Priority EDF Scheduling Scheme for MANETs

Muwumba, Abel Mukakanya; Justo, Godfrey; Massawe, Libe Valentine; Ngubiri, John

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41114-5_6

Cited by 2 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar observations have been noted by a number of variants of EDF priority scheduling policies proposed in previous studies where new constraints were added to existing EDF scheme to improve performance [10,26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The hypothetical parameters used in the study are shown in Table 1. These parameters are consistent with those used in the literature [8,[26][27][28].…”

Section: Implementation Parameterssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Under the EDF scheme, the server processes packets having the smallest deadline among all of the waiting packets. For a two priority class, the waiting time of packets under the EDF scheme is given in [26].…”

Section: Mathematical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Number of servers, m 5 [27] Packet arrival rate, 𝜆 0 to 6.549 packets/second [28] Service rate for the multi-servers, 𝜇 1,2,3,4,5 packets/second [27] Low system load, 𝜌 l 0.5 [26] High system load, 𝜌 h 0.9 [26] D 2,1 is the difference between deadlines for delay sensitive and delay tolerant packets 3 [26] d 1 is the constant deadline offset for delay sensitive packets 2 [26] Average packet size, x t 100 Kb [8] Threshold of the packet size, x ts 75 Kb [8]…”

Section: Parameter Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies have provided a number of scheduling techniques for IoT‐based healthcare monitoring systems, including Earliest Deadline First (EDF) [4], Priority EDF [10], Rate‐Monotonic [4], preemptive resume service priority [11], and Dynamic Transmission Mechanism‐L priority (DTM‐L) [5]. However, these techniques have drawbacks, such as process starvation, which can result in long delays for long processes to finish service if short processes are introduced repeatedly [4], poor performance under overloaded conditions, not being optimal for multiprocessors, low throughput [12], and higher priority applications starving lower priority applications under high arrival rates of higher priority applications [5, 10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Delay and size‐dependent priority‐aware scheduling for IoT‐based healthcare traffic using heterogeneous multi‐server priority queueing system

Asingwire,

Sibomana,

Ngenzi

et al. 2023

IET Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet of Things (IoT) based healthcare applications are time‐sensitive and any delay can cause alarming situations, including death of patients. The Earliest Deadline First (EDF) scheduling scheme has been proposed for use in IoT‐based healthcare applications. However, the EDF scheme performs poorly under overloaded conditions due to giving highest priority to packets that are close to missing their deadlines. Some studies have proposed the use of Priority EDF to overcome the challenges of EDF; however, Priority EDF still favours higher priority queues which increases the waiting times of lower priority queues. In order to overcome the limitation of EDF and its variants, this paper proposes a system model for a prioritized scheduling (PS) scheme. The PS scheme is an improvement of the Earliest Deadline First (EDF) scheme and its variants for IoT‐based healthcare applications. The PS scheme uses a heterogeneous multi‐server priority queuing system to provide service differentiation by prioritizing short packets over large packets and delay sensitive packets are serviced before delay tolerant packets. Numerical results demonstrate that the PS scheme minimizes the mean slowdown for both delay sensitive short and large packets at low and high load values. Additionally, the PS scheme performs better than the EDF and Priority EDF schemes in terms of reducing mean slowdown of packets and the PS scheme performs better than the EDF in terms of throughput for all packet sizes at both low and high load values. The performance improvement in terms of throughput is more pronounced at high load values. This addresses the challenge of the EDF scheme which performs poorly under overloaded conditions and the challenge of the Priority EDF scheme which favours higher priority queues at the expense of low priority queues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The hypothetical parameters used in the study are shown in Table 1. These parameters are consistent with those used in the literature [8,[26][27][28].…”

Section: Implementation Parameterssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Mathematical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%