Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

File Allocation Methods Performance over Disk scheduling algorithms

Miss.Archana Wamanrao Bhade 1 , Miss.Seema R.Wankhade 2 (Corresponding author)

1, 2 Assistant Professor Department of Information Technology,

Government College of Engineering, Amravati, India

ABSTRACT

Files are the most obvious objects in the operating systems manipulate. Everything is typically stored in files: programs, data, output, and so on. One problem in the file management is how to allocate space for files so that disk space is utilized effectively and files can be accessed quickly. Three major methods of allocating disk space are contiguous, linked and indexed. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. Disk subsystem performance can be dramatically im-proved by dynamically ordering, or scheduling, pending re-quests. Via strongly validated simulation, we examine the impact of complex logical-to-physical mappings and large prefetching caches on scheduling electiveness. Hard disks are being used to store huge information/data in all modem computers. Disk drives must provide faster access time in order to optimize speed of I/O operations. This paper describes development of a simulator which uses four disk scheduling algorithms (FCFS, SSTF, LOOK for both upward and downward direction, and C-LOOK) to measure their performance in terms of total head movement. As well as a new algorithm SPFF. SPFF keeps the advantage of SCAN and, at the same time, absorbs the strength of SSTF. The algorithm SPFF not only shows the more superiority than other scheduling polices, but also has higher adjustability to meet the computer system’s different demands. [3] In multitasking system with many processes, disk performance can be improved by incorporating a scheduling algorithm. There are two objectives for any disk scheduling algorithm:

1. Minimize the throughput - the average number of requests satisfied per time unit.

2. Maximize the response time - the average time that a request must wait before it is satisfied.

Keywords: SPFF, Disk scheduling, File Allocation Methods

1. INTRODUCTION

A hard drive is a collection of plates called platters. Both sides of each platter are covered with some kind of a magnetization medium that allows ones and zeros to be stored. Each surface is divided into circles called tracks. Furthermore, each track is divided into smaller pieces called sectors. Disk I/O is done sector by sector. A group of tracks that are positioned on top of each other is called a cylinder. There is a head connected to an arm for each surface, which handles all I/O operations. Usually, all arms are attached to each other so the heads are always in the same cylinder. For each I/O request, first, a head must be selected. This is done electronically, and the time it takes is not significant. Then the head is moved over the destination track. After that, the disk is rotated to position the desired sector under the head. Finally, the I/O operation is performed. Arm movements and disk rotations are where the delay occurs. There are two objectives for any disk scheduling algorithm:

1. Minimize the throughput - the average number of requests satisfied per time unit. 2. Maximize the response time - the average time that a request must wait before it is satisfied. Whenever a process needs I/O to or from the disk, it issues a system call to the operating system. This request specifies several pieces of information:

(1) Type of I/O operation, (2) Address of disk (drive, cylinder, surface, block), (3) Address of memory, and (4) Amount of information is to be transferred The operating system is responsible for using hardware efficiently — for the disk drives, this means having a fast access time and disk bandwidth. 1.Access time has two major components Seek time is the time for the disk are to move the heads to the cylinder containing the desired sector. 2.Rotational latency is the additional time waitin for the disk to rotate the desired sector to the disk head.

Minimize seek time

Disk bandwidth is the total number of bytes transferred, divided by the total time between the first request for service and the completion of the last transfer

Seek time seek distance

service and the completion of the last transfer Seek time  seek distance Volume 1, Issue
service and the completion of the last transfer Seek time  seek distance Volume 1, Issue

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 109

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

Different algorithms such as FCFS, SSTF, LOOK and CLOOK are used for selecting request for servicing from the queue of requests. We illustrate them with a request queue (0-199). 98, 183, 37, 122, 14, 124, 65, 67 Head pointer 53.

FCFS

First-Come, First-Served (FCFS) is the simplest form of disk scheduling. This algorithm is easy to implement using FIFO queue.

