On 02/06/2012 06:01 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > We have a long history of questions and bugs mentioning negative numbers > in the byte hit ratio. > > I've always thought it was a bug we had not tracked down, but the FAQ > says it is correct. > http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/InnerWorkings#Why_do_I_see_negative_byte_hit_ratio.3F > > > I've discussed this with a professional statistician I work with and she > agrees the algorithm is not calculating hit ratio as per our definition > of what a HIT is. What is does seem to be calculating is a net traffic > GAIN ratio.
The definition of a document hit differs from a definition of a byte hit. I agree that the term "byte hit ratio" (and the concept of a byte hit itself) is probably worse than "bandwidth saving/loss", "bandwidth gain/loss" or some other term we can come up with (I would not use "traffic gain" nor would I make negative numbers desirable). > What I propose is make the numbers reported as HIT ratios use the same > algorithm. The current request ratio one. And to add alongside this a > record for Gain/Loss Ratio as output by this byte calculation. I do not think we should change how bandwidth gain/loss is computed (at least I would need to see the actual change first). We can change the label used for that number. HTH, Alex.
