
My reasoning goes like this:
Possibly pithy insights into computer performance analysis and capacity planning based on the Guerrilla series of books and training classes provided by Performance Dynamics Company.

| Nines | Percent | Downtime/Year | σ Level |
| 4 | 99.99% | 52.596 minutes | 4σ |
| 5 | 99.999% | 5.2596 minutes | - |
| 6 | 99.9999% | 31.5576 seconds | 5σ |
| 7 | 99.99999% | 3.15576 seconds | - |
| 8 | 99.999999% | 315.6 milliseconds | 6σ |
M/M/m multiserver queueThe problem is that eqn. \eqref{eqn:badest} grossly underestimates $R_m$, which is precisely the wrong direction for capacity planning scenarios. For that purpose, it's generally better to overestimate performance metrics. That's too bad because it would be a handy Guerrilla-style formula if it did work. You would be able do the calculation in your head and impress everyone on your team (not to mention performing it as a party trick).
Given that eqn. \eqref{eqn:badest} is a poor estimator, you might wonder if there's a better one, and if you'd been working for Thomas Edison he would have told you: "There's a better wsy. Find it!" Easy for him to say. But if you did decide to take up Edison's challenge, how would you even begin to search for such a thing?