Miles Nordin wrote: > re> Indeed. Intuitively, the AFR and population is more easily > re> grokked by the masses. > > It's nothing to do with masses. There's an error in your math. It's > not right under any circumstance. >
There is no error in my math. I presented a failure rate for a time interval, you presented a probability of failure over a time interval. The two are both correct, but say different things. Mathematically, an AFR > 100% is quite possible and quite common. A probability of failure > 100% (1.0) is not. In my experience, failure rates described as annualized failure rates (AFR) are more intuitive than their mathematically equivalent counterpart: MTBF. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
