COM 405 - Lab 2
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Saint Leo University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
405
Subject
Communications
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
11
Uploaded by hnmathewson
Lab 2
Hannah Mathewson
Operating Systems
COM-405-OL01
Professor Paul Mancini
July 29, 2023
15.) Modify the simulation model of FCFS scheduling and change the value of the simulation period. What are your conclusions?
Without adjusting any of the default numbers on the FCFS simulation, the results were different from what the book gave. Default settings: Simulation
Book
I then changed the value of the simulation period to 50000:
When changing the simulation period to 50000 from 25000, the average wait time decreased, as well as the total rejected, while the total number of arrive increased.
Increasing the simulation period to 75000 did not start a percentage. Lowering the Simulation to 15000 increased the total arrival to 1013, but also increased the rejection to 444, with an average job wait period higher than both previous simulations, with 884. It appears that the lower the simulation period, the higher jobs arrive, but also increasing the rejection, while at the same time
increasing the wait time.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
16.) Modify the simulation model of SPN scheduling and change the value of the simulation period. Consider starvation. What are your conclusions?
Between changing the Simulation period from 25000 to 30000, the number of jobs arrived increased, as did the total number rejected, while the average job wait increased by 57. However,
when increasing the simulation to 55000, the number of total jobs decreased compared to the other two. Likewise, the total number of rejections also decreased, as did the average job wait.
23.) Modify the simulation model for the FCFS scheduling policy. Change the system memory and the workload parameters so that there are processes rejected at the input queue. Carry out several simulation runs. What can you observe? What can you conclude about the memory capacity of the system?
Answer:
Default
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Increased memory to 4096 (from 2048)
Affecting the memory as well as the workload parameters resulted in the average job wait period increasing dramatically, as well as the total of jobs arrived, and the amount of total jobs rejected. The proportion rejected was directly affected by the parameters input. Adding in a random assortment of numbers but keeping the total memory at 2048 yielded no results (stayed at 0%).
27.) Change the time slice of the model with an RR scheduling policy; increase the value of the time slice. Compare this with the model based on an FCFS scheduling policy. What are your conclusions after analyzing the trace and performance measures from the simulation runs?
Answer:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The average wait time difference is greater than all the other simulations, by increasing the time slice from 2 to 6. When comparing the original RR (time slice of 4) with the original FCFS, the wait time is incredibly different, even though they had nearly the same amount of total jobs. The jobs rejected were lower on the RR, more than likely due to the processes being able to complete
due to context switching and flexibility in process handling.