Journal of Advances in Shell Programming
A Comparative Study of Various CPU Scheduling Algorithms using MOOS Simulator
Abstract
AbstractCurrent study represents the implementation of a various scheduling algorithms and developing CPU scheduling algorithms. Examining their impact in practice can be difficult as well as time consuming because of the need to modify their test operating system kernel code and measure the resulting performance on a consistent workload of real applications. As processor is the important resource, CPU scheduling becomes very important in accomplishing the operating system (OS) design goals. The intention should be allowed as many as possible running processes at all times in order to make best use of CPU. This study presents a state diagram that depicts the comparative study of various scheduling algorithms using simulator for a single CPU and shows which algorithm is best for the particular situation. Using this representation, it becomes much easier to understand what is going on inside the system and why a different set of processes is a candidate for the allocation of the CPU at different times. The objective of the study is to analyze the highly efficient CPU scheduler on design of the high-quality scheduling algorithms which suits the scheduling goals. Keywords: Scheduler, state diagrams, CPU utilization, performance, TATCite this ArticleNilam Choudhary, Geetika Gautam, Yukti Goswami, et al. A Comparative Study of various CPU Scheduling Algorithms using MOOS Simulator. Journal of Advances in Shell Programming. 2018; 5(3): 1–5p.References (13)
- Sukumar Babu Bandarupalli, Neelima Priyanka Nutulapati. A Novel CPU Scheduling Algorithm -Preemptive and Non-Preemptive. IJMER. Nov –Dec 2012; 2(6): 4484–4490p. Journal of Advances in Shell Programming Volume 5, Issue 3 ISSN: 2395-6690 (Online) JoASP (2018) 1-5 © STM Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved Page 5
- Raman, Pardeep Kumar Mittal. An Efficient Dynamic Round Robin CPU Scheduling Algorithm. IJARCSSE. May 2014; 4(5): 906–910p.
- Silberschatz Abraham, Peter Galvin, Greg Gagne. Operating Systems Concepts with Java. 7th Edn. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
- Lingyun Yang , Schopf Jennifer M, Ian Foster T. Conservative Scheduling: Using Predicted Variance to Improve Scheduling Decisions in Dynamic Environments. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE SC2003 Conference (SC) 1 -58113-695-1/03 $ 17.00 © 2003 ACM.
- Abbas Noon, Ali Kalakech, Seifedine Kadry. A New Round Robin Based Scheduling Algorithm for Operating Systems: Dynamic Quantum Using the Mean Average. IJCSI. May 2011; 8(3)(1): 224–229p.
- Imran Qureshi. CPU Scheduling Algorithms: A Survey. Int J Advanced Networking and Applications (IJANA). 2014; 05(04): 1968–1973p.
- Mostafa Samih M, Rida SZ, Hamad Safwat H. Finding Time Quantum of Round Robin CPU Scheduling Algorithm in General Computing Systems Using Integer Programming. International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Scie nces (IJRRAS) . 2010; 5(1): 64–71p.
- Liu CL, Layland James W. Scheduling Algorithm for Multiprogramming in a Hard-Real-Time Environment. J ACM. Jan 1973; 20(1): 46–61p.
- Neetu Goel, Garg RB. A Comparative Study of CPU Scheduling Algorithms. International Jour nal of Graphics & Image Processing (IJGIP) . Nov 2012; 2(4): 245–251p.
- Ankur B, Rachhpal S, Gaurav. Comparative Study of Scheduling Algorithms in Operating System. International Journal of Computers and Distributed Systems. Apr–May 2013; 3(1).
- Saleem U, Mu hammad Younus Javed. Simulation of CPU Scheduling Algorithms. In TENCON Proceedings , IEEE. 2000; 2: 562–567p.
- Lupetti, Simone, Dmitrii Zagorodnov. Data Popularity and Shortest -Job-First Scheduling of Network Transfers. In Digital Telecommunications ICDT, International Conference on , IEEE. 2006; 26–26p.
- Neeraj Kumar, Nirvikar . Performance Improvement Using CPU Scheduling Algorithm. IJETTCS. Mar–Apr 2013 ; 2(2): 110–113p. Cite this Article Nilam Choudhary, Geetika Gautam, Yukti Goswami, et al. A Comparative Study of various CPU Scheduling Algorithms using MOOS Simulator. Journal of Advances in Shell Programming. 2018; 5(3): 1–5p.