Maybe it's just a precision problem?
I calculate the durability from PL(*) columns with the formula:
1-PL(site)-PL(copy)-PL(NRE).
Result:
2-cp is 0.99896562
3-cp is 0.99900049
Both of them are approximates to 99.9%
Actually the model result is 99.900%. Maybe the author wants us to ignore
the la
I haven't looked at the internals of the model, but the PL(site)
you've pointed out is definitely the crux of the issue here. In the
first grouping, it's just looking at the probability of data loss due
to failing disks, and as the copies increase that goes down. In the
second grouping, it's includ
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 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,
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 durabilityPL(site) PL(copies) PL(NRE)
PL(rep)loss/PiB
---
