{"title":"基于窗口的并行仿真方案中的事件调度","authors":"R. Ayani, H. Rajaei","doi":"10.1109/SPDP.1992.242763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors study the impact of load balancing on the performance of a window-based parallel simulation scheme. They show the impact of four scheduling policies: static, dynamic, majority, and longest window. For simple simulation problems where there are a few events and the events need fairly short computation, i.e., small event granularity, the first three policies perform fairly close to each other. However, for large simulation problems where millions of events exist and the event granularity is large, majority scheduling is a better choice. For instance, if each event requires 18.3 ms processing time, majority scheduling performs 38.5% better than dynamic scheduling and 43.6% better than static scheduling.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":265469,"journal":{"name":"[1992] Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing","volume":"15 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Event scheduling in window based parallel simulation schemes\",\"authors\":\"R. Ayani, H. Rajaei\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SPDP.1992.242763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The authors study the impact of load balancing on the performance of a window-based parallel simulation scheme. They show the impact of four scheduling policies: static, dynamic, majority, and longest window. For simple simulation problems where there are a few events and the events need fairly short computation, i.e., small event granularity, the first three policies perform fairly close to each other. However, for large simulation problems where millions of events exist and the event granularity is large, majority scheduling is a better choice. For instance, if each event requires 18.3 ms processing time, majority scheduling performs 38.5% better than dynamic scheduling and 43.6% better than static scheduling.<<ETX>>\",\"PeriodicalId\":265469,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"[1992] Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing\",\"volume\":\"15 10\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"[1992] Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SPDP.1992.242763\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"[1992] Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SPDP.1992.242763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Event scheduling in window based parallel simulation schemes
The authors study the impact of load balancing on the performance of a window-based parallel simulation scheme. They show the impact of four scheduling policies: static, dynamic, majority, and longest window. For simple simulation problems where there are a few events and the events need fairly short computation, i.e., small event granularity, the first three policies perform fairly close to each other. However, for large simulation problems where millions of events exist and the event granularity is large, majority scheduling is a better choice. For instance, if each event requires 18.3 ms processing time, majority scheduling performs 38.5% better than dynamic scheduling and 43.6% better than static scheduling.<>