Get documents about "An Efficient SJRR CPU Scheduling Algorithm - PDF
Document Sample
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
An Efficient SJRR CPU Scheduling Algorithm
Saeeda Bibi 1, Farooque Azam1, Sameera Amjad1, Wasi Haider Butt1,Hina Gull1, Rashid Ahmed1,Yasir
Chaudhry 2
1
Department of Computer Engineering
College of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, NUST
Rawalpindi, Pakistan
2
Department of Computer Science
Maharishi University of Management
Fairfield,Iowa USA
{saeedabb, sameerashaheen, butt.wasi, hinagull03, yasiryc }@gmail.com, farooq {farooq , rashid}@ceme.nust.edu.pk
Abstract— CPU Scheduling is a vital discipline which helps us Scheduling Algorithms can be broadly classified into
gain deep insight into the complex set of policies and mechanisms preemptive and non-preemptive scheduling disciplines. The
used to govern the order in which tasks are executed by the algorithm proposed in this article is preemptive in nature and
processor. This article proposes an efficient Shortest Job Round attempts to give fair CPU execution time by focusing on
Robin (SJRR) CPU Scheduling algorithm having better average average waiting time and turnaround time of a process. This
waiting time (AWT) and average turnaround time (ATT) as article comprises of the following sections: Section 2 presents
compared to other CPU Scheduling techniques. The primary scheduling parameters which will decide against which
objective of this algorithm is to optimize system performance parameters the new CPU scheduling algorithm will be tested.
according to the criteria deemed most important by system Section 3 introduces existing scheduling algorithm. Section 4
designers. Included in this work, is a simulation that compares
explains the SJRR scheduling algorithm. Section 5 contains
the proposed algorithms with some well known practices to CPU
scheduling. pseudocode of the algorithm. Section 6 explains the two basic
elements that make up the simulation and provide an
Keywords-component; First Come First Serve Algorithm, interactive user interface. Section 7 presents a graphical
Shortest Job First Algorithm, Round Robin Algorithm, Priority comparison of the new algorithm with existing techniques. Last
Algorithm, Average Waiting Time, Turnaround Time, Response but not the least Section 8 will provide conclusion of the
Time, Throughput work...
I. INTRODUCTION II. SCHEDULING PARAMETERS
Scheduling is a technique which involves complex set of Different scheduling algorithms have different
policies and mechanisms working at the back of a processor, characteristics which decide selection of processes using
instructing it the order in which it should execute a given set of different criteria for execution by CPU. The criteria which
processes. Process is a smallest work unit of a program which decide how one algorithm differs from the other have been
requires a set of resources for its execution that are allotted to it listed below:
by the CPU. These processes are many in number and keep
A. Processor utilization
coming in the queue one after the other. In order to execute
them in a particular fashion, different scheduling techniques are It is the average fraction of time during which the processor
employed that enable faster and efficient process execution is busy [2]. Being busy means the processor is not idle.
thereby reducing the waiting time faced by each process and
increasing CPU utilization. A process has five basic states B. Throughput
namely New, Ready, Running, Waiting and Terminate [1] [5]. It refers to the amount of work completed in a unit of time
Throughout its lifetime a process migrates between various [2]. That is, the number of user jobs executed in a unit of time.
scheduling queues by different schedulers until it gets The more the number of jobs, the more work is done by the
terminated. These queues mainly contain the ready queue system.
which contains set of processes ready for CPU response. The C. Turnaround Time
second queue is the device or the I/O queue which contains all
the processes that are waiting for I/O response [1]. The It is defined as the time taken to execute a given process
operating system must select processes for scheduling from [1]. That is, it is the time spends by the process in the system
these queues in a specific manner. This selection process using from the time of its submission until its completion by the
a particular scheduling technique is carried out by schedulers. system.
Schedulers in general try to maximize the average performance
of a system according to the given criterion [2].
222 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
D. Waiting Time makes the user feels processor sharing between multiple
processes very fast. Average waiting time is high because of
Scheduling algorithms do not affect the amount of time FCFS policy and context switching [1].
during which a process executes or does I/O, it affects only the
amount of time spend by the process in the ready queue [1].
