gnome-system-monitor issueshttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues2021-03-22T14:11:31Zhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/29System monitor / process list: No tty column2021-03-22T14:11:31ZBugzillaSystem monitor / process list: No tty column## Submitted by kla..@..x.info
**[Link to original bug (#607582)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607582)**
## Description
The process list in the system monitor lacks a column for the controlling terminal.## Submitted by kla..@..x.info
**[Link to original bug (#607582)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607582)**
## Description
The process list in the system monitor lacks a column for the controlling terminal.https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/28Additional instrumentation needed on "resources" tab2021-03-22T14:11:31ZBugzillaAdditional instrumentation needed on "resources" tab## Submitted by Philip Prindeville
**[Link to original bug (#599344)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599344)**
## Description
It would be useful to see different indications for user/system/hard-interrupt/soft-irq (or ma...## Submitted by Philip Prindeville
**[Link to original bug (#599344)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599344)**
## Description
It would be useful to see different indications for user/system/hard-interrupt/soft-irq (or maybe just user/system+soft-irq/hard-interrupt) graphing in the "CPU History" display.
Also, an additional display is needed, one for disk throughput.
I would use a single graph, but one indicator per physical disk drive (ignore partitions), and map both blocks-read and blocks-written (a la "iostat"). Or alternatively do multiple separate bar graphs, one per device.
I do a lot of builds of distros from scratch (once per commit to confirm that things aren't broken)... and it's handy to have good instrumentation of where your bottlenecks are.
Yes, you can dig down with a terminal running iostat constantly, but sometimes it's useful just to see it graphically.
Version: 2.26.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/27system monitor doesn't report NFS file system space usage2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillasystem monitor doesn't report NFS file system space usage## Submitted by bea..@..il.com
**[Link to original bug (#596692)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=596692)**
## Description
forwarded from LaunchPad [bug 396251](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396251)
https:/...## Submitted by bea..@..il.com
**[Link to original bug (#596692)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=596692)**
## Description
forwarded from LaunchPad [bug 396251](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396251)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-monitor/+bug/396251
Binary package hint: gnome-system-monitor
package gnome-system-monitor
version 2.26.0.1-0ubuntu1
OS Description: Ubuntu 9.04
Release: 9.04
I mounted an nfs filesystem and was able to see its free space using df. I expected the system monitor to report it as well, but it did not have an entry on the filesystems tab.
I was unable to find if this was by design or not.
df is a satisfactory work around to this.
ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.04
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/gnome-system-monitor
Package: gnome-system-monitor 2.26.0.1-0ubuntu1
ProcEnviron:
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: gnome-system-monitor
Uname: Linux 2.6.28-13-generic i686
Version: git masterhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/26Invalid maximal range for meters2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillaInvalid maximal range for meters## Submitted by Коренберг Марк
**[Link to original bug (#590107)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=590107)**
## Description
For example, for my Gigabit net, maximal range for network throughput should be always 1 Gigabit, ...## Submitted by Коренберг Марк
**[Link to original bug (#590107)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=590107)**
## Description
For example, for my Gigabit net, maximal range for network throughput should be always 1 Gigabit, if low-level link established as 1 Gbit, and 100 Mbit if link established as 100 mbit.
The same triaged for hard drive. My hard drive can read/write at speed about 70 MB/s. So graph should use this speed as maximal. If speed can't be discovered, there is two method - 1. user should specify maximal speed by hand, 2. maximal value during all history should be computed, saved and used.
Other information:
Version: git masterhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/25Make the load graphs smoother2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillaMake the load graphs smoother## Submitted by Christophe Dehais
**[Link to original bug (#568985)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=568985)**
## Description
Please describe the problem:
Currently the load graphs are rendered smoothly with the naive ass...## Submitted by Christophe Dehais
**[Link to original bug (#568985)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=568985)**
## Description
Please describe the problem:
Currently the load graphs are rendered smoothly with the naive assumption that the slope of the curve at each point is zero. I propose to compute an approximation of the real slope using two surrounding points, making the curve smoother and the interpolation more precise.
Steps to reproduce:
Actual results:
Expected results:
Does this happen every time?
