1982
DOI: 10.1109/tse.1982.235424
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Extension of Norton's Theorem for Queueing Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of [10] can easily be generalised to subnetworks consisting of several stations such that customers enter the subnetwork through a single input node and leave the subnetwork through a single output node. Balsamo and Iazeolla [1], Kritzinger et al [19], and Vantilborgh [23] extend Norton's theorem to BCMP-networks consisting of two arbitrary subnetworks. A further extension is given by Towsley [22], where elementary state-dependent routing is incorporated.…”
Section: Aggregationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The results of [10] can easily be generalised to subnetworks consisting of several stations such that customers enter the subnetwork through a single input node and leave the subnetwork through a single output node. Balsamo and Iazeolla [1], Kritzinger et al [19], and Vantilborgh [23] extend Norton's theorem to BCMP-networks consisting of two arbitrary subnetworks. A further extension is given by Towsley [22], where elementary state-dependent routing is incorporated.…”
Section: Aggregationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…As far as we know this is the first work in which a connection between the notion of lumpability and product-form is shown. The application of aggregation and lumpability techniques has been proposed to cope with the solution of models with a large state space, and it has been widely applied for various formalisms, e.g., exact and approximate aggregation in queueing networks (Balsamo and Iazeolla 1982;Buchholz 2010), decomposability and lumpability for Markov chains (Kemeny and Snell 1960;Stewart 1994), aggregation of stochastic Petri nets (Buchholz 2004), stochastic automata or Markovian process algebras (Hillston 1996;Gilmore et al 2001), where the references should be considered just as examples of remarkable work in the corresponding field.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, some exact aggregation methods have been defined directly in terms of model components at a higher level of abstraction. Moreover, under special constraints, conditions for exact aggregation have been defined for various classes of Markov models and for product-form models, such as product-form queueing networks Balsamo and Iazeolla 1982). In (Chiola et al 1993) the high level nets are restricted to class called well-formed nets in order to allow for a more efficient analysis based on aggregations of states.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4c is obtained by substituting the subnetwork with the aggregated node C. The aggregated network and the original one have the same marginal queue length distribution and average performance indices. Exact aggregation in queueing networks holds for any subnetwork, i. e. for subnetworks with multiple entry and exit points and for which we have also to define a new routing matrix for the aggregated network [3], and for multichain networks [39].…”
Section: Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%