Hi, I have crosspost this issue here and in github, but no response yet. Any advice?
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:21 AM, dahan <dahan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, I have tried the reliability model: > https://github.com/ceph/ceph-tools/tree/master/models/reliability > > I run the tool with default configuration, and cannot understand the > result. > > ``` > storage durability PL(site) PL(copies) PL(NRE) > PL(rep) loss/PiB > ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- > ---------- ---------- > Disk: Enterprise 99.119% 0.000e+00 0.721457% 0.159744% > 0.000e+00 8.812e+12 > RADOS: 1 cp 99.279% 0.000e+00 0.721457% 0.000865% > 0.000e+00 5.411e+12 > RADOS: 2 cp 7-nines 0.000e+00 0.000049% 0.003442% > 0.000e+00 9.704e+06 > RADOS: 3 cp 11-nines 0.000e+00 5.090e-11 3.541e-09 > 0.000e+00 6.655e+02 > ``` > > ``` > storage durability PL(site) PL(copies) PL(NRE) > PL(rep) loss/PiB > ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- > ---------- ---------- > Site (1 PB) 99.900% 0.099950% 0.000e+00 0.000e+00 > 0.000e+00 9.995e+11 > RADOS: 1-site, 1-cp 99.179% 0.099950% 0.721457% 0.000865% > 0.000e+00 1.010e+12 > RADOS: 1-site, 2-cp 99.900% 0.099950% 0.000049% 0.003442% > 0.000e+00 9.995e+11 > RADOS: 1-site, 3-cp 99.900% 0.099950% 5.090e-11 3.541e-09 > 0.000e+00 9.995e+11 > > ``` > > The two result tables have different trend. In the first table, durability > value is 1 cp < 2 cp < 3 cp. However, the second table results in 1 cp < 2 > cp = 3 cp. > > The two tables have the same PL(site), PL(copies) , PL(NRE), and PL(rep). > The only difference is PL(site). PL(site) is constant, since number of site > is constant. The trend should be the same. > > How to explain the result? > > Anything I missed out? Thanks > >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