That is, the amount of time spent in the ready queue by the D. Priority Based Scheduling
process a waiting CPU execution. Priority scheduling executes processes based on their
priority which may be assigned by the system or by the user
E. Response Time: himself [3]. Processes with the high priority are executed first
While turnaround time includes total time taken by the and those with low priorities are executed next [6]. Processes
process from the time of its submission until the time of its with equal priority values are executed using FCFS approach
completion, response time is the measure of time from the [1].
submission of requests until the first response is produced [1].
This response time does not include the time taken to output E. Multilevel Queues (MLQ) Scheduling
that response. It is a complex scheduling technique in which workload is
divided among multiple queues employing different schedulers
III. OVERVIEW OF E XISTING CPU SCHEDULING on different queues. Division of workload might be classified
ALGORITHMS as system processes, interactive programs, batch jobs etc [2].
Each high priority queue contains foreground processes which
CPU scheduling algorithms aim at deciding which have priority over lower priority queues which contain
processes in the ready queue are to be allotted to the CPU. background processes. Processes keep moving between these
Discussed in this section are some common CPU scheduling queues depending on the scheduler employed on the particular
algorithms queue [1].
A. First Come First Served (FCFS) Scheduling
FCFS employs the simplest scheduling technique on the IV. SJRR CPU SCHEDULING ALGORITHM
basis of first come first served. The work load is processed in Shortest Job Round Robin (SJRR) is preemptive in nature.
the order of arrival, with no preemption [2]. Once a process has It sorts all incoming processes based on their burst time in
been submitted to the CPU, it runs into completion without ascending order in the ready queue. Next it uses the time
being interrupted. Such a technique is fair in the case of smaller quantum to execute processes. If time quantum expires before
processes but is quite unfair for long an unimportant job [3]. the process execution then CPU is preempted and given to the
Since FCFS does not involve context switching therefore it has next shorter waiting process in the queue. The preempted
minimal overhead. It has low throughput since long processes process is then placed at the end of the ready queue. The
can keep processor occupied for a long time making small average waiting time and average turnaround time obtained
processes suffer. As a result waiting time, turnaround time and from SJRR is better than existing CPU scheduling algorithms.
response time can be low [4].
SJRR is fair in scheduling and effective in time sharing
environment. In SJRR scheduling, CPU is given to each
B. Shortest Job First (SJF) Scheduling process for equal time period, no process has to wait for long
Shortest Job First is non-preemptive in nature in which time for the CPU. The explicit working of the SJRR algorithm
process with smallest estimated run time to completion is is discussed below:
executed next. SJF reduces average waiting time of processes
as compared to FCFS. SJF favors shorter processes over longer
ones which is an overhead as compared to FCFS [6]. It selects Take list of processes, their burst time, arrival time and
the job with the smallest burst time ensuing CPU availability time quantum.
for other processes as soon as the current process reaches its Arrange processes and their relative burst time in
completion.
ascending order using any sorting technique.
This prevents smaller processes from suffering behind
larger processes in the ready queue for a long time [3] [7]. Iterate through the given list of processes to find the
processes having maximum burst time and initialize
C. Round Robin (RR) Scheduling waiting time of each process with zero.
Round Robin is preemptive in nature. It employs FCFS for If number of processes are odd then
process execution by assigning a quantum or time slice to each
process [7]. As soon as the quantum expires control is o Take burst time of the middle process and
forcefully taken from the current process under execution and assign this value to the time quantum
is transferred to the next in the queue for the same period of Else
time slice [3]. The outcome of RR algorithm in term of
performance depends entirely on the size of time quantum. If o Take the average of burst time of two middle
the quantum is very large, RR algorithm works the same as the most processes and assign this value to the
FCFS algorithm. If the quantum is very small, RR algorithm time quantum
223 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
burst time
completed.
