On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 08:16:19PM -0400, Adam Rothschild wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:43:37PM -0700, Mark Smith wrote: > > Are you looking to do this after the fact or in real time? > > After the fact. > > And yes, I realize the downsides to this, but for the given > application, flawed data is better than no data at all. :-)
However, I hope you realize what you are getting via your proposal is *not* flawed data, it's no data at all - you're only making it look as though you had data. In some sense, it's "negative" data - you are removing the data indicating that you were unable to collect data values at a certain time, which could be useful data in itself. As you can tell, I'm philosophically opposed to this. If you only want smooth looking *graphs*, there's probably a way to do this with some of the CDEF expressions in the grapher, using the "PREV" command. E.g. assuming orig is the def for your original data source, something like: CDEF:smooth=orig,UN,PREV,orig,IF should give you a graph with flat-lines where the data is unknown, much like MRTG's old behavior. HTH, -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWJD? "JWRTFM!" - Scott Dorsey (kludge) "JWG" - Eddie Aikau -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-users WebAdmin http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi
