Common Mistakes

No goals
Start cache study but have no clear idea of what we want to learn

Biased goals
We think up our own wonderful replacement policy, than want to show that OUR solution is better than OTHERS

Unsystematic approach
Arbitrarily choose parameters (such as 2-fold factor in LRU-THOLD)

Analysis without understanding the problem
We had to revise the simulation model several times and redefine our experiments several times as our understanding grew through the summer.

Incorrect measures
We originally planned to use "URL get response time" as a measure. While easily computed, it represented different things in Netscape vs. Mosaic.

Unrepresentative workload
Our study used CS workloads -- what would happen with courses in the English department?

Wrong evaluation technique
We had this problem in Spring 95 when we first tried to study the problem using experiments with a real system, rather than with simulation

Overlooking important parameters

Ignoring significant factors

Inappropriate experiment design

Inappropriate level of detail

No analysis
It was important to draw clear conclusions from the data: "(1) that with our workloads a proxy has a 30-50% maximum possible hit rate no matter how it is designed; (2) that when the cache is full and a document is replaced, least recently used (LRU) is a poor policy, but simple variations can dramatically improve hit rate and reduce cache size; (3) that a proxy server really functions as a second level cache, and its hit rate may tend to decline with time after initial loading given a more or less constant set of users; and (4) that certain tuning configuration parameters for a cache may have little benefit."

Erroneous analysis

No sensitivity analysis

Ignoring errors in input

Improper treatment of outliers

Assuming no change in the future
Will our results hold as WWW use grows rapidly, and the uses of the WWW change in the future?

Ignoring variablity
The hit rate varies dramatically with each day of each workload. How can we give the best overall picture?

Too complex analysis
This danger arose in Experiment 4 in our cache study, when we had three factors to examine, but no clear picture from the measured data

Improper presentation of results

Ignoring social aspects

Omitting assumptions and limitations