Whew, I thought my email may have been a bit confusing. I was getting confused writing it. :) But it looks like you nailed it on the head. As you mentioned, an un avoidable side effect is the database size explodes, but disk is cheap right? :)
Jason... -----Original Message----- From: Mikko Lyly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:17 PM To: rrd-users@list.ee.ethz.ch Subject: [rrd-users] Re: rrdtool graph more average :) hmm, In deed this might be the simplest solution in doing this now why didnt i think of this in the first place :) new - old / 6 = value (negative or positive) where value is what is needed to add every 10mins if real interwal is 60minutes that should work right then making the heartbeat 10mins instead of 60mins higher datarate whould make it look better but then again it whould increase database size alot! -Mikko On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:51:38 -0600, Warnes, Jason SktnHR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > b) Create a RRD with a higher step value to get greater resolution and > then > make "fake" entries in your RRD to average out the previously recorded > value > with the current one. For example if you use a step value of 60 (1 for > each > minute) for the RRD and then lets say you have a value of 19.5 currently > stored in the RRD at 00:00, then at 01:00 you receive a value of 18 from > whatever you're monitoring. Then if you make even intervals of values > for > the missing minutes between 00:00 - 01:00 that decrement from 19.5 to 18 > and > store those in your RRD for their appropriate times and then store the 18 > at > 01:00 if may help smooth out the bumps a bit. -- 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 -- 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
