Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
article
Free access

Summary of minimal-total-processing-time drum and disk scheduling disciplines

Published: 01 January 1973 Publication History

Abstract

This article investigates the application of minimal-total-processing-time (MTPT) scheduling disciplines to rotating storage units when random arrival of requests is allowed. Fixed-head drum and moving-head disk storage units are considered and particular emphasis is placed on the relative merits of the MTPT scheduling discipline with respect to the shortest-latency-time-first (SLTF) scheduling discipline. The results of the simulation studies presented show that neither scheduling discipline is unconditionally superior to the other. For most fixed-head drum applications the SLTF discipline is preferable to MTPT, but for intra-cylinder disk scheduling the MTPT discipline offers a distinct advantage over the SLTF discipline. An implementation of the MTPT scheduling discipline is discussed and the computational requirements of the algorithm are shown to be comparable to SLTF algorithms. In both cases, the sorting procedure is the most time consuming phase of the algorithm.

References

[1]
Abafe, J., Dubner, H., and Weinberg, S. B., Queueing analysis of the IBM 2314 disk storage facility. J. ACM 15, 4 (Oct., 1968), 557-589.
[2]
Coffman, E.G., Analysis of a drum input/output queue under scheduling operation in a paged computer system. J. ACM 16, 1 (Jan., 1969), 73-90.
[3]
Denning, P. J., Effects of scheduling on file memory operations. Proc, AFIPS SJCC 30 (1967), 9-21.
[4]
Fuller, S. H. and Baskeit, F., An analysis of drum storage units. Tech. Report 26, Digital Systems Laboratory, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. (Aug. 1972). To appear in J. ACM.
[5]
Fuller, S. H., An optimal drum scheduling algorithm. IEEE Trans. on Computers C-21, 11 (Nov., 1972), 1153-1165.
[6]
Fuller, S. H., Random arrivals and MTPT disk scheduling disciplines. Tech. Report 29, Digital Systems Lab., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. (Aug., 1972).
[7]
IBM 3830 storage control and 3330 disk storage. Order No. GA26-1592-1.
[8]
Teorey, T. J. and Pinkerton, T. B., A comparative analysis of disk scheduling policies. Comm. ACM 15, 3 (March, 1972), 177-184.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review
ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review  Volume 7, Issue 4
October 1973
136 pages
ISSN:0163-5980
DOI:10.1145/957195
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 January 1973
Published in SIGOPS Volume 7, Issue 4

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 279
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)37
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media