On Tuesday 04 October 2005 13:40, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 10:20:11AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'm sure a thourough analysis would explain the differences. > > > For research, see footer. > > > > Yes, this is what I have already assumed during my studies. Even > > if you use GPRINT, the results are also different depending on > > image size. The results differ for me much more than in Grishas > > example (for instance 98.1 vs. 96.0). > > It is not the image size itself that causes different data. > > If you have one-hour data available, and ask for 00:00 to 24:00, > you get 24 rows of one hour each. > > If you have one-hour data available, and ask for now-24 to now, > you get 26 rows of one hour each unless "now" happens to be on > the hour exactly. This is because you ask a different question.
Okay. Maybe this issue also affects the calculations. But if I define absolute start and end times, I get different results for different --width values. > > The big problem is: How can I calculate a mathematically correct > > average now based on all measurements between start and end time > > ? Nobody (if not knowing the details of RRDtool) will trust me, > > if I say, that averages (numbers) depend on the size of the > > image. The size of the image should IMHO not affect numbers > > calculated and printed by GPRINT or PRINT. > > You do not have a correct result if you do not start with correct > assumptions. From what I read here, you don't. My assumptions seem to be correct for me, since I use absolute start and end times. Ralf -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/rrd-users WebAdmin http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/lsg2.cgi
