Rainer Bawidamann wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen) writes: > > > > After reading the docs there's one thing that confuses me: the RRA > > consolidate functions and steps specification. Some of the examples I > > see have only a '1' for the number of steps. So for example, the RRD > > that approximates MRTG: > [..] > > # RRA:AVERAGE:0.5:1:600 > > # RRA:MAX:0.5:1:600 > [..] > > What's the difference between the first AVERAGE and MAX definitions? > > I think there is no real difference. The people writing the code to > create RRDs for MRTG didn't think about this aspect (I^Wthey weren't > aware that this RRA is obsolete). Me thinks that you're intelligent > enough to write a CGI for MRTG ... ;-}
IMHO there is one big difference: if you write scripts to process the data, you need not provide a special case for average vs. max. In other words: a little bit of extra disk space and hardly any more processing power results in more easy programming. This may or may not result in fewer bugs. Personally I think it is worth it. cheers, -- __________________________________________________________________ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ | work private | | My employer is capable of speaking therefore I speak only for myself | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Technical questions sent directly to me will be nuked. Use the list. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | http://faq.mrtg.org/ | | http://rrdtool.eu.org --> tutorial | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- 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
