By Topic

Scheduling policies for real-time and non-real-time traffic in a statistical multiplexer

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

3 Author(s)
Chipalkatti, Renu ; Dept. of Comput. & Inf. Sci., Massachusetts Univ., Amherst, MA, USA ; Jurose, J.F. ; Towsley, D.

The performance of several policies for scheduling real-time and non-real-time messages in a statistical multiplexer is examined. The performance metric for the real-time traffic is the percentage of messages not transmitted within their deadlines; the performance metric for the non-real-time traffic is the average delay. The scheduling policies are: (1) first-come first-served (FCFS); (2) head of the line priority, in which real-time packets are given priority; (3) minimum-laxity threshold (MLT) policy; and (4) queue-length threshold (QLT) policy. Under the MLT policy, priority is given to the real-time traffic when the minimum laxity is below some threshold. The QLT policy gives priority to the non-real-time traffic whenever the number of queued non-real-time packets is above some threshold. Results show that the FCFS policy causes relatively high losses for the real-time traffic while providing relatively low message delays for the non-real-time traffic; the converse holds true for the strict priority discipline. Both the MLT and QLT disciplines allow the designer to explicitly trade off the performance realized by each traffic class by using an appropriately chosen value for the threshold parameter. Little difference is observed in the performance tradeoffs available, so it is concluded that the QLT policy is more practical, as it is simpler to implement

Published in:

INFOCOM '89. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Technology: Emerging or Converging, IEEE

Date of Conference:

23-27 Apr 1989