View full commands in ps output

Question

When running ps with the -f option in PuTTY (to see the command corresponding to each process), lines which are longer than the terminal width are not fully visible (they are not wrapped on multiple lines).

How can I force line wrapping so that I can see the full commands (on multiple lines, if necessary) when running ps -f?

Not an answer, but if I run ps -f in shrinked terminal emulator, output is wrapped on multiple lines. What terminal are you using? — MatthewRock, Sep 14 '15 at 08:43
This could be a duplicate of: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2159860/viewing-full-output-of-ps-command — Tommy, Sep 14 '15 at 08:45
@MatthewRock I use PuTTy here, do you think this is specific to it? — sdabet, Sep 14 '15 at 08:46
@Tonsenson Do we consider duplicates across Stackexchange sites ? Also, shouldn't this question belong to unix.stackexchange.com instead of stackoverflow.com ? — sdabet, Sep 14 '15 at 08:46
@fiddler - see if the answer from Tonsenson's link helps you. If so, the question should be considered inappropriate - posting your question title into google outputs Tonsenson's link as first result, so answer is easy to find. — MatthewRock, Sep 14 '15 at 08:50
@MatthewRock thanks for the advice. Fiddler: I don't know. Maybe the question is older than the unix community. But have a look at the link and then we can talk about how we are going to proceed — Tommy, Sep 14 '15 at 08:53
@Tonsenson Yes, this can definitely be considered a duplicate. — sdabet, Sep 14 '15 at 08:56
@MatthewRock it is. This site started in mid-2010, IIRC. But we don't consider dupes across sites. Quoting that post in an answer here is perfectly fine by Stack Exchange standards. (Though Tonsenson could have tried to retain formatting.) — muru, Sep 14 '15 at 08:56
Then it's my bad. Initially I didn't see that answer was posted on SE, and [this article](http://unix.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask) and maybe some Meta post I've read convinced me that posts that can be answered by simple google query aren't good questions. — MatthewRock, Sep 14 '15 at 08:58
According to muru who's more experienced than me, I'd say no. If the answer from @Tonsenson 's link was helpful, then it'd be probably the best that he undeleted his answer. — MatthewRock, Sep 14 '15 at 09:02
@muru Shouldn't all these former linux-related questions somehow moved from stackoverflow.com to unix.stackexchange.com/? — sdabet, Sep 14 '15 at 09:27
@fiddler ah, we can't migrate old questions without moderator intervention, and even then it's not recommended: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8004/should-we-migrate-old-questions — muru, Sep 14 '15 at 09:31

score 71 · Accepted Answer · edited Sep 14 '15 at 20:58

71

If you have a POSIX-conforming ps implementation, you may try

ps -f | more

Note that we¹ recently changed the behavior and if you have an implementation that follows POSIX issue 7 tc2, you may try:

ps -wwf | more

¹ _{We being the people who have weekly teleconferences to discuss the evolvement of the POSIX standard.}

edited Sep 14 '15 at 20:58

Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'

807,993
194
1,674
2,175

answered Sep 14 '15 at 09:15

schily

18,806
5
38
60

3

`ps -wwf` works just fine. – sdabet Sep 14 '15 at 09:28
Note, this is the right answer for the questioner's case (`ps -f`), but others may prefer having `aux` in there as well, as in fibonacci's answer. – mwfearnley Nov 02 '22 at 12:07

score 51 · Answer 2 · answered Apr 10 '17 at 09:48

51

For simplicity, try this: ps auxfww

answered Apr 10 '17 at 09:48

fibonacci

975
8
8

2

This worked! The accepted answer (of ps -wwf and ps -f) did not. – Michael Koval Aug 29 '21 at 04:50
not working for me – Ivan Aracki Jun 03 '22 at 10:24
Worked for me, I'm guessing it's because I'm on `PowerShell` and not on a putty or ssh terminal. – Henrique de Sousa Oct 19 '22 at 12:47

score 12 · Answer 3 · edited May 23 '17 at 12:39

12

I've probably found the answer for your question on Stack Overflow. In the words of Dennis Williamson:

