ns2 project in Montana

ns2 project in Montana

         ns2 project in Montana metrics corresponding to the PDES, transaction and activity

levels within the diagnosis, will be examined in the

next point, in order to identify the critical transactions and

the critical activities within them, and to ns2 project in Montana evaluate the causes

of their behavior. The PDES level metrics in the PDES

analysis window are shown. Upro is the global utilization

of the set of processors in the window,ns2 project in Montana and the rest of metrics

are mean values for the set of transactions . A significant

synchronization load from the relative value of the

waiting time can be observed. A very low rate of failures

and a medium level utilization of the set of processors are

also observed. In Figure 10 the utilization of each processor

in the three possible windows (PDES, transaction and

activity) is shown. Processor 0 is seen ns2 project in Montana to be saturated. Parameters

show that the host tasks are mapped in this processor.

Finally, Table 8 shows the incidence of the causes of

behaviour for whole PDES as a whole. Here, blocking is

the most important cause of behaviour. In Figure 11 the relative value of ns2 project in Montana transaction response

times with regard to their deadlines is shown. Only

transaction 0 in its transaction window exceeds its deadline.

The metrics represented in Figure 12 permit several conclusions:

constraint of productivity absorption is fulfilled

because all the theoretical responses have been produced;

deadline constraint in transaction 0 is not fulfilled because

there are failures; and finally the variability of the response

time is lower than 0.1 only in transaction 15. According

to the information provided by the metrics and the ns2 project in Montana rules for

this stage, transaction 0 is selected as a general Tables 9 and 10 show the incidence of the causes

of specific behaviour (transaction window) and general behaviour

(PDES window) for critical transaction 0, respectively.

Both blocking and processing have the same incidence

in general behaviour, while processing has double incidence

in specific behaviour. As the number of deadline

failures is very small, the causes of specific behaviour are more useful than those of general behaviour for design improvement.

Activity level metrics considered here ns2 project in Montana correspond

to activities composing the critical transaction 0. The

metrics refer to activity and PDES windows, but the analysis

is centered on the former, which is more representative

of deadline failures in this case. In Figure 13 the relative

value of each activity response ns2 project in Montana time with respect to

the transaction response time is shown. Activity 1 is seen

to be the longest activity with nearly 40% incidence in the

transaction response time. The metrics also confirm that the

variability in activity 1 exceeds 0.1. According to the information

provided by the metrics and the rules for this stage,

activity 1 is selected as a general critical activity.  In Figure 14 the relative value of thewaiting time

of each activity with respect to its response time is shown.

In critical activity 1 the waiting time represents only 5% of

the response time, the other 95% corresponding to the service

time. Tables 11 and 12 show the causes of the specific

behaviour (activity window) and ns2 project in Montana general behavior of critical activity 1, respectively. Table 11 also

shows the partial incidences of each diagnosis level. The

main causes of specific behaviour are two: a) contention

with other activities of equal priority (the corresponding activities

[i,1] in the other transactions) ns2 project in Montana supported by different

tasks; and b) code execution. Both of these occur during

service time. In Table 12 processing ns2 project in Montana during service time is

found to be the cause of general behaviour with almost total