Other information:
Version: git master
### Depends on
* [Bug 636343](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636343)https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/24Allow ionice priority change2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillaAllow ionice priority change## Submitted by Derek Frye
**[Link to original bug (#542142)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=542142)**
## Description
It would be nice to allow the user to change ionice priority on processes when supported. I'm not sure...## Submitted by Derek Frye
**[Link to original bug (#542142)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=542142)**
## Description
It would be nice to allow the user to change ionice priority on processes when supported. I'm not sure of a clean patch for this, since the code might have to resort to checking existence of /sys/block/*/queue/scheduler (which isn't portable).
Version: 2.22.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/23Efficient use of screen is very poor when small2021-05-08T08:11:04ZBugzillaEfficient use of screen is very poor when small## Submitted by Pedro Villavicencio
**[Link to original bug (#531097)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531097)**
## Description
This report has been filed here:
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system...## Submitted by Pedro Villavicencio
**[Link to original bug (#531097)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531097)**
## Description
This report has been filed here:
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-monitor/+bug/221594
"I have my screen resolution set at 1680x1050. The smallest I can make this app is that it still occupies about 1/6 of the screen area. This is really bad use of space - an app like this should be able to operate even when its window is taken down to the size of a postage stamp.
Not only that, but when operating at its smallest size, - it shows 3 graphs, the height of the graphs is in total less than 20% of the window height, the rest is just wasted space.
The important things in the voids between the graphs, such as the key and the scales, should plip out of existance when the graph gets below a certain size.
When the graph is bigger, these problems are mitigated somewhat."
"This makes "Resources" almost useless for me. About 10% of the window is used for data. As described above, the rest is 10 numbers, huge icons, a couple of chartoons (for memory use) and a lot wasted space.
Attached is an example."
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/13881028/Screenshot-2.png
Thanks,
Version: 2.22.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/22wrong percentage with frequency scaling2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillawrong percentage with frequency scaling## Submitted by Greg Grossmeier
**[Link to original bug (#530268)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=530268)**
## Description
Originally opened on Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/bugs/214695
-----
In system monitor under t...## Submitted by Greg Grossmeier
**[Link to original bug (#530268)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=530268)**
## Description
Originally opened on Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/bugs/214695
-----
In system monitor under the tab Processes I can see no process is using more than 10% CPU.
When I select Resources I see CPU1 at 12% and CPU2 at about 40-50%.
If I set the frequency scaling applet to not limit CPU usage and run at 3,20 GHz instead of 400 MHz the percentage in both tabs are compatible.
So, Resources calculates percentage based on what speed my CPU is capped to but Processes always use the value my processor is capable of.
Other information:
~$ lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 8.04
Release: 8.04
Codename: hardy
~$ apt-cache show gnome-system-monitor | grep Version
Version: 2.22.0-1ubuntu3
Version: 2.22.x
### Depends on
* [Bug 668420](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668420)https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/21fix lsof process list2021-04-06T04:20:14ZBugzillafix lsof process list## Submitted by Ben `@bdejean`
**[Link to original bug (#528030)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528030)**
## Description
lsof uses the global process list which depends on the Process tab settings.
So:
- you can't use ...## Submitted by Ben `@bdejean`
**[Link to original bug (#528030)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528030)**
## Description
lsof uses the global process list which depends on the Process tab settings.
So:
- you can't use lsof when the list is uninitialized
- the list needs to be refreshed on each search
- the sensibility needs to be fixed so that you can search only if you are on the process tab ?
Version: git masterhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/20Update Interval is not in seconds2022-01-23T16:44:08ZBugzillaUpdate Interval is not in seconds## Submitted by Nattgew
**[Link to original bug (#526071)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526071)**
## Description
Please describe the problem:
In the Edit > Preferences window, in the Resources tab, there is a setting f...## Submitted by Nattgew
**[Link to original bug (#526071)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526071)**
## Description
Please describe the problem:
In the Edit > Preferences window, in the Resources tab, there is a setting for the update interval. Though it is specifically called "Update interval in seconds," the graphs do not follow that. The labeling of the graphs is accurate, but they update more often than they are set to.
I have had to set my value to 5 to get an interval of about a second.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Set the update interval to 1
2.
3.
Actual results:
Graphs update more than once a second.
Expected results:
Graphs update once a second.
Does this happen every time?
Yes.