This algorithm is easy to implement using FIFO queue. Figure 1 :-FCFS Illustration shows total head

Figure 1:-FCFS Illustration shows total head movement of 640 cylinders. SSTF Selects the request with the minimum seek time from the current head position. SSTF scheduling is a form of SJF scheduling; may cause starvation of some requests.

of SJF scheduling; may cause starvation of some requests. Figure 2 :- SSTF Illustration shows total

Figure 2:- SSTF Illustration shows total head movement of 236 cylinders. SCAN The disk arm starts at one end of the disk, and moves toward the other end, servicing requests until it gets to the other end of the disk, where the head movement is reversed and servicing continues. Sometimes called the elevator

and servicing continues. Sometimes called the elevator Figure 3:- SCAN Illustration shows total head movement of

Figure 3:-SCAN Illustration shows total head movement of 208 cylinders C-SCAN Provides a more uniform wait time than SCAN. The head moves from one end of the disk to the other. servicing requests as it goes. When it reaches the other end, however, it immediately returns to the beginning of the disk, without servicing any requests on the return trip. Treats the cylinders as a circular list that wraps around from the last cylinder to the first one.

as a circular list that wraps around from the last cylinder to the first one. Volume
as a circular list that wraps around from the last cylinder to the first one. Volume

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 110

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012 ISSN 2319 - 4847 Figure 4:- C-SCAN C-LOOK Version of

Figure 4:- C-SCAN

C-LOOK Version of C-SCAN-Arm only goes as far as the last request in each direction, then reverses direction immediately, without first going all the way to the end of the disk.

without first going all the way to the end of the disk. Figure 5 :- C-LOOK

Figure 5:- C-LOOK

SPFF (Shortest path first -fit first) This algorithm is based on the shortest path of disk head motion constructed by all the pendent requests. From view of the head-moving distance, it has the stronger globosity than SSTF. From view of the head-moving direction, it has the better flexibility than SCAN. Therefore, SPFF keeps the advantage of SCAN and, at the same time, absorbs the strength of SSTF. The algorithm SPFF not only shows the more superiority than other scheduling polices, but also has higher adjustability to meet the computer system’s different demands. [3]

2. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

A simulator has been developed in JAVA language for disk scheduling algorithms which contains six major modules

(i.e. FCFS, SSTF, SCAN,C-SCAN,LOOK and C-LOOK) and one new algorithm SPFF. This simulator runs each and

presents results based upon service requests and number of tracks involved in the given test sample. Tracks requests are read by the program from the relevant file. Algorithm automatically offers reordered list of the read requests and a queue is displayed to service the requests. When all requests are serviced, then the result in the form of total head movement is displayed. After this the graph is shown on screen to check performance of each disk scheduling algorithm. Each module can be run to get new data of requests from the keyboard. The problem of disk scheduling on a single disk is studied from the viewpoint of the characteristics peculiar to the program functions that need guaranteed service. It is shown that a conventional disk scheduler possesses an upper bound to disk utilization which may be as low

as 70 percent for large task sets. It is also shown that full disk utilization can be achieved by dynamically assigning processes on the basis of seek time.

3. IMPLEMENTATION AND TESTING

The lists of scheduling algorithms are implemented using java, a simulation program is created and the algorithms are selected during the assignment phase of the request to the scheduler. Once the set of track requests are selected then we need to select the particular file allocation method and scheduling policies. Then need to run the simulation to observe the output. In the testing phase we select the example file which contains the list of track request .Then select the particular File Allocation Method and then the scheduling algorithm, then select run simulation execute the project. Following are the input parameters consider for execution according the scheduling policies. The output is calculated according the scheduling policies.

scheduling policies. The output is calculated according the scheduling policies. Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012
scheduling policies. The output is calculated according the scheduling policies. Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 111

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012 ISSN 2319 - 4847 Figure 2.1 shows the flowchart of

Figure 2.1 shows the flowchart of the system. It will help to how to use the system. Initially start the system then select the process.

