The queue M/G/1 with shortest remaining processing time discipline

Expert InsightsPublished 1965

A priority queueing model in which the processing times of jobs are known upon arrival and preemption without loss of time or processing is already accomplished. Priority is assigned to jobs according to the length of processing remaining with highest priority going to the job with least processing left. A preemption occurs whenever the processing time of newly arriving job is less than the remaining processing time of the job then in service. The Laplace-Stieltjes transforms of the waiting time and time-in-system distributions are obtained and comparisons with other queueing disciplines are made. 27 pp. Bibliog.

Document Details

  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 1965
  • Pages: 30
  • Document Number: P-3263

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

The queue M/G/1 with shortest remaining processing time discipline. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1965. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3263.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.