Find maximum number of time each process will Iterate through the list of processes
execute by dividing maximum burst time with time o Add total waiting time with waiting time of
quantum then add one in the result. each process to find total waiting time
Initialize an array with zero that is used for storing the o Add burst time and waiting time of each
process to find turnaround time
burst time that has been completed.
o Add total turnaround time and turnaround
Iterate through the given list of processes. time of each process to find total turnaround
time
o Initialize a variable with zero that is used as a Average waiting time is calculated by diving total
counter. waiting time with total number of processes.
o Iterate until the burst time of the process is Average turnaround time is calculated by dividing total
greater than zero. turnaround time with total number of processes.
o If burst time is greater than or equal to time
quantum then V. PSEUDO CODE
Store remaining burst time burst 0
max 0
Store completed burst time temp 0
Increment counter total_tatime 0.0
tw_time 0.0
o Else avg_wt 0.0
avg_tatime 0.0
Store completed burst time
Assign zero to burst time variable For i process-1 to 0
For j 1 to process
Increment counter
IF btime[j-1] > btime[j]
o Assign value of counter minus one in counter temp btime[j-1]
array btime[j-1] btime[j]
btime[j] temp
Iterate through the list of processes ptemp proname[j-1]
o Iterate through the length of counter array proname[j-1] proname [j]
If value of variable used for counter proname[j] ptemp
is equal to the counter of processes
For i 0 to process
then btime[i] bu[i]
Iterate through the process proname[i] pname[i]
coming from the list of IF max < btime[i]
processes max btime[i]
If value of that process is b[i] btime[i
wtime[i] 0
not equal to the upcoming
process then IF process%2!=0
o Add the waiting mid (process+1)/2
time of the t btime[mid]
upcoming process ELSE
with the burst time mid process/2
completed. t (btime[mid]+btime[mid+1])/2
Else
dim max/t + 1
Iterate through the list of
processes
If that process is not equal For i 0 to process
to the upcoming process For j 0 to dim
then r [i,j] 0
o Add waiting time
of the upcoming
process with the
224 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
For i 0 to process
j 0 1) First Screen Interface
While btime[i]>0
IF btime[i] >=t
btime[i] btime[i]-t
r[i,j] t
j j+1
ELSE
r[i,j] btime[i]
btime[i] 0
jj+1
counter[i] j-1
For j 0 to process
For i 0 to counter [j]
IF i = = counter[j]
For k 0 to j
IF k != j
wtime[j] wtime[j] + r[k,i]
ELSE
For k o to process
IF k != j Snapshot 1: First Screen Interface
wtime[j] wtime[j] +r[k, i]
The Snapshot 1 of the parent screen illustrated above
For j 0 to process contains two drop down lists namely ‘First Algo’ and ‘Second
tw_time tw_time + wtime[j] Algo’, one for each algorithm respectively. Two algorithm
tatime[j] b[j] + wtime[j] choices are entered by the users that are to be compared. After
total_ tatime total_tatime+ tatime[j] choosing two algorithms the user then clicks the ‘New’ option.
This selection is depicted below in Snapshots 2 & 3. These
Snapshots illustrate how choices are entered and the selection
avg_wt tw_time / process
choices are available. Same choice of algorithms in both
avg_tatime total_tatime/ process dropdown lists is restricted.
VI. SIMULATION DESIGN
The simulation provides an interactive GUI interface to the
user through which a user can input data related to different
processes then applying different algorithms based on the
algorithm choices given in the simulator. The simulator
employs .NET framework using C# on the front end and
Microsoft Access for database at back end. Both front end and
back end features are discussed below:
A. Front End Features
The front end of the simulator has been built on .Net
framework using C# as the coding language. It comprises of
one parent screen and two child screens. The parent screen or
the main window provides interactive GUI to the user which is
used to choose two algorithms from the drop down list that are
to be compared.
Snapshot 2: First Screen Interface with selection of First Algo
225 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
Snapshot 5: Second Screen Interface
After giving input for each process in the process set, then
click the ‘Add’ option in the menu bar provided in the screen.