3.1 Input Parameters:

No. of request 5

No. of request 5

Tracks:-12, 85, 40, 100, 75

File Allocation Method used:-Linked / Indexed

Table 3.1 Sample request and the input parameters.

Service

Pending

Selecte

See

Head

d

request

d

k

positio

request

request

tim

n

1

1,2,3,4,

 

1 65

5

 

2

2,3,4,5

 

7

2 12

3

3,4,5

 

3 85

4

 

4

4,5

 

6

4 40

5

5

 

2

5 100

3.2 Output parameters 3.2.1Total tracks traversed (Non contiguous-static request)

Output parameters 3.2.1Total tracks traversed (Non contiguous-static request) Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012 Page 112
Output parameters 3.2.1Total tracks traversed (Non contiguous-static request) Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012 Page 112

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 112

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Algorit

FCFS

SSTF

SCAN

C-

LOOK

C-

hm/

SCAN

LOOK

Track

reques

t

P1

53

10

50

50

10

53

P2

73

10

15

15

10

28

P3

45

15

25

25

15

35

P4

60

60

35

35

60

10

P5

25

28

28

28

28

15

Total

256

123

165

165

123

151

3.2.2 Total seek time (Non contiguous-static request)

ISSN 2319 - 4847

S

Tota

Algorith

Initial

Head

Total

Ave.

Seek

Seek Time

N

l

m

Head

Movem

tracks

Seek

Time

Indexed

track

Positio

ent

traver

length

(Linked

s

n

Directio

sed

)

n

1

5

FCFS

65

NA

256

51

1290

1290

2

5

SSTF

65

NA

123

24

625

625

3

5

SCAN

65

Toward

165

33

835

835

s 0

4

5

C-SCAN

65

Upward

165

33

835

835

5

5

LOOK

65

NA

123

24

625

625

6

5

C-LOOK

65

NA

151

30

765

765

3.3 Input Parameter No.of request 8 Tracks:- 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 File Allocation Method used:-Contiguous

TABLE 3.2 Sample request and the input parameters.

S.

Pending

Selected

Seek time

Head

N.

request

request

position

1

1,2,3,4,5,6,7

1

45

53

2

2,3,4,5,6,7,8

2

1

61

3

3,4,5,6,7,8

3

1

62

4

4,5,6,7,8

4

1

63

5

5,6,7,8

5

1

64

6

6,7,8

6

1

65

7

7,8

7

1

66

8

8

8

1

67

3.3.1 Total tracks traversed (Contiguous Allocation)

8 8 8 1 67 3.3.1 Total tracks traversed (Contiguous Allocation) Volume 1, Issue 4, December
8 8 8 1 67 3.3.1 Total tracks traversed (Contiguous Allocation) Volume 1, Issue 4, December

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 113

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

 

Algo/

FCF

SST

SCA

C-

LOOK

C-

Track

S

F

N

SCAN

LOO

reques

 

K

P1

45

38

38

 

53

 

38

45

P2

1

1

1

 

8

 

1

1

P3

1

1

1

 

1

 

1

1

P4

1

1

1

 

1

 

1

1

P5

1

1

1

 

1

 

1

1

P6

1

1

1

 

1

 

1

1

P7

1

1

1

 

1

 

1

1

P8

1

1

8

 

1

 

1

1

Total

52

45

53

 

68

 

45

52

3.3.2 Total seek time (Contiguous Allocation)

 
 

S

To

Al

 

Initial

Head

Total

Av

Seek

.

tal

gor

Head

Movem

tracks

e.

