Scheduled System Maintenance:
On Monday, April 27th, IEEE Xplore will undergo scheduled maintenance from 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM ET (17:00 - 19:00 UTC). No interruption in service is anticipated.
By Topic

Comparison of call gapping and percent blocking for overload control in distributed switching systems and telecommunications networks

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

1 Author(s)
Berger, A.W. ; AT&T Bell Lab., Holmdel, NJ, USA

Two overload control techniques are compared. A percent blocking throttle blocks and rejects an arrival with a given probability. A call gapping throttle closes the gap size for a deterministic time interval; after this interval, the next job to arrive passes through and the throttle again closes for the deterministic time interval. The comparison of the throttle schemes is based on nine criteria, seven of which concern robustness. The key strengths of call gapping are shown to be a greater robustness to changes in total arrival rate, and higher goodput, the throughput times the probability of it being good. For varying arrival rate, where the control setting is fixed, call gapping maintains reasonable goodput over regions where percent blocking has allowed goodput to fall to zero. The strengths of percent blocking are shown to be robustness to changes in number of active sources and robustness to unbalanced loads. The optimal control setting for percent blocking is shown to be a function of the total arrival rate and not a function of the number of active sources or the individual arrival rates

Published in:

Communications, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:39 ,  Issue: 4 )