Confirmed users
1,009
edits
Talk:Performance/Status Meetings/2007-June-27: Difference between revisions
Talk:Performance/Status Meetings/2007-June-27 (view source)
Revision as of 13:58, 27 June 2007
, 27 June 2007no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
EDIT: OK, I know for sure it's not calculating correctly. Here's five times from a run I just did: | EDIT: OK, I know for sure it's not calculating correctly. Here's five times from a run I just did: | ||
391 296 390 234 297 | 391 296 390 234 297 | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
EDIT2: The more I look at other medians, the more suspect things get. I'm seeing other examples of things being completely wrong even when it appears that the high number is being factored out properly. For example, I did another run where the four remaining numbers were 141 141 157 157. The median of that is 149. The value reported was 157. | EDIT2: The more I look at other medians, the more suspect things get. I'm seeing other examples of things being completely wrong even when it appears that the high number is being factored out properly. For example, I did another run where the four remaining numbers were 141 141 157 157. The median of that is 149. The value reported was 157. | ||
-RyanVM | EDIT3: One more round of edits and I'm done. It appears that maybe the actual tinderboxen are doing the calculations correctly and the problem I'm seeing only occurs when Tp2 is run locally (which is still a valid bug :-)...). Looking a recent run from fx-linux-tbox perf test, I see something like this: | ||
34;www.travelocity.com/;603;601;598;680;680;600;604;598;602 | |||
If I'm reading that correctly it's median, mean, min, max, <5 times>. At which point, those numbers are correct with the 680 run factored out. So I guess the good news at least is that the tinderboxen seem to be doing the correct calculations at least. | |||
-[[User:RyanVM|RyanVM]] 06:58, 27 June 2007 (PDT) | |||