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 <dahanhsi@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
