Difference between Replication and Erasure coding techniques

I hope I am asking in the right community, If not, any suggestion will be appreciated. I am doing a survey paper where I am doing a comparison between erasure coding and replication techniques. At this stage, I am comparing them regarding specific parameters as below. The table that I am trying to construct is dealing with parameters that differentiate which technique is better in: storage efficiency, availability, durability, encoding time, latency of failure and cost of reconstruction. - Since replication is faster in terms of read performance when failure occurs, is it correct when I say that replication technique has **Higher latency on failure**? and the same for encoding time, is it correct to say replication has a **high encoding time** since it has better performance time in writing? - Does the reconstruction cost of failure in erasure coded system is higher than replication? does it involves more disk I/O ? will it be different if the failure is transient or permanent? - Will it be more informative if I compared all the above parameters according to transient and permanent failures? ---------- is it correct if I compare them as below? *Erasure code:* **Higher** ( Durability, Storage Efficiency, Availability ) and **Lower** (Encoding time, latency on failure, cost to reconstruct) Replication : * **Higher** ( Encoding time, latency on failure, cost to reconstruct) and **Lower** ( Durability, Storage Efficiency, Availability) ----------