https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296750
--- Comment #13 from Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Frank Ch. Eigler from comment #11)
>... If cross-<mark>-interpolated
> counter values happened to be larger than before, you'd see a positive
> rate, but it would be a false positive. The correct answer would
> still be "no answer".
I should point out this ^^ is the scenario that scares me - if a counter
didn't go backwards across a mark, then the reported rate is likely to be
bogus, but currently undetectable. No answer is the only right answer here :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TKcALZbhN3&a=cc_unsubscribe
|