See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333079926

A Comparative Study of Various CPU Scheduling Algorithms using MOOS

Simulator

Article · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

5 7,415

4 authors, including:

Nilam Choudhary Yukti Goswami

Swami Keshvanand Institute of Technology Management and Gramothan (SKIT) JECRC Foundation
23 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smart Voting System Through Facial Reorganization View project

DIGITAL MARKETING CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY WITH REFERENCE TO TIKTOK-A NEW RISING SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nilam Choudhary on 14 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Advances in Shell Programming
ISSN: 2395-6690 (Online)
Volume 5, Issue 3
www.stmjournals.com

A Comparative Study of Various CPU Scheduling

Algorithms using MOOS Simulator
Nilam Choudhary1,*, Geetika Gautam1, Yukti Goswami2, Soumil Khandelwal2
1
Associate Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, Jaipur Engineering College & Research
Centre, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
2
Student, Computer Science and Engineering, Jaipur Engineering College & Research Centre, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, India

Abstract
Current study represents the implementation of a various scheduling algorithms and
developing CPU scheduling algorithms. Examining their impact in practice can be difficult as
well as time consuming because of the need to modify their test operating system kernel code
and measure the resulting performance on a consistent workload of real applications. As
processor is the important resource, CPU scheduling becomes very important in accomplishing
the operating system (OS) design goals. The intention should be allowed as many as possible
running processes at all times in order to make best use of CPU. This study presents a state
diagram that depicts the comparative study of various scheduling algorithms using simulator
for a single CPU and shows which algorithm is best for the particular situation. Using this
representation, it becomes much easier to understand what is going on inside the system and
why a different set of processes is a candidate for the allocation of the CPU at different times.
The objective of the study is to analyze the highly efficient CPU scheduler on design of the
high-quality scheduling algorithms which suits the scheduling goals.

Keywords: Scheduler, state diagrams, CPU utilization, performance, TAT

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: neelamvit@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION routing of data in networking and in all types

In a single-processor system, only one process
can run at a time; any others must wait until
the CPU is free and can be rescheduled. The
objective of multiprogramming is to have
some process running at all times, to maximize
CPU utilization [1]. Scheduling is a
fundamental operating-system function.
Almost all computer resources are scheduled
before use. The CPU is, of course, one of the
primary computer resources. Thus, its
scheduling is central to operating-system
design. CPU scheduling determines which
processes run when there are multiple
runnable processes. CPU scheduling is
important because it can have a big effect on
resource utilization and the overall
performance of the system [2]. CPU
scheduling means process assigned to CPU for
a particular time of interval. We know that
scheduling avoids starvation of each job
within CPU, also assigning of processes to
CPU is done by scheduler [3–5]. Scheduling is
also used in real time applications such as
of traffic control systems like airways,
roadways, railways etc. [6]. Scheduling is the
strategy by which jobs or processes are given
access to the system resources. By that the
system, loads are managed efficiently, or
quality of service is achieved [7]. The MOSS
simulator for scheduling is a tool or an
application designed to analyze the
performance of different scheduling
algorithms. The data analyzed is represented in
a statistical manner for better understanding of
algorithms.
RELATED WORK
Over the years many researchers have
concluded that making a combination of more
than one scheduling algorithm improves
system performance [8]. Neetu et al. have
represented a state diagram which describes
the comparative study of several scheduling
algorithms based on performance of single
CPU and illustrate which algorithm is best
suitable for the particular situation [9].