Other information:
This bug is filed in Ubuntu here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-monitor/+bug/205362
Version: 2.22.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/19Revamp "File System" tab - new usability style2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillaRevamp "File System" tab - new usability style## Submitted by Jones Lee
**[Link to original bug (#525288)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525288)**
## Description
I find the graph list style of Baobab very cool and could be an good idea if we can integrate it for Fi...## Submitted by Jones Lee
**[Link to original bug (#525288)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525288)**
## Description
I find the graph list style of Baobab very cool and could be an good idea if we can integrate it for File System tab. Simply imagine a pie chart on which every partitions are listed with labels on the total volume use. Then from each partition graphic part extends another part shows the used spaces and free space. Each pieces of the pie chart has distinct color representing for the file system type (ext2, swap, etc). Ofcourse there will be mechanism in which you can change the color of pieces just like the Resources tab. How does that sound to you guys? Let me know soon okay?
Other information:
Version: 2.22.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/18feature request: display per process network usage/permissions2022-11-27T02:42:49ZBugzillafeature request: display per process network usage/permissions## Submitted by mmc..@...ac.nz
**[Link to original bug (#506390)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=506390)**
## Description
A couple of ideas i thought worth consideration.
Firstly, a simple up/down display of internet us...## Submitted by mmc..@...ac.nz
**[Link to original bug (#506390)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=506390)**
## Description
A couple of ideas i thought worth consideration.
Firstly, a simple up/down display of internet usage on a per process basis. So if you have a number of applications accessing the internet, you can see how often they are downloading uploading data, and what percentage of your download/upload speed they are attaining.
Could also be useful to detect suspicious activity on the network and associate it with an app or process.
A quick mock-up i made a while back:
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=47683&stc=1&d=1193265442
Moreover, is their such a thing as networking 'nice'? Could processes have bandwidth caps/priorities imposed from within g-s-m? Furthermore, something like a simple firewall or at least a way to permit/deny nwetwork connections for apps/processes could be a good thing for g-s-m to incorporate. Seems like a logical place at least to include this function. maybe such a feature-set could live in its own tab within g-s-m, say, 'network activity' or 'network access'? In summary could some sort of simple firewall capacity be built into g-s-m? Would this be appropriate?https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/17should include graphical interface to iotop2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillashould include graphical interface to iotop## Submitted by Luis Villa
**[Link to original bug (#499725)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499725)**
## Description
System Monitor should include a GUI for iotop:
http://guichaz.free.fr/misc/#iotop
I've often wished t...## Submitted by Luis Villa
**[Link to original bug (#499725)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499725)**
## Description
System Monitor should include a GUI for iotop:
http://guichaz.free.fr/misc/#iotop
I've often wished to have this information; it would be great to put in system-monitor.https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/16Include tools for monitoring power usage2021-03-22T14:11:30ZBugzillaInclude tools for monitoring power usage## Submitted by Luis Villa
**[Link to original bug (#499724)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499724)**
## Description
System Monitor should include a GUI for powertop:
http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/
At *lea...## Submitted by Luis Villa
**[Link to original bug (#499724)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499724)**
## Description
System Monitor should include a GUI for powertop:
http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/powertop/
At *least* the part of powertop which displays what programs are sapping the most energy, and ideally the part that allows control of power usage as well.https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/15The color of history curve is not compliant with gnome system theme settings2023-10-28T01:06:38ZBugzillaThe color of history curve is not compliant with gnome system theme settings## Submitted by Calum Benson
**[Link to original bug (#485135)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485135)**
## Description
Punting upstream from OpenSolaris bug database:
*** (#1 of 1): 2006-08-11 04:43:55 IST tim.miao@sun...## Submitted by Calum Benson
**[Link to original bug (#485135)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485135)**
## Description
Punting upstream from OpenSolaris bug database:
*** (#1 of 1): 2006-08-11 04:43:55 IST tim.miao@sun.com
Steps to reproduce:
1. Change desktop theme to High Contrast Large Print Inverse theme.
2. Launch gnome-system-monitor and go to Resources tab.
Expected result:
The history curve should be compliant with gnome desktop theme settings.
Actual result:
The color of history curve is not compliant with system theme settings.
Additional info:
This has workaround, users could change the color of curve to be compliant with theme setting.
Version: 2.20.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/13Add GPU to list of monitored resources2023-10-28T01:06:37ZBugzillaAdd GPU to list of monitored resources## Submitted by Andrew Cowie
**[Link to original bug (#433870)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=433870)**
## Description
Ever since I've had Beryl running, I've been curious about how hard the graphics processing unit is ...## Submitted by Andrew Cowie
**[Link to original bug (#433870)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=433870)**
## Description
Ever since I've had Beryl running, I've been curious about how hard the graphics processing unit is working when all the bling happens. It suddenly occurred to me that it would be really cool if GPU was one of the things you could display in addition to CPU, Network, Disk, etc.
