Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [RE] Updated paper

Varuni,

Thanks for the review and most insightful comments.
A quick response follows.

>> Is there anything I'm missing that makes this different from regular 
>> rate monotonic scheduling?

Yes. In this case, the full capacity can be allocated but the
guaranteed latency increases. While I believe the guaranteed
latency increase is on the order of 20%, I'm not sure of the
theory.

Thanks again for a most insightful question.

DVJ

 

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Varuni Witana [mailto:varuni@NICTA.COM.AU]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:52 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Updated paper
>> 
>> 
>> David,
>> 
>>  From my recollection of textbook scheduling theory, rate monotonic 
>> scheduling (which is what this proposal seems to be) has a maximum 
>> theoretical schedulability limit of 69%.
>> This would not meet the stated aim of using upto 75% of capacity for 
>> class A/B traffic.
>> Is there anything I'm missing that makes this different from regular 
>> rate monotonic scheduling?
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> Varuni
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: David V James [mailto:dvj@ALUM.MIT.EDU] 
>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1:19 AM
>> > To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> > Subject: [RE] Updated paper
>> > 
>> > All,
>> > 
>> > I have posted an update for tomorrow's meeting.
>> > This can be found at:
>> >   http://dvjames.com/esync/dvjRate2005Aug30.pdf
>> > 
>> > I assume Michael will move this to the group's
>> > IEEE web pages.
>> > 
>> > DVJ