Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

SEMINAR

ON
“SCAN-
EDF”
Presented by
Rashmi G.Nagdeote
Final Year
(Computer Science & Engineering)
Guided by
PROF.P.B.NIRANJANE
(Dept. of Computer Science &
Engineering)

BABASAHEB NAIK COLLEGE OF


CONTENTS

OVERVIEW OF EDF


ALGORITHM
SCAN ALGORITHM

 SCAN-EDF
FLOW OF ALGORITHM

EXAMPLE OF SCAN-EDF


A D V A N TA G E S A N D
D IS A D V A N T A G E S
C O N C L U S IO N
R EFER EN C ES
AN OVERVIEW OF EDF
.

• Definition of EDF
 Assigns priorities to jobs according to deadline
Advantages:

• Meet the real time constraint

• It is good when system is lightly loaded


 Disadvantages:
• Excessive seeks

• Poor throughput due to overload condition.

• Fails to resolve the conflict between tasks with same


deadline
EDF(conti…)
 Incoming requests (in order of
Track 12 14arrival):
2 7 21 8 24
location 

Deadlin 5 6 4 7 1 2 3

e
MOVEMENT OF DISK ARM:
cylinder number
1 5 10 15 20 25
time
ELEVATOR ALGORITHM OR
SCAN 


 Definition of scan algorithm
 Scan(elevator) moves head edge to

edge and serves requests on the way


 Conventional , deadlines is not

considered
Advantages:

 Reduce disk arm utilization , serves


request close to disk arm
Disadvantages:

 Not suitable for real time environment




SCAN(CONTI….)
• Incoming requests (in
order of arrival):
Track 12 14 2 7 21 8 24
 location

MOVEMENT OF DISK ARM :


cylinder number
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
time
SCAN-EDF
A SOLUTION FOR COMMON DEADLINE PROBLEM

SCAN-EDF combines SCAN and


EDF:
• the real-time aspects of EDF

• seek optimizations of SCAN


• increase efficiency by modifying the deadlines
•• method:
• serve requests with earlier deadline
first (EDF)
• sort requests with same deadline after
track location (SCAN)

Example to illustrate Scan-EDF
ASSUMPTIONS:

1.Current Head is at 0
2.Slack Factor=2
3.Nmax=30
4.Transmission Factor:
 Seek factor=0.3
 Read=0.6


FLOW OF ALGORITHM
Example(conti….)
Transi Arrival Track Block Start End Averag Deadli Modifi Trans
tion time(At locatio size Index Index e ne (Di) ed missio
ID ) n(ai) (bs) (SI) (EI) executi deadlin n time
on e (Mi) (TT)
T0 0 0 0 0 0 time
0 0 0 0

T1 1 7 3 7 9 4.5 10 10.23 1.8

T2 1 12 3 12 14 4.5 10 10.40 1.8

T3 1 16 4 16 19 6 13 13.53 2.4

T4 1 2 3 2 4 4.5 10 10.06 1.8


CALCULATION
 FOR TASK T1:
• Arrival time(At)=1,a1=7,block size=3
hence , SI=7 & EI=9

• Average execution time =1.5*block size

• =1.5*3
• =4.5
• Deadline(D1)=At+(slack factor*AET)
 =1+(2*4.5)=10
• Modified deadline=Di+f(Ni)=D1+(N1/Nmax)
 =10+(7/30)
 =10.23
• Transfer time=0.6*block size=0.6*3=1.8
SERVICE TABLE

Cj,i=Execution time required to ith


transaction after servicing jth
transaction
SCAN EDF
.

• AFTER MODIFICATION OF DEADLINES


 EDF SCHEDULE=T0,T4,T1,T2,T3,T5

MOVEMENT OF DISK ARM:
GRAPH OF SCAN-EDF
ADVANTAGES &
DISADVANTAGES OF SCAN EDF
• ADVANTAGES • DISADVANTAGES
It can schedule the It’s limitation is that it

request with same works for only requests


deadline having common
Gives increased deadline
throughput than EDF 

Disk arm movement is

reduced than EDF



CONCLUSION
Thus from the above explanation the conclusion

is to be made that:
In SCAN - EDF , requests are normally served in EDF order .
However , if more than one request have the same
deadline , the SCAN algorithm is applied to these
requests , toresolve the conflict between the same
deadline .

The advantage of SCAN - EDF is that it attempts to


provide both seek optimization and earliest deadline
first service . However , the effectiveness of the SCAN -
EDF algorithm depends on how many requests carry the
same deadline . If a server dynamically issues I / O
requests , then the chance for more than two requests
to have the same deadline is small or zero . In that
case , the algorithm reduces to EDF . On the other hand ,
if a server uses " service round ", and all requests
during a round are assigned the same deadline , then
the algorithm reduces to SCAN . Therefore , the behavior
of this algorithm really depends on how deadlines are
assigned to I / O requests .
REFERENCES:
1.Reddy, A. L. Narasimha and Wyllie, James C., "I/O
Issues in a Multimedia System," Computer,
27(3):69-74, 1994.
2.Anderson, D. P., Osawa, Y., Govindan, R.:”A File
System for Continuous Media”, ACM
Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 10, No.
4, Nov. 1992, pp. 311 - 337  
3.Elmasri, R. A., Navathe, S.: “Fundamentals of
Database Systems”, Addison Wesley, 2000
4.Garcia-Molina, H., Ullman, J. D., Widom, J.:
“Database Systems – The Complete Book”,
Prentice Hall, 2002
THANK
YOU!

ANY

QUERY???