[nos-bbs] Interested in REPEAT packet statistics?

[George [ham] VerDuin]

Specifically to Jay and Kenneth,
We do have a failure to communicate.


On 04/14/2010 05:23 AM, Jay Nugent wrote:
> Greetings,
>     I will add to what both Ken and Barry have stated -- the information
> you provide is only partial.
>    
Correct -- only partial.
Intentionally so.
Please stop thinking about *how* to fix something wrong.
Please focus on *when* do you decide something is broke and worth fixing.

I have no intent to present WHAT the problem is, nor how to address 
whatever the problem might be.
The only issue the stats address is:

           *Does a problem with re-transmission exist during the period 
of study.*

Even the answer requires experience and interpretation, some 
re-transmission is normal.
We don't live in a perfect world.

My thesis is that given the kind of data I presented at the beginning of 
this brew-ha-ha, above  some number seen as:
     =>percentage of repeat traffic
the reader would choose to take the kind of action you have outlined.  
Not before.
Especially not before because the existence of re-transmission is not 
monitored in normal operation.

Remember -- Automotive engineers gave us the idiot light, they didn't 
choose to tell us oil pressure is low.

SO -- On the *single* issue of "Does a problem exist"
Not how big is it
Not where is it
Not what caused it
Especially not what to do about it.
What do you say?

Or perhaps you can't say because you have no statistical experience?
I gave you the script so you could have the experience if you choose.
If you don't choose -- that is OK too.

I very much appreciate that in order to change performance much more 
detail is required about whatever causes a degrade in performance.  I'll 
discuss the what in later email, for now just focus on *when*.  How 
about stickking to the question I did ask and not present answers to 
questions that are not on the table?

Regards
Skip