[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       rrd-users
Subject:    [rrd-users] Re: [Fwd: Re: Re: Excluding UNKN or NAN from CDEF]
From:       Eric_Mailing_List () rednarb ! com (Eric Brander)
Date:       2004-09-27 20:19:47
Message-ID: 415875E3.4030000 () rednarb ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Stephan Harren wrote:


> 
> Unknowns ARE ignored when calculating, so try not to use the "use 0 
> instead of NaN"-Statements:
> 
> But I guess, this will probably also have some disadvantages, because 
> calculating with NaNs can lead to strange effects. Giv it a try, but I'd 
> also prefer to use the "cleaned" version.
> 
> Stephan
> 

Stephan,

This, I think, has produced ideal results IMHO. Thank you very much for 
your explanation and for writing it out for me.  That helped a lot in 
having it make sense!

Regards,

Eric Brander

--
Unsubscribe mailto:rrd-users-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Help        mailto:rrd-users-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=help
Archive     http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-users
WebAdmin    http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]