A single server moves with speed υ on a line interval (or a circle) of length (circumference)L. Customers, requiring service of constant durationb, arrive on the interval (or circle) at random at mean rate λ customers per unit length per unit time. A customer's mean wait for service depends partly on the rules governing the server's motion. We compare two different servers: thepolling server and thegreedy server. Without knowing the locations of waiting customers, a polling server scans endlessly back and forth across the interval (or clockwise around the circle), stopping only where it encounters a waiting customer. Knowing where customers are waiting, a greedy server always travels toward the current nearest one. Except for certain extreme values of υ,L, b, andλ, the polling and greedy servers are roughly equally effective. Indeed, the simpler polling server is often the better. Theoretical results show, in most cases, that the polling server has a high probability of moving toward the nearest customer, i.e. moving as a greedy server would. The greedy server is difficult to analyze, but was simulated on a computer.
[1]
Micha Hofri.
Disk scheduling: FCFS vs.SSTF revisited
,
1980,
CACM.
[2]
Edward G. Coffman,et al.
A continuous polling system with constant service times
,
1986,
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.
[3]
L. Jolley.
Summation of Series.
,
1962
.
[4]
Robert Geist,et al.
A continuum of disk scheduling algorithms
,
1987,
TOCS.
[5]
Toby J. Teorey,et al.
A comparative analysis of disk scheduling policies
,
1972,
CACM.
[6]
Micha Hofri,et al.
On the Expected Performance of Scanning Disks
,
1982,
SIAM J. Comput..
[7]
Micha Hofri,et al.
Queueing models of secondary storage devices
,
1986,
Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..