On 28/03/12 21:54, Brian Warner wrote: > Yes, the math in our provisioning/reliability tool describes a somewhat > unrealistic model with the usual because-it-makes-the-math-easier > assumptions (Poisson processes, independent identically-distributed > failures). Should we get rid of it? No, I think it still has value. > Should we add some warning stickers that say "human error and > non-independent failure modes will probably limit how close you can get > to these numbers"? Sure. If people ignore those stickers and believe the > fairy-tale math and drive too fast and crash and burn, should we throw > out the math? No, I think the tools are still useful to people who > understand the limits of the model.
Just wanted to say I'm enjoying pretending this is a thread about credit default swaps in 2007. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