Snapshot 3: First Screen Interface with selection of Second Algo
Keep adding the processes and their specifics until all desired
processes have been entered. After this close this screen which
Whenever in anyone of the given dropdown list, if Round transfer the control to the first screen. Here, the user then
Robin algorithm get selected another window pops up. This clicks the ‘Schedule’ button which will apply the chosen
window is the Time Quantum Screen which will ask the user algorithm techniques on the same process set separately. The
to enter the desired time quantum for the process set. All the first panel given at the bottom of the First Screen shows the
processes will apply the same time quantum on all the Gantt chart results for the first algorithm that was entered
processes for Round Robin algorithm. while the second panel shows the Gantt chart results of the
second algorithm.
Snapshot 4: Time Quantum Screen
2) Second Screen Interface
This screen will open when ‘New’ option is clicked. It
enables the users to enter the process set containing different
processes each having its own specific process name, arrival
time, burst time and priority. This set is used by both the
chosen algorithms for applying their own techniques on the
same process set. Given below is a snapshot which depicts Snapshot 6: First Screen with Gantt Chart
this input in take.
226 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
B. Back End Features difference between average waiting time (AWT) of FCFS and
Microsoft Access is employed at the back end which stores SJRR is quite large which makes SJRR an efficient algorithm
the processes, their arrival time, burst time and priorities with respect to the average waiting time. Same behavior was
observed in the graph given in Figure 2, when average
entered by the user. The data field name and the data type
turnaround times (ATT) of the two algorithms were compared.
used for storing and manipulating these values include:
The difference between the two plots, that is, plot of AWT and
ATT; are quite negligible with small set of processes but the
ID = Auto number difference becomes noticeable when the set of processes grow
Process = Text large. Hence SJRR has better AWT and ATT readings as
Arrival Time = Number compared to FCFS.
Burst Time = Number
Priority = Number Com parison of avg. w aiting tim e of FCFS and SJRR
CPU Scheduling Algorithm s
The ID number will be generated by the database at random 8000
Average Waiting Time
FCFS
as the processes get entered. The next data field is the Process 6000 SJRR
name which can contain any string as named by the user. The
Arrival Time takes numeric values for recording the arrival 4000
time of the processes. The Burst Time is the time which the 2000
process needs from the CPU for the completion of its task and 0
has numeric data type. The priority of processes is also 5 10 15 20 25 30
numeric which stores values and decide the priority of each Processes
process entered.
Figure 1: AWT of FCFS & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms
Com parison of Tur naround Tim e of FCFS and SJRR
8000
7000
Avg Turnaround Time
6000
5000
FCFS
4000
SJRR
3000
2000
1000
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Snapshot 7: Database Screen Processes
VII. COMPARISON OF SJRR WITH OTHER CPU
SCHEDULING ALGORITHMS AND RESULTS
Figure 2: ATT of FCFS & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms
To compare the performance of SJRR, it was implemented
with some other existing CPU scheduling algorithms. By B. Comparison of SJRR with SJF
taking lists of processes, processes are scheduled using
different CPU scheduling algorithms. Average waiting time Along the x-axis we have different set of processes that
and average turnaround time was noted down for each. Results were chosen for SJRR and SJF scheduling algorithms. Along
of average waiting time and average turnaround time for each y-axis we have the average waiting time and average turn
algorithm are illustrated in the graphs below which depict around time spend by these set of processes while using these
behavior of each algorithm against others using a specific set of two scheduling approaches as given in Figure 3 and Figure 4
processes which random quantum size used per process set. respectively. As depicted in the graphs given below, the AWT
and ATT of SJRR was greater than AWT and ATT of SJF.
