US5031124A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Method for selecting computer storage devices for computer applications
Assignee: Siemens Business Communication Systems Inc
•
Filing: 1990-03-13
•
Granted: 1991-07-09
•
Expires: 2010-03-13
Abstract
Abstract A method selects a storage system, performed by assigning values to preselected parameters relating to each storage system under review. Several performance factors are calculated, each performance factor being based upon one or more of the selected parameters. The performance factors are multiplied to derive a product which represents a single figure of merit.
Inventors
- 👤 Philip R. Bosinoff
- 👤 Charles M. White
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-10-29 22:54
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06F; G06F11/00; G06F11/30; G06F11/34; G06F11/3409; G06F11/3428; G06F11/3466; G06F11/3485
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 13
Claim 1
Independent Claim
149 words
A method of selecting one of a plurality of storage systems using a programmed computer, for use in connection with a preselected application, said method comprising the steps of: (a) establishing a set of parameters with respect to one of said plurality of storage systems and said application, (b) assigning values to each parameter in said set, (c) calculating performance factors based upon the assigned value of said parameters, (d) multiplying said performance factors to derive a figure of merit, (e) repeating steps (a)-(d) with respect to each of the other storage systems of said plurality of storage systems, (f) comparing the figures of merit derived for each of said plurality of storage systems and creating a list of said plurality of storage systems in descending order of values of figures of merit, and (g) displaying said list and selecting the storage system having the highest figure of merit.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
149 words
A method of selecting one of a plurality of storage systems using a programmed computer, for use in connection with a preselected application, said method comprising the steps of: (a) establishing a set of parameters with respect to one of said plurality of storage systems and said application, (b) assigning values to each parameter in said set, (c) calculating performance factors based upon the assigned value of said parameters, (d) multiplying said performance factors to derive a figure of merit, (e) repeating steps (a)-(d) with respect to each of the other storage systems of said plurality of storage systems, (f) comparing the figures of merit derived for each of said plurality of storage systems and creating a list of said plurality of storage systems in descending order of values of figures of merit, and (g) displaying said list and selecting the storage system having the highest figure of merit.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
26 words
The method of claim 1 further including the steps of assigning a value ob 1.0 as a minimally acceptable rating for each of said performance factors.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
31 words
The method of claim 1 further including a step of calculating derivatives of said parameters to determine those parameters having most significance in causing a change in said figure of merit.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
31 words
The method of claim 2 further including the step of assigning a value of less than 1.0 for each of said performance factors which fail to meet said minimally acceptable rating.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
31 words
The method of claim 4 further including the step of assigning a value of at least 1.0 for each of said performance factors which at least meets said minimally acceptable rating.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
45 words
The method of claim 5 further including the step of assigning a value for each of said performance factors meeting said minimally acceptable rating such that each assigned value is proportional to an amount by which each said performance factor exceeds said minimally acceptable rating.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
71 words
The method of claim 6, wherein said step of multiplying said performance factors comprises the step of multiplying each of said assigned values such that a figure of merit of 1.0 indicates meeting a minimally acceptable requirement; a figure of merit less than 1.0 indicates a failure to meet said minimally acceptable requirement; and a figure of merit greater than 1.0 indicates that the storage system exceeds said minimally acceptable requirement.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
27 words
The method of claim 7 further including the step of applying another set of parameters when said figure of merit has a value of a least 1.0.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
85 words
The method of claim 8, wherein said step of establishing a set of parameters further includes the step of selecting said parameters based on: (a) size of file space utilized by a program of said application; (b) amount of physical capacity of one of said plurality of storage systems; (c) address space recognized by said program; (d) number of bad tracks of one of said plurality of storage systems; and (e) use of an alternate track scheme by one of said plurality of storage systems.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
33 words
The method of claim 8 further including the step of categorizing one of said plurality of storage systems, having a value of said figure of merit which is less than 1.0, as unacceptable.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
119 words
The method of claim 9, wherein said step of calculating performance factors based upon values of predetermined parameters, includes the step of selecting said predetermined parameters based on: (f) a measure of addressability which is defined as a ratio of addressable space within formatted tracks of one of said plurality of storage systems which are utilizable to an amount of physical capacity of one of said plurality of storage systems; (g) a measure of reserve growth which is defined as a proportion of unassigned space of one of said plurality of storage systems available for additional use; and (h) efficiency, which is defined as a proportion of assigned space of one of said plurality of storage systems containing information.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
33 words
The method of claim 11 further including the step of assigning a value of 0.0 to each unacceptable performance factor, such that a subsequent multiplying step causes a figure of merit of 0.0.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US4570225A
Cited
US4716541A
Cited
US4805089A
Cited
US4748573A
Cited
US4771391A
Cited
US4769761A
Cited
US4882642A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1994-07-08 | 1995-01-07 | 1995-07-09 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 1998-07-08 | 1999-01-07 | 1999-07-09 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2002-07-08 | 2003-01-07 | 2003-07-09 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |