home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!telecom-request
- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
- Subject: Re: Top Ten Traumas?
- Message-ID: <telecom13.42.4@eecs.nwu.edu>
- Date: 23 Jan 93 14:17:59 GMT
- Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- Organization: AT&T
- Lines: 26
- Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
- X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 42, Message 4 of 14
-
- In article <telecom13.33.6@eecs.nwu.edu> stapleton@bpavms.bpa.
- arizona.edu (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton) writes:
-
- > Is there a good way to assess net losses [of telecom failures],
- > so as to ever produced a ranked list?
-
- The best metric I've seen is User Lost Erlangs, which is the total
- traffic interrupted, measured in Erlangs. So if a switch which
- normally processes 1000 successful call attempts per minute, with each
- call lasting on average 3 minutes, is out of service for one hour,
- this represents 3,000 User Lost Erlangs (ULE). (1000 calls/minute *
- 60 minutes * 180 seconds/call / 3600 CCS/Erlang = 3000 Erlangs) If a
- DS1 facility with 24 trunks at 80% average occupancy is out for an
- hour, this represents 19.2 ULE. And so on.
-
- The advantages to this are it gives a way to quantitatively measure
- different types of failures, it incorporates both the number of
- affected users and the time they are affected, and it incorporates
- time-of-day and day-of-week factors.
-
-
- Just My Opinion ...
-
- David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories
- david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation
-