Page 60 - Ingeniantes 511 interactivo
P. 60
Revista Ingeniantes 2018 Año 5 No. 1 Vol. 1
We can calculate the global preference that reflects 2. D: R34 Speed for create image. This evaluates using
the global satisfaction of the evaluator’s requirements a relative criterion. Times average to create the ima-
[11]. with equation (3) ge times, that is to say, for each times to the time is
E0 L(E1,..En) L(g1(x1),..gn(xn)) G(x1,..xn) Ec(3) calculated by the with equation (4). The correspondent
The aggregation function is created using logic ag- criteria is showed in figure. 5.
gregation of preferences like [8], [12] and [9] and E0 L(E1,..En) L(g1(x1),..gn(xn)) G(x1,..xn) Ec(4)
shown in Figure. 3. 3. ID: R10. Installation manual. It is evaluate using a binary
criterion: 1 (100%) denotes existence and 0 denotes its
absence of this manual.
Figure 3. Complex criterion model using LSP. Figure. 5. An example of relative score.
COMPARISON CRITERIA With that and the use of the LSP Method we establish
Our interpretation of the evaluation methods, we the criteria of comparison. We identify fourteen rele-
based it on a qualitative and quantitative method in vant components (performance variables) group by
accordance of the features of the tools that it des- four main areas: Installation, Usability, Performance and
cribed each tool Clonezilla [13], Ghost Symantec [14], Maintainability, each of them is assigned to identify na-
Acronis [15] and also use the knowledge of experts med to . Speed in the creation of image. This evalua-
in each of the platforms. We consider the evaluate tes using a relative criterion. The mean of the times in
systems and those who use it, the user needs and the generation of an image n times, ie for the times the
the degrees in that this evaluate systems satisfy the time is calculated calculated by the with equation (5)
requirements. For that the users of the platforms are
managers, responsible of technical support or users Ri min( t1,t2...,tm) / ti,0 Ri 1 Ec.(5)
that have the needed of made a massive restoration
of the cloning image(disk-image). The corresponding criteria is: it is assigned to an identi-
For each variable we define a form to measure. The fication named until ; this is for the purpose of avoid
next steps are examples of three types of measure- wrong results by misinterpretation of the qualitative fac-
ments that we use in this paper. tors assigned. Each one we assign a weight for criterion.
1. ID: R8 Architecture: It evaluates the compatibility of This criterion was assigned according to importance in
the different architectures and the distinct proces- reference to the finality of the tools (where it holds that
sors that exists in the market assigning from point to the sum of the measures in each block must be 100),
point for each handled architecture. also it is assigned to each block a corresponding sym-
bol to andness and orness value. With all information we
generate a structure that we present in the tables 1, 2,
and 3. They represents the mechanisms that will use to
measure each tool in this study. The main component
aggregation structure of the global score is showed in
the table 4.
Figure. 4. An example of direct score.
Points that reflects the capacity of the tool for install in
distinct architectures allowing a mayor compatibility.
56
