Re: Mean vs Median
Marius Georgescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 03:32, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bmwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Emmerich >> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:56 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [bmwg] Mean vs Median >> >> 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. >> >> > [ACM] > I have been suggesting (in many places and drafts) that the "worst case" > delay should be characterized with RFC5481 PDV, so that it is a view of > delay variation and more easily comparable across test runs. The High > percentile as a single measure of PDV is built-in, and of course the > CDF or histogram is a possibility: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481#section-4.2 MG: I like the idea of using the 99.9th percentile as a single measure for the “Worst case” latency. _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg