A discrete-event simulation tool for the analysis of simultaneous events

Discrete-event simulation is a very popular technique for the performance evaluation of systems, and in widespread use in network simulation tools. It is well known, however, that discrete-event simulation suffers from the problem of simultaneous events: Different execution orders of events with identical timestamps may lead to different simulation results. Current simulation tools apply tie-breaking mechanisms which order simultaneous events for execution. While this is an accepted solution, a legitimate question is: Why should only a single simulation result be selected, and other possible results be ignored? In this paper, we argue that confidence in simulation results may be increased by analyzing the impact of simultaneous events. We present a branching mechanism which examines different execution orders of simultaneous events, and may be used in conjunction with, or as an alternative to tie-breaking rules. We have developed a new simulation tool, MOOSE, which provides branching mechanisms for both sequential and distributed discrete-event simulation. While MOOSE has originally been developed for network simulation, it is fully usable as a general simulation tool.

[1]  R.M. Fujimoto,et al.  Parallel and distributed simulation systems , 2001, Proceeding of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference (Cat. No.01CH37304).

[2]  Christoph Barz,et al.  A new Framework for the Analysis of Simultaneous Events , 2003 .

[3]  Brian W. Unger,et al.  Sequential performance of asynchronous conservative PDES algorithms , 2005, Workshop on Principles of Advanced and Distributed Simulation (PADS'05).

[4]  T.J. Schriber,et al.  Inside discrete-event simulation software: How it works and why it matters , 2009, Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).

[5]  Robert Rönngren,et al.  On event ordering in parallel discrete event simulation , 1999, Proceedings Thirteenth Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation. PADS 99. (Cat. No.PR00155).

[6]  Rajive L. Bagrodia,et al.  Simultaneous events and lookahead in simulation protocols , 2000, TOMC.

[7]  Stephen John Turner,et al.  Algorithms for HLA-based distributed simulation cloning , 2005, TOMC.

[8]  Robert G. Sargent,et al.  Simultaneous events and distributed simulation , 1990, 1990 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings.

[9]  Richard M. Fujimoto,et al.  ZERO LOOKAHEAD AND REPEATABILITY IN THE HIGH LEVEL ARCHITECTURE , 1999 .

[10]  Brian W. Unger,et al.  Channel based sequential simulation , 2005, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[11]  Peter Martini,et al.  A Flexible Dynamic Partitioning Algorithm for Optimistic Distributed Simulation , 2007, 21st International Workshop on Principles of Advanced and Distributed Simulation (PADS'07).

[12]  Frederick Wieland.  The threshold of event simultaneity , 1997, Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation.

[13]  Luciano Bononi,et al.  Analysis of High Performance Communication and Computation Solutions for Parallel and Distributed Simulation , 2005, HPCC.

[14]  Emad Aboelela.  TCP: Transmission Control Protocol , 2003 .

[15]  Richard M. Fujimoto,et al.  Cloning parallel simulations , 2001, TOMC.

[16]  Stephen John Turner,et al.  COTS Simulation Package (CSP) Interoperability -A Solution to Synchronous Entity Passing , 2006, 20th Workshop on Principles of Advanced and Distributed Simulation (PADS'06).

[17]  Peter Martini,et al.  Efficient Analysis of Simultaneous Events in Distributed Simulation , 2007, 11th IEEE International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real-Time Applications (DS-RT'07).