It is likely that you're using a pager such as less or most since the output of ps aux is longer than a screenful. If so, the following options will cause (or force) long lines to wrap instead of being truncated.

ps aux | less -+S

ps aux | most -w If you use either of the following commands, lines won't be wrapped but you can use your arrow keys or other movement keys to scroll left and right.

ps aux | less -S # use arrow keys, or Esc+( and Esc+), or Alt+( and Alt+)

ps aux | most # use arrow keys, or < and > (Tab can also be used to scroll right) Lines are always wrapped for more and pg.

When ps aux is used in a pipe, the w option is unnecessary since ps only uses screen width when output is to the terminal.

(Note: this applies to non-embedded Linux, the ps utility on other Unix variants may work differently.)

edited May 23 '17 at 12:39

Community

1

answered Sep 14 '15 at 08:43

Tommy

221
1
6

@muru hope this is now looking better. Thanks for clearing all up! – Tommy Sep 14 '15 at 09:28
And sorry for causing the mess. – MatthewRock Sep 14 '15 at 09:28
Didn't cause any mess. It is a good think discussing about that stuff; I am still pretty new to SO (at least talking about my knowledge). So thanks for the input! – Tommy Sep 14 '15 at 09:29
1

Your answer only applies to `/usr/ucb/ps` and even with this program you would need `ww` as `/usr/ucb/ps` limits the output width to 80 if the output is a pipe. For the POSIX standard ps, see my answer. – schily Sep 14 '15 at 11:49
1

@schily This answer is perfectly correct for the usual `ps` command on non-embedded Linux, which is what a majority of readers here have. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Sep 14 '15 at 20:57
1

But the OP did not set /linux as tag. – schily Sep 14 '15 at 22:13
True. schily's commands are producing nothing for me. Where would they work?? – nyxee Jan 26 '17 at 03:13

score 7 · Answer 4 · edited May 11 '22 at 11:45

7

There is also another simple solution:

echo "$(ps afx)"

When run in a command substitution like this, ps isn’t sending its output to a terminal, so it doesn’t limit its output to the terminal’s width.

edited May 11 '22 at 11:45

Stephen Kitt

411,918
54
1,065
1,164

answered Oct 28 '16 at 12:28

cinatic

210
2
4

1

Thanks for that. Now, the command behaves completely differently on MacOS (I hear its based on `BSD`) and Ubuntu (`Linux`). Linux isn't showing any difference in when u `echo` or not. But, MAC OS X is printing as much as the terminal can show. I'm using `iTerm2` and `zsh`. MAC doesn't allow the `--f` option. – nyxee Feb 22 '17 at 08:10

score 0 · Answer 5 · edited Jun 07 '19 at 19:28

0

The command for MacOS is slightly different echo "$(ps aux)"

edited Jun 07 '19 at 19:28

jesse_b

35,934
12
91
140

answered Jun 07 '19 at 15:46

Jibeex

101
3

You don't want to pass it through `echo` unnecessarily. Notice also that [several](https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/358076/117549) [other](https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/229542/117549) answers already mention `ps aux` in some way. I would suggest comments or edits on those existing answers to point out that they're good for MacOS (which is what I assume you meant). – Jeff Schaller Jun 07 '19 at 19:08

score 0 · Answer 6 · edited Feb 20 '20 at 13:21

0

Or you could do

IFS='$';for line in $(ps axf); do echo $line; done

edited Feb 20 '20 at 13:21

Paulo Tomé

3,754
6
26
38

answered Feb 20 '20 at 12:56

Stephane Mailloux

1

I am curious, why are you setting `IFS` to `$`? – AdminBee Feb 20 '20 at 13:56

View full commands in ps output

6 Answers6