JoASP (2018) 1-5 © STM Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved Page 1
Comparative Study of CPU Scheduling Algorithms
Another paper which closely corresponds with
current paper is by Ankur et al. [10].
Comparison of existing scheduling algorithms
is based on seven parameters which are
namely: allocation, application, complexity,
waiting time, usability, preemption and types
of system. Their observation concluded that
not one algorithm is enough to satisfy all the
seven basic parameters and suggested need for
improvement.
METHODOLOGY
Scheduling Criteria
Performance of various scheduling algorithms
is judged upon several criteria. Different
algorithms may favor different types of
processes:
• CPU Utilization: Amount of time till CPU
remains totally busy.
• Throughput: Processes which complete
their execution per unit time.
• Burst Time: Time required for execution
of a process.
• Completion Time: Time when process
completes their execution.
• Turnaround Time: Required time to execute
a particular process. It is denoted by:
Turnaround Time: Completion Time – Arrival
Time.
• Waiting Time: Waiting time of process in
waiting queue. It is denoted by:
Waiting Time: Turnaround – Burst Time.
• Response Time: Amount of time from the
submission of a request until the first
response is produced.
Optimization Criteria
The throughput time and the CPU utilization
need to be maximized, whereas waiting time,
response time and turnaround time need to be
minimized.
• Maximum CPU Utilization;
• Maximum Throughput;
• Minimum Turnaround Time;
• Minimum Waiting Time; and
• Minimum Response Time.
SCHEDULING ALGORITHMS
First Come First Serve Scheduling (FCFS)
First come first serve, this is the most basic
scheduling algorithm and based on the
JoASP (2018) 1-5 © STM Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved
Choudhary et al.
principle of FIFO (First in First out). FCFS is
non-preemptive in nature and will have
negligible number of context switches among
the process; that means once the process is
scheduled on CPU it will not switch to
different process until its full completion. In
this perspective, a waiting queue is formed of
the processes which are started in after some
time. They are pushed into the queue from the
rear node as they are submitted [11].
Shortest Job First Scheduling (SJFS)
This scheduling algorithm apparently produces
minimum amount of process average waiting
time and turnaround time. For minimizing
response time, this algorithm is used. Total
time taken by a process from its arrival to its
completion; while the amount of time a
process waits in the ready queue is waiting
time in SJF. The average waiting time is
minimized because it executes the processes
with less burst time before it takes the
prominent ones [12].
Round Robin Scheduling (RRS)
This algorithm is specially designed for time
sharing system. This algorithm is usually taken
into action in the case of multiprogramming or
multitasking systems. A particular time frame
is provided to each system and computer
resources are shared among them. It is similar
to FCFS, but preemption is added to switch
between processes.
Priority Scheduling (PS)
In this scheduling algorithm, each process is
assigned some priority, and then processes are
executed according to their priority first, while
processes with equal priorities are executed
according to FCFS algorithm [13]. A priority
number is assigned with each process. Each
process is allocated to the CPU with number
that assigns some priority which means
smaller the number, higher the priority, larger
the number, lower the priority. Some of the
examples of various scheduling (Example 1):
Example 1:
Process Burst Time (ms) Arrival Time Priority
P1 10 0 2
P2 3 1 3
P3 9 2 1
P4 4 3 4
Quantum Time =4 ms.
Page 2
Journal of Advances in Shell Programming
Volume 5, Issue 3
ISSN: 2395-6690 (Online)

Table 1: FCFS (First Come First Serve) Gantt comparative analysis of average waiting time
Chart. and average turnaround time respectively.
P1 P2 P3 P4
0 10 13 22 26 Table 5: Waiting Time for Each Process and
Average Waiting Time for Each Scheduling.
Table 2: SJF (Shortest Job First) Gantt Chart. Properties Process FCFS SJF RR Priority
P1 P2 P4 P1 P3 P1 0 7 15 9
0 1 4 8 17 26 P2 9 0 3 18
Waiting Time
P3 11 15 15 0
Table 3: Round Robin Scheduling Gantt P4 19 0 7 18
Chart. Average
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P3 P1 P3 9.75 5.5 10 11.25
Waiting Time
0 4 7 11 15 19 23 25 26
Table 6: Turnaround Time for Each Process
Table 4: Priority Scheduling Gantt Chart. and Average Turnaround Time for Each
P1 P3 P1 P2 P4 Scheduling.
Properties Process FCFS SJF RR Priority
0 2 11 19 22 26
P1 10 17 25 19
P2 12 3 6 21
Figures 1 and 2 depict the comparative waiting Turnaround Time
P3 20 24 24 9
time and turnaround time respectively. In P4 23 4 11 22
continuation, Figures 3 and 4 show the Average TAT 16.25 12 16.5 17.75

Fig. 1: Waiting Time Chart

Fig. 2: Turnaround Time Chart.

JoASP (2018) 1-5 © STM Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved Page 3
Comparative Study of CPU Scheduling Algorithms Choudhary et al.

Fig. 3: Average Waiting Time Chart.

Fig. 4: Average Turnaround Time Chart.

