default.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Slackware doesn't send patches upstream.
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Jun 10th 2003 16:13:11


> I have not ever seen these patches
> before.
> How am I supposed to contact the
> Slackware
> maintainer to discuss them???

Patrick J. Volkerding - volkerdi at slackware dot com.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Slackware doesn't send patches upstream.
by Albert Cahalan - Jun 10th 2003 16:35:23

Patrick J. Volkerding runs the project. I doubt he packages procps by himself. Does he? (and everything else????)

I'm looking for the person who chooses the procps release to use and the patches to apply.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: Slackware doesn't send patches upstream.
by Frédéric L. W. Meunier - Jun 10th 2003 16:38:59


> Patrick J. Volkerding runs the project.
> I doubt he packages procps by himself.
> Does he? (and everything else????)
>
> I'm looking for the person who chooses
> the procps release to use and the
> patches
> to apply.
>

Yes, he does everything. I just don't know if he wrote such patches. You should ask him.

[reply] [top]

---