[Ian Schorr <ischorr3@xxxxxxx>]

I'd strongly disagree with IO stat being renamed "Throughput" since "throughput" is only one of quite a few statistics that can be extracted from it.

I'm not sure that I have a better name for it, though.  "IO Stats" seems very accurate to me, though perhaps unintuitive (it seems fine to me, but perhaps that's because I'm familiar with the tool)? 

Ian

On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 12:02PM, Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>
>> Just finished the statistics menu redesign, 3rd proposal.
>
>OK, I am feeling more comfortable about it now.
> 
>> The menu items are now grouped again by functions, not by ISO layers any 
>> longer
>> 
>> However, some questions remain:
>> 
>> a) We might want to change the "Host List" also to "Endpoint List", as 
>> this would reduce the number of entries, and still being correct?!
>
>Hmmm, I see what you mean. They are all end-points, some terminate at 
>systems, while others terminate inside systems at processes (mostly).
>
>I tend to agree here.
>
>> b) We might also want to change the "IO" item name to something more 
>> descriptive, like: "Throughput"?!
>
>You mean in the item marked 'IO Statistics' ... If so, I tend to agree 
>that it should be just Throughput.
>
>Regards
>-----
>Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, 
>sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
>