ET1 PROCESS DISPATCHES in Java Encoder datamatrix 2d barcode in Java ET1 PROCESS DISPATCHES

TABLE 8-8. ET1 PROCESS DISPATCHES use javabean datamatrix 2d barcode printer toattach data matrix barcodes for java Microsoft Official Website Thus, the number of process dispatches per transaction, 1Jp, is = 2S. (8-30). The dispatch time for process j is approximated by calcuJating the processor queue wait time via the MIMII model but excluding the effect of the process being consideled (see Appendix 6). The avenge processiDg time per dispatch for all pmcesses except), tJ,. (8-31). tJ = average processing time per dispatch for an pmcesses except process j. = avenge processing time per traDSaction for all pmcesses of type j. 1IJ = dispatches per traDsactioD for all processes of typej. = number of proc::esses of type j (note tbat X$ = $).. Application Environment Chap. 8 We define = number of processors in the system. = total processor load. = processor load imposed by all processes except process j.

. L;j = Lp - LpjlXj Lpj = processor load imposed by all processes of type j. L;j The load imposed on the processor by all processes except for process j. L;,,;. is Since =RtttlP (8-32). then (8-33). Fmally,. t,.,. .

". fj"s have the l~ t! = -=eJ:L. 1 - LpJ (8-34). Because the interproc:esss me ssage time is charged to the sending process, then the fonowing values:. "t: = 2tpe =20 IDS8C. = = = =. Also, from Table 8-9, the ".i jdk data matrix barcodes "S ate:. t,. = 2tpr + tipm = 30 1DSeC. ts tps + 7tipm lOS 1DSeC. ~ 7tlll 140 1DSeC. =2 ,.,. =2.

"s = 13 n,,= 8. These equalioDs represent the respoase time model for the EI"1 benchmarK, as implemented in our example distributed system. They are summarized in Table 8-11, with a definition of terms given in Table 8-10. Table 8-10 also summarizes the parameter values used (note that Ls is treated as an input pammeter since its value is fixed by the dynamic server algoritbm).

. Chap. 8 An Example This model assumes a large sy Data Matrix 2d barcode for Java stem and is a function of the number of proeessors, P, ancl the number of disks, D. Before we launch into a major calculation ranging over all D and P, let us use a little intelligence relative to the final system. From Table 8-7, we see tbat the file system is utilized for 290 JDSeC.

during each transaction; equation 8-29 shows tbat 295 JDSeC. of processor time is used per transaction. These are so close tbat it is quite reasonable to consider a processing module comprising one processor and one disk.

. ..

TABLE 8-"0. ET1 BENCHMARK PARAMETERS Value RGIIll ptlTfIIII4t4n Input WITilIbJes Average zespoose time (sec.). Sysrem 1raIISaCtioIl1ate (ft" tomcat ECC200 8!!$l!CIionssecoGCl). Input ptlTfIIII4t4n t...

.. t,j t,. Number of disk UDits Server l Data Matrix barcode for Java oad per server Process disparI:h late per 1IaIIsICticm NlDIIber of pIOCeSSOrS Average physical disIc time per file request (msec.) lidapwc:essot messap time 0 """".I! :aIioD baDcIJer time per message (msec.

) File IIIIDIIF" processiDg time per file mquest (msec.) Reqaesror time per message (msec.) Server time per messap (msec.

) MaxDmIm server queue 1eD&th. .73 .68.

1 21.4 10 10. 20 10 35 3,2. l".".rditIre ptJ1"IIIII4t6J Lf.J File DIIIIIIF load per file D gs1 datamatrix barcode for Java IIIIIIIF" Processor load per pIQCIISIOC Processor load per pIQCIISIOC. adasive of pocess j l)jspatches per IDDSdioa fer poc:ess type j Ploq:Iss dispIrdl time (msec.) for pzocess type j Pie .


.. service time per file 1eqaest (msec.

) Awage PocessiD& time per II"DsniaD far pocess type j (msec.) Awrage pocessing time per cIispatdl fer all pnI cesses except poc:ess j (msec.) File DIIIIIIF qaeae time (msec.

) Saver qaeae time (msec.) Saver _ _ time (msec.) CPU lime per t.

IDsac&ioD (msec.) Number of pocesses of type j. This~ can then be used as a m odule to build a system as big as we would lilce. Therefore, the BTl benchmark will be evaluated for one pmc:essor and ODe disk or. =1 D =1. This means there will be one file ~ (Xf = 1). A trial calculati<m: will show tbat there Application Environment TABLE 8-11. ET1 BENCHMARK MODEL Chap. 8 r., = .SL,t./(l = 2(tpc 2(t"...

fd,). t..,.

+ r., + (8-19). - LJ (8-24) (8-20) (8-22) (8-26). z.rl = 1 Iqt = (t,. + 8t.> + 7 (,.,. + Iqt + = .6~ (1 = 7R D - 1.,). t" + 131"" + z.tI T".,". (8-27). (8-25). =1 ~~ = Lp ("t (8-34). (8-33). I" OJ -. -"t ~/%j). It - ~/%; "7 - "i%;. (8-31). = R,ltlP "t = 2tpc + 2z",. + t,. + 71" + 81.... (8-32). (8-28). will be 6 communication proce sses (Xc = 6) and 6 requestors (x, = 6). The namber of servers, x"" is that required to keep the server load below .73.

Note that at a 70 pen:ent load, this module will carry .71.29 = 2.

4 ttaDsactiODSl second. This is a rough estimate of system capacity as the actual value will depend upon the response time cbaracteristics. The response time fortbis module is shown in F1g1lte 8-7 as a function oftraDsaction rate.

Smprise! To achieve an:spouse time of2 seconds, a module can carry 0Dly a load of 1.65 ttaDsaCtions per second, not 2.4.

In fact, it can barely approach that capacity, saturating at about 2.S tIaDsaCtions per secoDd; This example shows one of the great benefits inpezformance modeling. First, it shows how educated guesses can sometimes lead us astEay (though they ate still useful).

Secondly, the model will let us ""look iDro" the system to see wbat went wroDg. This can be done by perasing the calcnJatjan msults summarized in Table 8-12..

: . ..

Copyright © . All rights reserved.