Subject: RE: Aberrant behaviour -- any experience?
From: Jake Brutlag (jakeb@microsoft.com)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 16:36:55 CDT
> > changing the failures threshold/window length to reduce the > number of > > failures in general (although we use the default). > > I already reduced it to 2 failures in 30-minute window. You want to go the other direction; the default is 7 or more violations in a window of 9 observations produces a failure. If you changed this to something like 2 or more violations in a window of 6 observations, this means that failures will occur more frequently (lower bar defines a failure). If there is something in the documentation which suggests the opposite, please let me know and I'll correct it. > As far as I understood from the manual, aberrant-reset option > does not re-apply the algorithm to the existing data, and I can see the effect > only few days later? The problem is that the data for the algorithm to 're-learn' is not guaranteed to be available. In your case, you are preserving 2 weeks of fine-resolution historical data. But often the fine-resolution data (5-min averages) is discarded after a day or so in favor of consolidated data, which can't be used. Jake -- Help mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "unsubscribe flowscan" in message body Archive http://net.doit.wisc.edu/~plonka/list/flowscan/archive/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue May 21 2002 - 16:37:52 CDT