CONCLUSION overhead, high throughput, medium

In this study, we have presented the entire
scheduling algorithm by their Gantt chart
followed by Tables 1–4 for calculating the
waiting time (Table 5) and turnaround time
(Table 6) and average waiting time and
average turn around for each scheduling
algorithm. Figures 1 and 2 show the results in
graphical format. Figure 3 depicts the results
of average waiting time and Figure 4 depicts
the results of average turnaround time, and we
concluded that SJF is the best scheduling
algorithm because for long process it tends to
result in increased waiting time. The FCFS has
low throughput and response time and high
turnaround time. SJF has the medium CPU
turnaround and medium response time. RR has
the high CPU overhead, medium throughput,
medium turnaround time and high response
time. Priority scheduling has the medium CPU
overhead, low throughput, high turnaround
time and high response time; so shortest job
first scheduling algorithm performance is
better as compared with others.
REFERENCES
1. Sukumar Babu Bandarupalli, Neelima
Priyanka Nutulapati. A Novel CPU
Scheduling Algorithm-Preemptive and
Non-Preemptive. IJMER. Nov–Dec 2012;
2(6): 4484–4490p.

JoASP (2018) 1-5 © STM Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved Page 4
 Journal of Advances in Shell Programming
Volume 5, Issue 3
ISSN: 2395-6690 (Online)
2. Raman, Pardeep Kumar Mittal. An
Efficient Dynamic Round Robin CPU
Scheduling Algorithm. IJARCSSE. May 9.
2014; 4(5): 906–910p.
3. Silberschatz Abraham, Peter Galvin, Greg
Gagne. Operating Systems Concepts with
Java. 7th Edn. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
4. Lingyun Yang, Schopf Jennifer M, Ian 10.
Foster T. Conservative Scheduling: Using
Predicted Variance to Improve Scheduling
Decisions in Dynamic Environments.
Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE SC2003
Conference (SC) 1-58113-695-1/03 $ 11.
17.00 © 2003 ACM.
5. Abbas Noon, Ali Kalakech, Seifedine
Kadry. A New Round Robin Based
Scheduling Algorithm for Operating 12.
Systems: Dynamic Quantum Using the
Mean Average. IJCSI. May 2011; 8(3)(1):
224–229p.
6. Imran Qureshi. CPU Scheduling
Algorithms: A Survey. Int J Advanced
Networking and Applications (IJANA). 13.
2014; 05(04): 1968–1973p.
7. Mostafa Samih M, Rida SZ, Hamad
Safwat H. Finding Time Quantum of
Round Robin CPU Scheduling Algorithm
in General Computing Systems Using
Integer Programming. International
Journal of Research and Reviews in
Applied Sciences (IJRRAS). 2010; 5(1):
64–71p.
8. Liu CL, Layland James W. Scheduling
Algorithm for Multiprogramming in a
JoASP (2018) 1-5 © STM Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved
View publication stats
Hard-Real-Time Environment. J ACM. Jan
1973; 20(1): 46–61p.
Neetu Goel, Garg RB. A Comparative
Study of CPU Scheduling Algorithms.
International Journal of Graphics &
Image Processing (IJGIP). Nov 2012;
2(4): 245–251p.
Ankur B, Rachhpal S, Gaurav.
Comparative Study of Scheduling
Algorithms in Operating System.
International Journal of Computers and
Distributed Systems. Apr–May 2013; 3(1).
Saleem U, Muhammad Younus Javed.
Simulation of CPU Scheduling
Algorithms. In TENCON Proceedings,
IEEE. 2000; 2: 562–567p.
Lupetti, Simone, Dmitrii Zagorodnov.
Data Popularity and Shortest-Job-First
Scheduling of Network Transfers. In
Digital Telecommunications ICDT,
International Conference on, IEEE. 2006;
26–26p.
Neeraj Kumar, Nirvikar. Performance
Improvement Using CPU Scheduling
Algorithm. IJETTCS. Mar–Apr 2013;
2(2): 110–113p.
Cite this Article
Nilam Choudhary, Geetika Gautam, Yukti
Goswami, et al. A Comparative Study of
various CPU Scheduling Algorithms using
MOOS Simulator. Journal of Advances in
Shell Programming. 2018; 5(3): 1–5p.
Page 5