[RC5] Stats suggestion

Stephen Berg sberg at pangaealink.com
Sat Jan 6 00:39:51 EST 2001


Actually the comparison to a *nix uptime load average makes sense. 
And that sounds like a better solution all around.  I guess the stats
gurus will have to comment though.  I also like the idea of having a
7, 30 and 60 day value.  Or maybe 7, 30 and 90.  Wouldn't the
calculation for this still need to retrieve daily values for every
day being computed?  I think that was one of the drawbacks of adding
this feature since it would have to do that for each and every
participant along with the normal daily processing.

Then again, since I'm no programmer it's probably safe to ignore any
and all comments I make here!  :-)

On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 12:04:28 +0000 (UCT), Ben Clifford wrote:

>Have you considered an "exponential decay" average?
>
>This is a weighted average, where the more recent values have a bigger
>weight than values in the past - values in the distant past have such a
>tiny weight that they are insignificant.

>For people who use unix, this is how load averages from the uptime command
>are computed.

>I'm not sure how well I have explained this... please ask questions :-)


                            Stephen Berg
//-    USAF Instructor  -/-  Reluctant NT User -/- Web Designer    -//
//-                 Home = sberg at mississippi.com                   -//
//-                Work = stephen.berg at osan.af.mil                 -//
//-     http://iceberg.3c0x1.com/   -/-   http://www.3c0x1.com     -//     


--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list