We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
In our current logic (https://github.com/Netflix-Skunkworks/service-capacity-modeling/blob/main/service_capacity_modeling/models/org/netflix/key_value.py#L85), we scale the C* cluster by a factor of 1 - estimated_kv_cache_hit_rate, where estimated_kv_cache_hit_rate is configurable (default 0.8).
1 - estimated_kv_cache_hit_rate
estimated_kv_cache_hit_rate
Per a previous convo with @jolynch and @szimmer1, we discussed possibly tying in the read/write ratio from the user desires into this calculation.
One toy example:
estimated_cache_hit_rate = extra_model_arguments.get("estimated_cache_hit_rate", 0.8) estimated_cache_miss_rate = 1 - estimated_cache_hit_rate rps_interval.scale(min(estimated_cache_miss_rate, max(0.1, 1 - read_write_ratio)))
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
In our current logic (https://github.com/Netflix-Skunkworks/service-capacity-modeling/blob/main/service_capacity_modeling/models/org/netflix/key_value.py#L85), we scale the C* cluster by a factor of
1 - estimated_kv_cache_hit_rate
, whereestimated_kv_cache_hit_rate
is configurable (default 0.8).Per a previous convo with @jolynch and @szimmer1, we discussed possibly tying in the read/write ratio from the user desires into this calculation.
One toy example:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: