IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] Mean vs Median

"Marius Georgescu" <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp> Thu, 12 November 2015 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B784A1ACE41 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:20:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fVixd6IPOT3l for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailrelay21.naist.jp (mailrelay21.naist.jp [IPv6:2001:200:16a:50::71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911191ACE3F for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpost21.naist.jp (mailscan21.naist.jp [163.221.80.58]) by mailrelay21.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F7A207 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:20:10 +0900 (JST)
Received: from aslim (dn158-103.naist.jp [163.221.158.103]) by mailpost21.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B99206 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:20:10 +0900 (JST)
From: Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
References: <6b20c5aba195.56384250@naist.jp> <6a80d3baddd6.5638459e@naist.jp> <6aa08a52c1ca.563845da@naist.jp> <6aa09799f4a7.563846ca@naist.jp> <6b60a07c9bbf.56384707@naist.jp> <6c109c80bfc2.56384743@naist.jp> <6a60e1ff9170.56384780@naist.jp> <6a60f4388bab.563847bc@naist.jp> <6bd0f10697e2.563847f8@naist.jp> <6a409179ad4a.56384835@naist.jp> <6a80cfd8c72d.56384871@naist.jp> <6c30b15ad280.563848ae@naist.jp> <6c30f0e98215.563848ea@naist.jp> <6c10c39aeff9.56384926@naist.jp> <6ab08659b996.56384963@naist.jp> <6ab0ea4dfdd6.563849a0@naist.jp> <6ab0be62e098.563849dc@naist.jp> <6aa0abb5b14b.56384a19@naist.jp> <6aa0e679a9c8.56384a55@naist.jp> <6b60e1babb96.56384a93@naist.jp> <6b60fdd88897.56384acf@naist.jp> <6a509431f711.56384c39@naist.jp> <6a50aab7bf13.5638cb72@naist.jp> <CAPrseCo-E82O+tSvRC=4x-yXYTMEHUW6UjeQK6HBRZwXey=sKg@mail.gmail.com> <9C1BEDBD-2338-4E1B-8C98-E9479FE01423@is.naist.jp> <56434C78.6090502@net.in.tum.de> <CAPrseCqY1FFQv8yuASVC5xMYQ7w4+KQCnMhE1cfV7Bjtowovqg@mail.gmail.com> <5644 8E4C.9060307@n et.in.tum.de>
In-Reply-To: <56448E4C.9060307@net.in.tum.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:19:58 +0900
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAEFA/wpwMJJMh/vN2IEkLQQBANlTnCJhprtFudq2LHCBs8EBACQA//8AABAAAACF68SkjwoLQZ5jYexomO8NAQAAAAA=@is.naist.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-index: AQLVrBTHeTsEk7Iu0hHLR/6fOxZh6gHINLFIAcznKuoBI14X/gMGrPETAfCF5SoCidqsawHpKRLqAmK28BcBchgtOwJZWc11AzUdTVcBWcexkwE93LncAa2jO3YBdQ4CKgLbgiC0AZsIkH8A+M7adQMnTLaZAtwHJrcCC87D8gJw6idAAWFRCSABZPvQQgMPUTivAT+tJgkB/hcCFprdNnrQ
Content-language: en-us
X-TM-AS-MML: No
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1392-8.0.0.1202-21938.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.406-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--1.406-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: zAn4O9ZP5edITndh1lLRAe5i6weAmSDKy1coPxI/+8k9aiLtk+KWxSLQ VfdKPRhmFm9c8s2OWMsNKu6sdFLYuda/jIZoZyKFSDkh6bW+bcc0eODwiLh9OBxeYFneYjlJNk8 gWW5KUnWPkMyi9NYHwVv70PZip3sSEzcCmS9Qcu7mAId+2bAQwi4tncCojEfc5DJ1FS+XdBNs7A 72zS4CG33mXSdV7KK4kZOl7WKIImq0P2qkGU0Xys/8zK5WVP8LS0iSG6xyIZcqGFx21ziLIQtuK BGekqUpnH7sbImOEBRTpfAg3dz9qWSpbPJiMz9JQsif1sC5MSiMhNf1u+7vUqa+dckDsKa9XzJW WPhFwJDVNYPqrw5TJbbrwMR2dtzOQ2aM+ULCItYJplJVdmbOkNKXo9UCM/zs8mxWrz7NTm5vEPT G7CzAqL7rweoAIK8o
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/TnI0bHwHRZVgzefZS2KQnYxS2Ic>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Mean vs Median
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:20:13 -0000

>my suggestion would be characterizing the latency by providing several
percentiles. I'd suggest using 10, 20, ... 90, 99, (and maybe 99.9 if we
define the required number of samples as large enough to capture long
tails). This is still a small number of data points that can easily be
included in a test report. But it is effectively a quantized CDF and
therefore captures the whole distribution including its shape reasonably
well.

[MG]  Thanks for sharing your paper. I am not sure if this solution would
make a good comparison base. As I see it, the test report has to be
synthetic enough to allow easy comparison. Reporting a single number might
not be enough, but reporting 10 numbers is too much imo.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email