[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xymon] Question about trend graph scaling
- To: xymon (at) xymon.com
- Subject: Re: [xymon] Question about trend graph scaling
- From: Steve Holmes <sholmes42 (at) mac.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:03:45 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=9zDtqQWw+oIIFY2O28WaCS6FWlJRdr9fJod3BdDG4A0=; b=oB5p0dGDqEdZ8YHg7uTY1OvM6WItWqXpNABegqYFtyvyxYw7ewA7yBL529/msqhuKD +MC+3jU4GhCMey7mzkGueQdF/uNpXo1gm+7wMECD7+4e1vdl+w1i/M87lLfqFfxg3dgd V8+W/Edvl2iC82+hUlss+LT8n6E/oW3EA3wcw=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=bHqS2reUSUG6nwzWrv+RHIooihh4WkqEL1h6iy99dGr6XfJjXHH0MHW1Jhy4VIVY5e cJqSdTkRaCeQiKRpfBw8BPN23mD80maiSrEhweFJWO5KHCsXfT2p3kfGdEsbLsT45PKf KHg5j8MR+psrEvFUP2tpPiifPYddINCffcDyU=
- References: <41EE66689DFD3647AAE8E8CB28C2668B84C4F30767 (at) qtomaexmbm21.AD.QINTRA.COM> <AANLkTimXtO0tv=-wC_SV2jRJsLyNAQSgOs+gUkh5U9dp (at) mail.gmail.com> <BC6FF8D396D71F49A12774CD995980813E8E3E (at) pcsexch.phillycarshare.loc>
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Rob Munsch <Munsch (at) phillycarshare.org>wrote:
> > From: sholmes42 (at) gmail.com [mailto:sholmes42 (at) gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Steve Holmes
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:21 PM
> > To: xymon (at) xymon.com
> > Subject: Re: [xymon] Question about trend graph scaling
>
> > It's because at longer history the values are averaged over longer time
> intervals.
> > Steve
>
> It would seem that is what is happening, but is that appropriate for things
> like CPU values? 100% of the CPU is constant over time. And it looks like
> when he takes a certain path to zoom in, he sees expected values.
>
>
I don't know about anyone else but that is exactly the behavior I expect. If
the CPU value stays at 100 for long enough it will show up at 100 on all the
graphs. But if it peaks at 100 for 10 minutes and then goes back to .1
where it normally sits, then the average over, for example, 5 hours
including that 10 minutes is well below 100. The if you zoom in on that same
5 hours you can see the details within that time span including the peak.
Where's the problem?
Steve
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Lee, Raymond <Raymond.Lee (at) qwest.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> > When I go to the trend page for a host and then click on a graph to get
> the 48-hr, 12-day, 48-day, and 576-day graphs, something > > doesn't look
> right.
>
> > For example, I'm looking at the CPU utilization graphs:
> > * In the 48-hour graph, I see 2 spikes for "user" this morning that were
> near 60%.
> > * In the 12-day graph, those same 2 spikes only go up to about 30%.
> > * In the 48-day graph, the spikes only go up to about 15%.
> > * In the 576-day graph, the values hover around 10%.
>
>
--
The test of a democracy is not the magnificence of buildings or the speed of
automobiles or the efficiency of air transportation, but rather the care
given to the welfare of all the people. -Helen Adams Keller, lecturer and
author (1880-1968)
Truth never damages a cause that is just. -Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(1869-1948)