Is that even possible?
AfChttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/12Resource don't support accessibility2023-10-28T01:06:37ZBugzillaResource don't support accessibility## Submitted by henry
**[Link to original bug (#400484)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400484)**
## Description
Please describe the problem:
"Resources" tab is inaccessible
Steps to reproduce:
Steps to reproduce:
1. En...## Submitted by henry
**[Link to original bug (#400484)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400484)**
## Description
Please describe the problem:
"Resources" tab is inaccessible
Steps to reproduce:
Steps to reproduce:
1. Enable desktop assistive support.
2. Launch screen reader, say orca.
3. Launch gnome-system-monitor and go to Resources tab.
4. Press Tab to browse this tab.
Actual results:
Nothing can be reported by orca, user could hear of "button". This is not accessible.
Expected results:
The CPU status, memory and swap status and network status should be reported to user.
Does this happen every time?
yes
Other information:
Version: 2.17.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/11Processes listing should give indication that it is updating2023-11-10T03:50:50ZBugzillaProcesses listing should give indication that it is updating## Submitted by Sébastien Bacher `@seb128`
**[Link to original bug (#382201)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382201)**
## Description
That bug has been opened on https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-...## Submitted by Sébastien Bacher `@seb128`
**[Link to original bug (#382201)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382201)**
## Description
That bug has been opened on https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-monitor/+bug/71164
"When viewing a fairly consistent/static Process list in the GNOME System Monitor it is hard to know that the list is actually being updated in real-time at ~1Hz.
System Monitor should give some indication that the date is updating. On the command line, 'top' achieves the 'throbber' effect by showing the current time (HH:mm:ss) and uptime. 'watch' achieves this effect by showing the current date and time.
Both tools also show the update-frequency; perhaps this could be shown as a combo-box."
Version: 2.17.xhttps://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/10show threads2023-11-10T03:49:42ZBugzillashow threads## Submitted by Adam Dingle
**[Link to original bug (#379533)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379533)**
## Description
Currently System Monitor lists only processes, not threads. It would be great to have an option to i...## Submitted by Adam Dingle
**[Link to original bug (#379533)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379533)**
## Description
Currently System Monitor lists only processes, not threads. It would be great to have an option to include all threads in the list (as shown, for example, by ps -eL).
Version: git master
### Depends on
* [Bug 134831](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134831)https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-system-monitor/-/issues/9please add hide device(s) and swap hidden to devices tab2023-10-28T01:06:37ZBugzillaplease add hide device(s) and swap hidden to devices tab## Submitted by tim..@..il.com
**[Link to original bug (#378605)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378605)**
## Description
SunOS swift 5.11 snv_49 i86pc i386 i86pc
GNOME 2.14 Desktop
Build Date: 09/11/06
Last week I had ...## Submitted by tim..@..il.com
**[Link to original bug (#378605)](https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378605)**
## Description
SunOS swift 5.11 snv_49 i86pc i386 i86pc
GNOME 2.14 Desktop
Build Date: 09/11/06
Last week I had 64 zfs volumes in one pool. I'll have many more volumes by the end of today.
I was thinking about filing a bug asking for "find", but I don't really want find, I want hide/show only hidden (swap, as described in a process list bug).
steps to reproduce:
1. install opensolaris with space for a zpool
2. create a zpool
3. create a dozen zfs volumes
4. put 100mb or so of files into one of the volumes
5. use a mv command to move the data to another volume
6. watch the devices tab in gnome-system-monitor
expected results:
I want to watch just the volumes I'm influencing, not all of them.
steps (assuming multi select works):
1. click the source volume
2. control-click the destination volume
3. right click either selected volume
4. click hide volumes
5. select "show only hidden devices" (some alternate label is fine, i still can't come up w/ a good description)
6. only two volumes appear in the list of devices
steps (assuming multi select doesn't work):
1. right click the source volume
2. click hide volume
3. right click the destination volume
4. click hide volume
5,6. same as above
actual results:
there are dozens of devices that aren't interesting in the list including:
/usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap1.so
/dev/dsk/c1d0s0
root_pool
/dev
ctfs
objfs
fd
hostname:vold(pid...)
{others}
and a number of them are jumping around (especially /usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap1.so and /dev/dsk/c1d0s0 because they have the same size - that's another bug i'll file later).
Version: 2.14.x