Time

N

tra

ith

Positio

ent

traverse

Se

Contig

ck

m

n

Directio

d

ek

uous

 

l

1

8

FC

 

53

NA

52

6

260

FS

 

2

8

SS

 

53

NA

45

5

225

TF

 

3

8

SC

 

53

Toward

53

6

265

A

 

s 0

4

8

LO

 

53

U/WAR

45

5

225

O

 

D

5

8

C-

 

53

NA

52

6

260

LO

 

6

8

C-

 

53

NA

68

8

340

SC

 

3.4SPFF Scheduling Sample 1:-- Input Parameter-Dynamic request No. of request:-7 Tracks:- 183,37,122,14,124,65,67 File Allocation Method used:- Linked/Indexed

TABLE 3.3 Sample request and the input parameters

Alg

De

Serviced Request

 

Tot

orit

tai

1

st

2

nd

3

rd

4

th

5

th

6

th

7

th

al

hm

ls

requ

requ

requ

reque

reques

reque

requ

See

est

est

est

st

t

st

est

k

Tim

FCF

PR

1,2,

2,3,

3,4,

4,5,6

 

5,6,7

 

6,7,

 

7

595

S

 

3

 

4

 

5

     

HP

 

98

183

 

37

 

122

 

14

 

124

 

65

SR

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

ST

 

85

146

 

85

 

108

 

110

 

59

 

2

SST

PR

1,2

1,3

1,4

 

4,5

 

4,6

 

6,7

 

7

429

F

       

HP

 

98

 

37

183

 

124

 

14

 

65

 

67

SR

 

2

 

3

 

1

 

5

 

4

 

6

 

7

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 114

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

   

ST

61

61

85

110

 

59

51

2

 

SC

PR

1,2

1,3

1,4

4,5

 

4,6

6,7,

7

531

AN

 

HP

98

37

183

124

 

14

65

67

SR

2

3

1

5

4

 

6

7

ST

61

159

61

59

 

59

51

81

C-

PR

1,2

2,3

3,4

4,5

 

4,6

6,7

7

583

SC

 

AN

HP

98

183

37

122

 

124

14

65

SR

1

2

3

5

4

 

6

7

ST

85

220

85

2

138

51

2

LO

PR

1,2

2,3,

2,4

4,5

 

5,6,

6,7

7

364

OK

 

HP

98

183

122

37

 

14

65

67

SR

1

3

2

4

6

 

7

5

ST

85

61

85

23

 

51

 

2

57

C-

PR

1,2

2,3

3,4

4,5

 

4,6

6,7

7

532

LO

 

OK

HP

98

183

37

122

 

124

14

65

SR

1

2

3

5

4

 

6

7

ST

85

146

85

2

110

51

2

SPF

PR

1,2

2,3

2,4,

2,4,6

 

2,4,6,

4,6

4

258

F

5

,7

HP

98

183

122

124

 

67

65

37

SR

1

3

5

7

6

 

2

4

ST

85

61

2

57

 

2

28

23

PR:-Pending request

HP:-Head position

SR:-Selected Request

ST:-Seek Time

3.4.1Total tracks traversed

 
 

Algorit

FCFS

SSTF

 

SC

 

C-

LO

C-

SPF

 

hm /

AN

 

SCAN

OK

LOO

F

Track

 

K

P1

85

61

 

61

 

85

85

85

85

P2

146

61

 

61

 

220

85

146

28

P3

85

85

159

 

85

61

85

61

P4

108

110

 

59

 

138

23

110

23

P5

110

59

 

59

 

2

57

2

2

P6

59

51

 

51

 

51

51

51

2

P7

2

 

2

 

81

 

2

2

2

57

Total

595

429

454

 

583

364

532

258

3.4.2 Total seek time

595 429 454   583 364 532 258 3.4.2 Total seek time Volume 1, Issue 4,
595 429 454   583 364 532 258 3.4.2 Total seek time Volume 1, Issue 4,

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 115

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

To

Algor

Initia

Head

Total

Av

Seek

Seek

tal

ithm

l

Move

track

Se

Time

Time

tra

Head

ment

s

ek

Link

Index

ck

Posit

Direct

trave

len

ed

ed

s

ion

ion

rsed

gth

8

1 98

FCF

 

NA

595

85

   

S

2989

2985

8

2 98

SSTF

 

