4 ms·
tHNanks for writing down this! (so it seems putting two stochastic processes on top of each other is not like putting two "solid" things on top of each other,
by pas 2y ago
tHNanks for writing down this!
(so it seems putting two stochastic processes on top of each other is not like putting two "solid" things on top of each other, right? intuitively they mesh, I guess their stacking height is their "expected value"?
and their worst case will be the sum of their worst cases, where there's no averaging, right? so again intuitively a the larger a flow is the more dangerous is, even if it's smooth, because if it backs up it fills up queues/buffers faster, so to plan for extreme cases we still need "linear" thinking)
- hnaccount_rng 2y agoKind of yes. Stacking two stochastic processes simply adds up the expectation value but not the noise/dispersion/volatility. That variation adds as a sum of squares. If you push utilisation towards 1, what you essentially do is push the next "free" slot farther and farther into the future. This, essentially, means that you always buy higher utilisation with longer latency (at least in the upper bound). But the good thing is: If you have enough numbers, then the maximum latency grows slower with utilisation.