Monitoring the quality of the server side of the entire API response time, which one is best suited for the median, 595 or upper95?

I want to track API response time. I can use methods such as medium, medium and others for monitoring. But I am having the following problems with these methods:

Medium Problem

if one of the requests takes a very long time. For example, in a given preset tool, it will become high due to a value of 1000.
S1 = [1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1000]

Problem with the med

This will be the correct value only up to 50%. For example, in a given set S2 = [2,2,2,2,2,50,50,50,50]. the median gives a value of 2, but most users experience a slow response.

Problem with 5-95 span ( http://steveakers.com/2013/08/01/span-vs-median-for-response-time-monitors/ )

In the above article, the author suggested using the value uppser95-uppser5. But this will not generate a warning if the response time is similar: s3 = [50,50,50,50,50]. In this case, all API responses are slow. But the range of 5-95 is zero.

I am thinking of using either of these two values. upper95 or (upper95 + upper5) / 2.

Which one will be better and why? Is there a better way to calculate QOS?

+4
source share
1 answer

You specified three dimensions:

  • Medium (Medium) Answer
  • Median answer
  • 5-95 span response

, # 3 , # 1 # 2!

  • . .
  • 5-95 span , . .. . .

, : , . ( , -), , , .

+1

All Articles