No abstract

We compare the performance of two phase II monitoring schemes for linear profiles, one based on the classical calibration method monitoring the deviations from the regression line (referred to as the NIST method) and the second based on individually monitoring the parameters of the linear profile (referred to as the KMW method). The comparison criterion is average run length performance under different sustained shifts in the intercept, slope and error standard deviation of the linear calibration line. A simulation study shows that the NIST method performs poorly compared to the combined control charting scheme of the KMW method.

Multistage interconnection networks (MIN) are becoming attractive choice as they provide fast and efficient communication at reasonable cost, for multiprocessing systems. Shuffle exchange network (SEN) are specific class of MIN characterized as lowest cost unipath MIN. Several developments have made SEN MIN fault tolerant with redundant paths by increasing the number or size of switching elements (SE). However, recently [Formula: see text] has been advanced by reducing the number of stages, but has serious limitation namely: (i) partial connectivity of each source–destination pair, (ii) unique path. A new method has been proposed in this paper to develop a new topology of MIN with one stage less than the basic unipath MIN of same class with multiple and disjoint path facility that mitigates the shortcomings of the above network and is truly [Formula: see text] MIN. Due to less number of stages used in the proposed network communication delays are also reduced as the path length is reduced. Parametric performances such as Terminal, Broadcast and Network Reliabilities, MTTF, Bandwidth have been computed for different network sizes and demonstrated that it not only outperforms other SEN variants, but has improved features of fault tolerance all because of disjoint minimal path set. Further the comments generated previously in literature about better reliability performance of [Formula: see text] than other two networks [Formula: see text] have been refuted and have demonstrated that [Formula: see text]2 network has better performance than other two for larger network size. Also it can be concluded that the performance of proposed [Formula: see text] is best among all these networks.

No abstract

No abstract