Xref: utzoo news.config:1368 news.admin:6778
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!uflorida!gatech!ncsuvx!mcnc!decvax!zinn!cloud9!cme
From: cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: news.config,news.admin
Subject: Re: Warp speed Mr. Scott!
Message-ID: <7604@cloud9.Stratus.COM>
Date: 7 Sep 89 22:07:53 GMT
References: <1989Aug21.124002.11054@robohack.uucp> <1059@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> <6064@ficc.uu.net>
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA
Lines: 23

In article <6064@ficc.uu.net>, sms@ficc.uu.net (Stanley M. Sutton) writes:
> Why not just use minutes?  Integers are easier to track than floating.

Integers are OK, but you'd probably want 1 second resolution rather than
minutes.  I've seen some hops take only seconds according to the routing
histories I've read.

> However, the mean time for transfer may not be as useful as some of the
> terms, if they are consitently used.

You'll have a hard time convincing me of that.  The words convey only the
frequency of outgoing calls from which mean waiting time is inferred.
Routing decisions care only about waiting time.  The words are few and
therefore, the quantification of waiting times is gross.  If there's
some reason to make measured waiting times more coarsely quantified,
that can be done numerically.  If a system administrator wants to lie
about connectivity, s/he can do so as easily with numbers as with words.
If the desire is to tell the truth, then a real measurement sure beats
a numerical guess followed by a guess of a word to match the guessed number.


--Carl Ellison                      UUCP::  cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM
SNail:: Stratus Computer; 55 Fairbanks Blvd.; Marlborough MA 01752
Disclaimer::  (of course)