Scribd
Upload
43 views7 pages

14 - Chapter 6

The document compares the performance of three task scheduling methods - DWRR, HPSPACO, and FHPSPACO - across several metrics using a CloudSim simulation. FHPSPACO performed best with maximum resource utilization (18-34% better than others), minimum execution time (14-20% better), minimum waiting time (7-13% better), minimum make span (10% better), and maximum throughput (27-42% better). Overall, FHPSPACO demonstrated the most effective performance across all metrics tested in the simulation.

Uploaded by

viju001
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views7 pages

14 - Chapter 6

The document compares the performance of three task scheduling methods - DWRR, HPSPACO, and FHPSPACO - across several metrics using a CloudSim simulation. FHPSPACO performed best with maximum resource utilization (18-34% better than others), minimum execution time (14-20% better), minimum waiting time (7-13% better), minimum make span (10% better), and maximum throughput (27-42% better). Overall, FHPSPACO demonstrated the most effective performance across all metrics tested in the simulation.

Uploaded by

viju001
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

93

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In this section, the performance of the proposed DWRR, HPSPACO


and FHPSPACO task scheduling methods is evaluated and compared among
the proposed task scheduling methods. In the experimental cloud setup,
simulation is performed by using CloudSim which is described in this section.
The proposed DWRR, HPSPACO and FHPSPACO based task scheduling is
compared in terms of Resource utilization, execution time, waiting time,
throughput and Make span.

6.2 RESOURCE UTILIZATION

Resource utilization is described in section1.17. Table 6.1 shows the


values of Resource utilization for different task scheduling methods.

Table 6.1. Comparison of Resource utilization

No. of Tasks Task Scheduling Methods


DWRR HPSPACO FHPSPACO
10 0.626 0.798 0.941
20 0.594 0.743 0.901
30 0.571 0.705 0.875
40 0.542 0.674 0.844
50 0.523 0.643 0.801
94

Figure 6.1. Comparison of Resource utilization

Figure 6.1, shows the comparison of Resource utilization between


proposed DWRR, HPSPACO and Y axis represents the resource utilization.
From the figure 6.1, it is proved that the proposed FHPSPACO has maximum
resource utilization than the other task scheduling methods.

6.3 EXECUTION TIME

Execution time is described in section 1.17. Table 6.2, shows the


values of execution time for different task scheduling methods.

Table 6.2. Comparison of Execution Time

No. of VMs Task Scheduling Methods


DWRR HPSPACO FHPSPACO
25 1324.78 1275.21 1147.27
50 1178.25 1107.36 978
65 952.34 871 714
80 801.75 712.87 612
100 701 654 501
95

Figure 6.2. Comparison of Execution Time

Figure 6.2, shows the comparison of Execution Time between


proposed DWRR, FHPSPACO and HPSPACO task scheduling method. X axis
represents the number of virtual machines and Y axis represents the execution
time in minutes. From the figure 6.2, it is proved that the proposed FHPSPACO
has less execution time than the other task scheduling methods.

6.4 WAITING TIME

Waiting time is described in section. Table 5.3 shows the values of


waiting time for different task scheduling methods.

Table 6.3. Comparison of Waiting Time

No. of Tasks Task Scheduling Methods


DWRR HPSPACO FHPSPACO
10 37400 35147 32147
20 40000 37425 34785
30 43000 39457 36785
40 45140 42789 39741
50 49142 45147 42183
96

Figure 6.3. Comparison of Waiting Time

Figure 6.3, shows the comparison of waiting Time between DWRR,


HPSPACO and FHPSPACO task scheduling method. X axis represents the
number of tasks and Y axis represents the waiting time in milliseconds. From
the figure 6.3, it is proved that the proposed FHPASO has less waiting time
than the other task scheduling methods.

6.5 THROUGHPUT

Throughput is described in section. Table 6.4 shows the values of


throughput for different task scheduling methods.

Table 6.4. Comparison of Throughput

No. of Tasks Task Scheduling Methods


DWRR HPSPACO FHPSPACO
10 17 12 8
20 20 14 10
30 22 17 12
40 23 20 15
50 25 22 17
97

Figure 6.4. Comparison of Throughput

Figure 6.4, shows the comparison of throughput between DWRR,


HPSPACO and FHPSPACO task scheduling method. X axis represents the
number of tasks and Y axis represents the throughput. From the figure 6.4, it is
proved that the proposed FHPSPACO has better throughput than the other task
scheduling methods.

6.6 MAKESPAN

Makespan is described in section. Table 6.5 shows the values of


makespan for different task scheduling methods.

Table 6.5. Comparison of Makespan

No. of Tasks Task Scheduling Methods


DWRR HPSPACO FHPSPACO
10 25 22 20
20 29 25 22
30 33 28 25
40 35 30 27
50 37 33 30
98

Figure 6.5. Comparison of Makespan

Figure 6.5, shows the comparison of make span between DWRR,


HPSPACO and FHPSPACO task scheduling method. X axis represents the
number of tasks and Y axis represents the make span in seconds. From the
figure 6.5, it is proved that the proposed FHPSPACO has less make span than
the other task scheduling methods.

6.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter, the overall performance effectiveness of the


proposed Dynamic Weighted Round Robin (DWRR), Hybrid Particle Swarm
Parallel Ant Colony Optimization (HPSPACO) and Fuzzy Hybrid Particle
Swarm Parallel Ant Colony Optimization (FHPSPACO) is illustrated. From
this chapter, it is proved that the proposed FHPSPACO has maximum resource
utilization which is 34.53% better than DWRR and 18.32% better than
HPSPACO, minimum execution time which is 20.29% better than DWRR and
14.46% better than HPSPACO, minimum waiting time which is 13.53% better
than DWRR and 7.16% better than HPSPACO, minimum make span and
10.14% better than HPSPACO and minimum throughput which is 42.06 %
better than DWRR and 27.06% better than HPSPACO. Therefore, the overall
99

performance effectiveness of the proposed FHPSPACO is effectively


demonstrated in this chapter. Furthermore, the next chapter concludes and
presents the future scope of the research work.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy