On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:02:33PM -0500, Chris Widhelm wrote: > I tried it again just to make sure I wasn't missing something. > > I *was* able to create a LINE entry with a static value. However, I > *was not* able to create a LINE entry that did not cause the graph to > scale (the big benefit for me for HRULE).
You wrote: > >> ..., plus > >>LINE requires that you use a VNAME for the value instead of an actual value. which is not true, or was not true when the changes were made. > I do agree that the visibility of LINE3 vs HRULE is much better. > However, I can't sacrifice the ability to see a very small amount of > traffic (< 3kbs) just so I can see a nice fat threshold at 3Mbs. 8) Hah, but don't underestimate the power of a line reaching that big fat red area :) The order in which you specify the lines is important. Seriously, when these changes were made I did not notice differences between "HRULE:value#color:legend" and "LINE1:value#color:legend". You argue that there is a difference and you are probably right. If indeed HRULE did not show up if outside the otherwise visible graph area (meaning: HRULE did not alter the Y-axis) then this difference between HRULE and LINE was an oversight. It could also be that things have changed. I do not know and I do not think it is important. If there is a good reason to keep HRULE then I think it should be kept in. > Is there any formal process in place for making the request to keep > HRULE? And possibly enhance it? I think the formal procedure is to discuss it on the developers list but I could very well be wrong. In any case: Tobi has the deciding vote; it's his program. -- Alex van den Bogaerdt http://www.vandenbogaerdt.nl/rrdtool/ -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/rrd-users WebAdmin http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/lsg2.cgi
