A second is a long time
blog.serverfault.com
blog.serverfault.com
Same as how in physics, lots of things are expressed in rates of "per second", but this does not necessarily imply that the measurement window was one second; it might be vastly larger or smaller than that. Or, with cars, you can measure the speed in mph or km/hr much more frequently than once per hour. =]
"we could transfer 900 Mbit for a half of a second and another 100 Mbit for the other half of that second. How much data was transferred during that second? The answer is 1 Gbit per second."
"for" implies multiplication, i.e. 2Mbit/s for 3s transfers 6Mbit in total, 2Mbit/s * 3s = 6Mbit. The phrase "900Mbit for half a second" should probably read "900Mbit in half a second", giving 1.8Gbit/s (and thus supporting the point of the article).
"The answer is [not] 1Gbit per second", it is 1Gbit. It is a measure of data, not transfer rate.
He makes a good point though, averaging may mask important details.
The dimensional analysis doesn't work here. He asks for a quantity of data and answers with a transfer rate. Also it shouldn't be surprising that the instantaneous transfer rate at a given time is different than the average transfer rate over a period of time.
Who exactly is using monitoring tools that sample every 5 minutes? Goodness. Maybe I've been spoiled, but I couldn't imagine using such a blunt tool.
[1] the database and graph software which underlies most (Unix?) server monitoring tools, including e.g. Munin and Cacti.
[2] Or the measurements at 4:00, ..., 4:50, or those at 3:10, ..., 4:00; I forgot, and it's not important.