Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 42396 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2009 07:03:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Jan 2009 07:03:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 7382 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2009 07:03:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 7334 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jan 2009 07:03:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 7323 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jan 2009 07:03:05 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:03:05 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.239 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.198.239] (HELO rv-out-0506.google.com) (209.85.198.239) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:02:57 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g37so301612rvb.35 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:02:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QAE0WtGeNoroPA9PsCUC2H6S3cpNuTf10Qzx9jXtMUA=; b=s5tEK9x+F3dsckv72/OpSI+DpnXJcKu6Jb+9iarj4EoC8E2J11I5+gLMCONFMOQLHy G/KsFxIIcfSY0aWoUZ9+MN6CSrMYYrMW6qpdtzuiff5XGflPAHt9y/bUWCU4VKBdX1Pb vPG14AVoIFofHb05T02xuHFgyZZZhqsapRdM4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qlX4ApD65m3KdHo3PUiPPnCmV7CCjwbzKHbSz4PJIw+dOa+MsO4MXBsS574YVd65al AwFMzocX/R6QT4DgzcjvzE+Vm0PDVz0jnnu4QihJrGyRa3U6fDTNQx6NEB02H52TPD1K tCD/UlVPK3FWbqyDlhA0ep70tOsJU1Aobr+0A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.28.2 with SMTP id f2mr463139rvj.170.1233298956528; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:02:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4E1BB3D8-950D-4851-A87C-9A64FA0934AD@gmail.com> References: <4E1BB3D8-950D-4851-A87C-9A64FA0934AD@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:02:36 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Statistics Module From: Paul Davis To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Antony Blakey wrote: > > On 30/01/2009, at 4:27 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Antony Blakey >> wrote: >>> >>> On 30/01/2009, at 9:56 AM, Paul Davis wrote: >>> >>>> The way that stats are calculated currently with the dependent >>>> variable being time could cause some issues in implementing more >>>> statistics. With my extremely limited knowledge of stats I think >>>> moving that to be dependent on the number of requests might be better. >>>> This is something that hopefully someone out there knows more about. >>>> (This is in terms of "avg for last 5 minutes" vs "avg for last 100 >>>> requests", (the later of the two making stddev type stats >>>> calculateable on the fly in constant memory.) >>> >>> The problem with using # of requests is that depending on your data, each >>> request may take a long time. I have this problem at the moment: 1008 >>> documents in a 3.5G media database. During a compact, the status in >>> _active_tasks updates every 1000 documents, so you can imagine how useful >>> that is :/ I thought it had hung (and neither the beam.smp CPU time nor >>> the >>> IO requests were a good indicator). I spent some time chasing this down >>> as a >>> bug before realising the problems was in the status granularity! >>> >> >> Actually I don't think that affects my question at all. It may change >> how we report things though. As in, it may be important to be able to >> report things that are not single increment/decrement conditions but >> instead allow for adding arbitrary floating point numbers to the >> number of recorded data points. > > I think I have the wrong end of the stick here - my problem was with the > granularity of updates, not with the basis of calculation. > Heh. Well, we can only measure what we know. And in the interest of simplicity I think the granularity is gonna have to stick to pretty much per request. Also you're flying with 300 MiB docs? perhaps its time to chop or store in FTP? > Antony Blakey > ------------- > CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd > Ph: 0438 840 787 > > It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti > > >