[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] strange graph behavior - random machines & graphs
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] strange graph behavior - random machines & graphs
- From: "Gary Baluha" <gumby3203 (at) gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:55:51 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=S1Y9qZvW7f+joAIm/snYd59uE48enpCRu++FgjLzwN0=; b=vbrcJAHj0xp8WLiJauceI9qk13fffbuDd3PL0nmtcVblToZLxnCSUwFUzLruYTcSDMdNvr3Bb/GmC9JXzRGvzXL3yzUz5MXvbSJkFTmv9hUWHxzEBv1GbX+076WDpy37w8Kwg4yg1idD2bEjnrL/MpDBcaxsvEnN6SzDNyBECy4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=qz02SE8UKXu2HmV0kZcM1hAKuCQlzwTYwrs8FuWj/OHDmd2LwXmnaJx48HJcOpwuR2pmBdV88C9LSoQZ1wJhNrcufh3HCeV1MImBsJ9T8wk+ENJt/mDyEs0Wc2frsXvhGtwpg5Hmi++RfjUR5LjzcfVVkGVcnvRD8OFDx52TFfw=
- References: <29f517690711280656x5c9fa38cta0e80f0d5761c1f7 (at) mail.gmail.com> <29f517690711280708k54276fd1me58d46d1e70ea600 (at) mail.gmail.com> <29f517690711300725g127fd5f7v148aa688764a4f94 (at) mail.gmail.com> <58EF0861D3A1A04182720B3A5231C7C201E022DB (at) usplm205.amer.corp.eds.com> <29f517690711300814q7a1ef9bew600c2d02d2d4de29 (at) mail.gmail.com>
Hmm, this is getting curiouser and curiouser. Apparently at least _some_ of
the graphs that appear corrupted still have some valid data. If I use the
graph zoom feature (clicking on the magnifying glass) and select certain
portions of the graph, the graph data shows up as normal. It appears that
the problem is related to periodic data artifacts (the huge numbers) that
cause the scale of the graph to resize to show it within bounds, and this
causes the valid data to essentially disappear.
I realized this when I looked at the graph, and saw that the (curr) and
(min) data points were showing normal values. It's just the (max) and (avg)
values that are way off, which causes the rest of the graph to be incorrect.