A. Comparison of SJRR with FCFS SJRR showed negligible difference with SJF for small number
Along the x-axis we have different set of processes that of processes. But this difference starts becoming noticeable
were chosen for SJRR and FCFS scheduling algorithms. Along when set of processes grow above 20 processes.
y-axis we have the average waiting time and average turn
around time spend by these set of processes while using these
two scheduling approaches as given in Figure 1 and Figure 2
respectively. As depicted in the graph given in Figure 1, the
227 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
Comparison of avg. w aiting tim e of SJF and SJRR CPU Comparison of avg. waiting time of RR and SJRR CPU
Scheduling Algorithm Scheduling Algorithms
8000 10000
Average Waiting Time
Average Waiting Time
6000 8000
SJF 6000 RR
4000
SJRR 4000 SJRR
2000
2000
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Processes Proces ses
Figure 5: AWT of RR & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms
Figure 3: AWT of SJF & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms
Com parison of Turnaround Tim e of RR and SJRR
Com paris on of Turnaround Tim e of SJF and SJRR 10000
9000
8000
Avg. Turnaround Time
7000
7000
6000 6000
RR
Avg. Turnaround Time
5000 5000
SJRR
4000
4000 SJF 3000
SJRR 2000
3000
1000
2000 0
1000
5 10 15 20 25 30
Processes
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Processes Figure 6: ATT of RR & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms
Figure 4: ATT of SJF & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms
D. Comparison of SJRR with Priority
Along the x-axis we have different set of processes that
were chosen for SJRR and Priority scheduling algorithms.
C. Comparison of SJRR with RR
Along y-axis we have the average waiting time and average
Along the x-axis we have different set of processes that turn around time spend by these set of processes while using
were chosen for SJRR and RR scheduling algorithms. Along these two scheduling approaches as given in Figure 7 and
y-axis we have the average waiting time and average Figure 8 respectively. As shown in the graphs SJRR shows
turnaround time spend by these set of processes while using better readings of AWT and ATT as compared to Priority.
these two scheduling approaches as given in Figure 5 and There is a small difference between the results of AWT and
Figure 6 respectively. SJRR shows negligible difference with ATT of SJRR and the results of AWT and ATT of Priority.
AWT and ATT of RR when the set of processes is small. RR
gave better AWT and ATT readings when time quantum was Comparison of avg. waiting time of Priority and SJRR
small for a set of processes. But SJRR produced much better CPU Scheduling Algorithm
AWT and ATT results as compared to RR when the time
quantum was increased. That is, for large quantum size, SJRR 7000
Average Waiting Time
gives much better results as compared to RR. 6000
5000
4000 Priority
3000 SJRR
2000
1000
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Processes
Figure 7: AWT of Priority & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms
228 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
Com parison of Turnaround Tim e of Priority and SJRR
Processes FCFS SJF RR Priority SJRR
8000 5 40.2 25.2 35.2 45 27.2
7000
10 87.4 69.5 104.5 102.3 86.5
Avg. Turnaround Time
6000
5000
Priority 15 299.5 252.73 362.07 305.5 305.9
4000
SJRR 20 196.85 172.8 244.15 225.2 205.2
3000
2000 25 3254 2358 4013.2 3388 2974.4
1000
0
30 6999 4960 8581 6893 6587.5
5 10 15 20 25 30
Processes
Table 2: Experimental Results for Average Turnaround Time
Figure 8: ATT of Priority & SJRR Scheduling Algorithms Below is the graphical depiction of Table 1 and Table 2.
Figure 9 illustrates cumulative comparison of AWT of SJRR
with AWT of FCFS, SJF, RR and Priority scheduling
E. Comparative Analysis of Above CPU Scheduling
algorithms. Figure 10 illustrates cumulative comparison of
Algorithms
ATT of SJRR with FCFS, SJF, RR and Priority scheduling
Waiting time and Turn Around time are some of the algorithms. Analysis of both plots show that AWT and ATT of
factors that can be used to check efficiency of a CPU SJRR is better than AWT and ATT of FCFS, RR and Priority
Scheduling algorithm. Waiting time gives the amount of time but SJRR shows an increase in AWT and ATT as compared to
a process has spent in the ready queue waiting CPU execution. that of SJF. Using these analysis results it is concluded that
The more the time spent by a process in the ready queue the SJRR show a marked improvement in AWT and ATT
more time will be taken by the CPU to execute processes perspectives as compared to those of FCFS, RR and Priority
queued behind that process which will retard CPU efficiency. scheduling algorithms.