NA

429

61

2159

2155

8

3 98

SCA

 

Towar

454

75

   

N

ds 0

2284

2280

8

4 98

LOO

 

U/WA

583

83

   

K

RD

2929

2925

8

C-

5 98

 

NA

364

52

   

LOO

1834

1830

8

C-

6 98

 

NA

532

76

   

SCA

2674

2670

8

7 98

SPFF

 

NA

258

36

1304

1300

3.5. Observations:

3.5.1Seek Time Contiguous:- The fig.3.1 shows the seek time required by each scheduling algorithm on contiguous file allocation method

Seek Time Contiguous 400 340 350 260 265 260 300 225 225 250 200 150
Seek Time Contiguous
400
340
350
260
265
260
300
225
225
250
200
150
100
50
0
FCFS
SSTF
SCAN LOOK
C-
C-
LOOK
SCAN
260 265 260 300 225 225 250 200 150 100 50 0 FCFS SSTF SCAN LOOK

Seek Time

Contiguous

260 265 260 300 225 225 250 200 150 100 50 0 FCFS SSTF SCAN LOOK

Figure .3.1 Comparison of seek time

3.5.2 Seek Time-Non Contiguous(static request)

 

Linked

   

Indexed

1500

1290 835 835 765 625 625
1290
835
835
765
625
625
 

1500

1290 835 835 765 625 625
1290
835
835
765
625
625
 

1000

1000

Linked

Indexed

500

 

500

 

0

0

FCFS

SSTF SCAN

C-

LOOK

C-

FCFS SSTF SCAN

C-

LOOK

C-

 

SCAN

LOOK

 

SCAN

LOOK

3.5.3 Seek Time-FCFS Scheduling

  SCAN LOOK   SCAN LOOK 3.5.3 Seek Time-FCFS Scheduling Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012
  SCAN LOOK   SCAN LOOK 3.5.3 Seek Time-FCFS Scheduling Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 116

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

FAM-Comparision

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 FAM-Comparision Algorithm FCFS Seek Time Seek Time Seek Time
Algorithm FCFS
Algorithm
FCFS

Seek Time

Seek Time

Seek Time

Indexed

(Linked)

Contiguous

3.5.4 Seek Time-SSTF Scheduling

FAM-COMPARISION

1500

1000

500

0

1170 1176 225
1170
1176
225
Algorithm SSTF
Algorithm
SSTF

Seek Time

Seek Time

Seek Time

Indexed

(Linked)

Contiguous

3.5.5 Seek Time SCAN Scheduling

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

1270 1276 Algorithm SCAN 265
1270
1276
Algorithm
SCAN
265

Seek Time

Seek Time

Seek Time

Indexed

(Linked)

Contiguous

3.5.6 Seek Time C-SCAN Scheduling

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1945 1951 Algorithm C-SCAN 225
1945
1951
Algorithm
C-SCAN
225

Seek Time

Seek Time

Seek Time

Indexed

(Linked)

Contiguous

3.5.7 Seek Time LOOK Scheduling

Seek Time Indexed (Linked) Contiguous 3.5.7 Seek Time LOOK Scheduling Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012
Seek Time Indexed (Linked) Contiguous 3.5.7 Seek Time LOOK Scheduling Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 117

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

   

1685

1691

1800

1600

260
260
Algorithm LOOK
Algorithm
LOOK

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Seek Time

Seek Time

Seek Time

Indexed

(Linked)

Contiguous

3.5.8. Seek Time C-LOOK Scheduling

 
 

2000

1800

1841

340
340

1835

Algorithm C-LOOK
Algorithm
C-LOOK

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Seek Time

Seek Time

Seek Time

Indexed

(Linked)

