Scheduling Schemes in Dynamic Multilevel Packet Scheduling In WSN
R. Priscilla Joy1, J. Dheeba2
1Ms. Priscilla Joy. R, Department of Computer Science Engineering, Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Education, Nagercoil, India.
2Ms. Dheeba. J, Department of Computer Science Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India.
Manuscript received on 01 March 2019 | Revised Manuscript received on 05 March 2019 | Manuscript published on 30 July 2019 | PP: 3800-3804 | Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019 | Retrieval Number: B1714078219/19©BEIESP | DOI: 10.35940/ijrte.B1714.078219
Open Access | Ethics and Policies | Cite | Mendeley | Indexing and Abstracting
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abstract: As focusing on the scheduling schemes, there are many scheduling schemes for multilevel. So the paper is concentrating to compare the scheduling schemes and producing the average waiting time and turnaround time. If it is minimized then the overall performance may shoot up. In this paper comparison is done between three scheduling schemes Enhanced Dynamic Multilevel Packet scheduling (EDMP), Circular Wait Dynamic Multilevel Packet scheduling (CW-DMP) and Starvation-Free Dynamic Multilevel Packet scheduling (SF-DMP). In all the above schemes there are three priority levels say priority level 1(Pr1), priority level 2(Pr2) and priority level 3(Pr3). Pr1 will comprise the real time tasks, Pr2 containing the non real time remote tasks and non real time local tasks are there in Pr3. In each and every scheme, each and every priority level will be using the individual scheduling technique to schedule the tasks. Also the comparison is done based on waiting time and the turnaround time of the task thereby the average waiting time and the average turnaround time are calculated.
Index Terms: Level, Priority, Packet, Scheme, Tasks.
Scope of the Article: Foundations Dynamics