Re: Mean vs Median
Marius Georgescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 01:55, Paul Emmerich <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12.11.15 16:19, Marius Georgescu wrote: >> [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. > > Maybe the latency report can be split into two categories: typical latency and worst-case latency. The former being something like average and standard deviation (or median and 1st/3rd quartile), the latter the 90th and 99th percentile? A full test report should (optionally?) include the full CDF or histogram as a graph. > MG: That sounds like a good idea to me. In the light of recent discussions, maybe median + 1st&3rd quartiles would be a better choice for the "typical latency” (i was thinking regular/common latency could be more descriptive name). A MAY for fine grain analysis with histograms sounds good as well. _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg