![]() These graphs have a vertex for each circle or disk, and an edge connecting each pair of circles or disks that have a nonempty intersection. Unit disk graphs are the intersection graphs of equal-radius circles, or of equal-radius disks.Unit disk graphs are the graph formed from a collection of points in the Euclidean plane, with a vertex for each point and an edge connecting each pair of points whose distance is below a fixed threshold.Right now, neither can be done.There are several possible definitions of the unit disk graph, equivalent to each other up to a choice of scale factor: ![]() The issue is that is also quite far from the possible truth given the riding average is in the 150-160’s- so effectively, that specific node “lost” some of its attributed storage time.Įg, in the accounting world, that sort of historical manipulation is the type of thing people get collared for- it reeks of manipulation and corruption… unless it can be accounted for and explained. I had a node go from 187TBh to 14.9TBh on the 16th with 221.22 the day following… so obviously the 187TBh was right but due to “funny math” I get 14.9 and 221.22 that needed to be hand calculated at, roughly, 118TBh per day … if the assumption of delayed reporting is taken so the spacetime attribution would be on the following day. The sat verifies you’ve stored X TB for Y hrs, but it’s not like that changes days later- you still held onto X TB for Y hrs, regardless of it being one day later or 10 days later. ![]() I guess, yes, the live part is my biggest issue with the whole thing. Which makes the graph basically useless… it plots satellite latency… mostly with the avg number being our stored data tally…īut littleskunk talked something about that once a month or so there was some counters / tallys that would overlap and thus create that big gap… i’m sure it will be fixed one day…ĭuno why they don’t just smooth it out tho… would be pretty simple to do…Īnd really it is live… which is part of the problem… it plots the data when it has them… instead of just guestimating. I think there was some time schedules that was overlapping… my initial guess of what was wrong was kinda right, it was ofc just a lot more complex.īasically goes like this… the graph is updated twice a day, lets say noon and midnight, and a full tally for the satellite usually takes less than that to do it’s tally of the data stored, when the satellite is done the numbers are published and used by the graph.īut if the tally isn’t done, because the satellite isn’t done with it’s tally, because maybe it was dealing with other workloads like say deletions, then the number isn’t there for the graph to plot.Īnd then when the tally is done it might be a day late and then it will be counted in the next graph plot… It’s not because it’s inaccurate, it’s just slow and i believe that when littleskunk explained it, there was also something with how the timing of it was done… The graph is right, if one takes the avg… but the day to day and even week to week is very rough…Īs you can see the valley is much larger than the additional peak… which is why i expect there to be more plotted today, it has an avg to uphold.Īnyways, long story short, nothing to worry about… maybe a satellite being overloaded, but it has no effect for SNO’s, in the past satellite latency have caused late payments because of the processing being months behind, but it’s been a while since we have seen these spikes, so i’m guessing … maybe because they restarted the next test data sequence and the system started generating test data or whatever, putting high load on the cpu’s slowing down the space computations. I’ve complained about this a lot, and it’s like its gotten better… but yeah it still happens… really since this is a space used graph it should be nearly flat for most of us… because the variation each day is less that 1-3%Īlso the 19th peak seems kinda low… i would expect to see more of that when and if it finishes on the 20th … it’s really sort of a graph of satellite cpu latency rather than anything else… So the reason it goes to 0 on the 18th is that the satellites didn’t finish their calculation, that was finished at the 19th and which is why the 19th is higher than the others. This is normal… this graph was suppose to be more stable… the reason it’s unstable is because it’s updated each time the satellites complete a computation cycle or something like that…
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |