The max/median ratio inverts the actual user-facing p90 ranking:
sticky: hotspot=2.73 but system e2e p90 = 34.6s (worst)
unified: hotspot=3.67 but system e2e p90 = 18.0s (best)
because sticky's median is also high (everyone slow) while unified
concentrates the damage on one worker and keeps the other 7 fast.
Any "imbalance" metric structurally punishes the affinity-then-escape
schemes that we actually want to advocate for.
Changes:
- analysis/characterization/render_window1_figures.py:
fig_b3_per_worker_ttft now annotates each subplot with
"median X.Xs · max Y.Ys" instead of "hotspot=Y.YY"; docstring
documents why we drop the ratio.
- figs/f4c_per_worker_ttft.png: regenerated with new titles.
- figs/f4c_apc_vs_hotspot_tradeoff.png: deleted. The scatter's y-axis
was the deprecated ratio; superseded by f4c per-worker bars + f6
e2e bars which together carry the same information honestly.
- PAPER_OUTLINE.md: C3, §3.3, §4.1 wording, §5 metric list, §8
conclusion — replace "hotspot index" mentions with
"worst-worker p90" or "(median, max) worker p90"; promote the
§3.3 methodology note to a top-level sub-finding ("hot pin
failure must be measured with per-worker absolute latency,
not normalized ratio").
- MEETING.md: §3.3 narrative reworded to lead with the (median, max)
pair directly; explicit one-line note on why the ratio is dropped.
Conceptual uses of "hot session" / "hot instance" / "hot pin" remain
unchanged — only the *metric* called hotspot index is retired.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Gahow Wang
5e6e98aee7