Similarly turn around time is the amount of time taken by a
CPU to execute a process. The more this time is taken the Comparison of Avg Waiting Tim e of CPU Scheduling Algorithms
slower the CPU gets making other processes starve infinitely.
9000
8000
To check the performance of proposed algorithm, i.e. 7000
A v e r a g e W a itin g T im e
FCFS
SJRR, we took six process sets, each with different 6000
SJF
characteristics and made comparisons of these. First process 5000
RR
set contains 5 processes, second set contains 10 processes, 4000
Priority
3000
third set contains 15 processes, fourth set contains 20 2000
SJRR
processes, fifth set contains 25 and sixth set contains 30 1000
processes. Each process has its own specific CPU burst time, 0
5 10 15 20 25 30
arrival time, priority number and time quantum. Processes
Performance metrics for the CPU scheduling algorithms
are based on two main factors – Average Waiting Time and
Average Turnaround Time. Table 1 shows the Average Figure 9: Average Waiting Time of CPU Scheduling Algorithms
(Comparative Analysis)
Waiting Time for each process set and Table 2 shows the
Average Turnaround Time for each process set. Com parison of Turnaround Tim e of CPU Schduling Algorithm
10000
9000
8000
Avg. Turnaround Time
Processes FCFS SJF RR Priority SJRR 7000 FCFS
6000 SJF
5 28 13 23 32.8 15 5000 RR
4000 Priority
10 69.1 51.2 86.2 84 68.2 3000 SJRR
2000
15 260.47 213.67 323 266.47 266.8 1000
20 177.15 153.1 224.45 205.5 185.5 0
5 10 15 20 25 30
25 2992.8 2096 3751.2 3126 2712.4 Processes
30 6534 4495 8116 6428 6122.5 Figure 10: Average Turnaround Time of CPU Scheduling Algorithms
(Comparative Analysis)
Table 1: Experimental Results for Average Waiting Time
229 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2010
VIII. CONCLUSION
The paper presents a new CPU scheduling algorithm called
SJRR CPU Scheduling Algorithm. Also presented in this
paper are the simulation interface and its working which
interactively takes input from the user and compares the
process set against different algorithm pairs. The results of the
simulation for different process sets using different scheduling
algorithms has been presented graphically in this piece of
work. The last half of the paper provides analytical result with
each set of graph. From the above graphs and results, it is clear
that SJRR is more efficient than First Come First Served,
Round Robin and Priority although it is less efficient than
Shortest Job First. In future, an enhanced and more efficient
version of this algorithm along with enhanced simulation will
be presented.
REFERENCES
[1] Abraham Silberschatz , Peter Baer Galvin, Greg Gagne, “Operating
System Concepts”,Sixth Edition.
[2] Milan Milenkovic, “Operating System Concepts and Design”,
McGRAW-HILL, Computer Science Series, Second Edition.
[3] H.M.Deitel, “Operating Systems”, Pearson Education, Second Edition.
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling (computing).
[5] Sukanya Suranauwarat, “A CPU Scheduling Algorithm Simulator”, 37th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
[6] Akhtar Hussain, “Optimized Performance of CPU Scheduling”, Master’s
Thesis, National University of Science and Technology.
[7] M Gary Nutt, “Operating Systems- A Modern Perspective”, Second
Edition, Pearson Education, 2000
230 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
Related docs
Other docs by ijcsis
Comparative Analysis between Split and HierarchyMap Treemap Algorithms for Visualizing Hierarchical Data
Views: 15 | Downloads: 0
Non-Preemptive Multi-Constrain Scheduling for Multiprocessor with Hopfield Neural Network
Views: 5 | Downloads: 0
Reliable Multipath Routing Protocol (RMRP) For Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Using Adaptive Video Compression
Views: 10 | Downloads: 1
Single CCTA-Based Four Input Single Output Voltage-Mode Universal Biquad Filter
Views: 36 | Downloads: 0
A Cloud Computing Architecture for E-Learning Platform, Supporting Multimedia Content
Views: 42 | Downloads: 0