Contiguous

3.5.9 Seek Time-Non Contiguous (Dynamic request) 3500 2985 2925 FCFS 3000 2670 SSTF 2500 2155
3.5.9 Seek Time-Non Contiguous (Dynamic request)
3500
2985
2925
FCFS
3000
2670
SSTF
2500
2155 2280
1830
SCAN
2000
LOOK
1300
1500
C-LOOK
1000
C-SCAN
500
SPFF
0
Seek Time Indexed
1500 C-LOOK 1000 C-SCAN 500 SPFF 0 Seek Time Indexed 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2989 2929 2674 2159 2284 1834 1304 Seek Time Linked
2989
2929
2674
2159 2284
1834
1304
Seek Time Linked
FCFS SSTF SCAN LOOK C-LOOK C-SCAN SPFF
FCFS
SSTF
SCAN
LOOK
C-LOOK
C-SCAN
SPFF

Input parameters and output parameters of the tracks request are found first, then select some example tracks request for execution on the different scheduling algorithms are selected. Select some scheduling policies and execute the selected request on them then observe the output parameters such as total number of tracks traversed, total seek time and file allocation method used on the particular input pattern. The following outputs and performance has been observed using scheduling policies and file allocation methods on the basis of the input parameters supplied as in example file. For Static request as per First Come First Serve scheduling policy it is found that the Seek Time is 260, 2585, 2591 for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively. As per SSTF Scheduling policy it is found that the seek time is 225,1170,1176 for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively. As per SCAN Scheduling policy it is found that the seek time is 265, 1270, 1276 for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively. As per C-SCAN Scheduling policy it is found that the seek time is 225,1945,1951 for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively.

for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively. Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012 Page
for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively. Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012 Page

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 118

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

As per LOOK Scheduling policy it is found that the seek time is 260, 1685, 1691 for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively. As per C-LOOK Scheduling policy it is found that the seek time is 340, 1835, 1841 for File allocation methods Contiguous, Indexed and Linked respectively. As per SPFF Scheduling policy, it is found that the seek time is 1300, 1304 using File Allocation methods Indexed and Linked Hence it has been observed that the Contiguous File Allocation method provides better result for each Scheduling algorithm and minimized the Seek Time. After comparing two non contiguous file allocation method, it has been observed that indexed file allocation method provides the better result than the linked file allocation method for static as well as dynamic request.

4. RESULTS & CONCLUSION

Various test samples of size 4, 8, 16, 20, up to 50 tracks request (static requests) were used to check the performance of each and every disk scheduling policy on different file allocation methods. Initial head position for each case was different. Head movements of each algorithm have been illustrated using the test samples and figures. After comparing the workload and the File Allocation Methods used, tabulated results indicated that FCFS provides the worst performance due to presence of wild swings. FCFS goes for a lengthy seek to service a distant waiting request even though another request may have just arrived near the track where the read/write head is currently positioned. Its total head movement is 256, 515,52 tracks for samples 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In SSTF algorithm, a substantial improvement has been observed due to elimination of large swings. It reduces the head movements and provides results of 123,232,45 tracks for three test samples. LOOK algorithm works like SSTF except that it uses either upward or downward direction to choose the requests from the rearranged queue. Performance of this algorithm was 123,335,45 tracks for three test sample. Results obtained for SCAN are 165, 252,53 tracks for three test sample. Results obtained for C-SCAN are 165, 387, 68 tracks and C-LOOK are 151,335,52 tracks for three samples. The problem with the SSTF is that it provides some process to wait for long time until its request(s) are satisfied if new requests with shorter seek time keep arriving. SCAN provides better results than the SSTF and more fair than the SSTF. C-LOOK and C-SCAN are always better than the FCFS and the SSTF for heavy loads only.These results provide the best combination of disk scheduling algorithm and File system which improve the performance of disk I/O. after testing all the scheduling algorithms on each file allocation methods it is found that Contiguous File Allocation always provides better seek time for any number of request, but this allocation method is very much hypothetical for large file. Comparing two non- contiguous file allocation methods for all scheduling algorithms, it has been observed that up to load of 4 Linked File Allocation Method is better using SSTF scheduling.For load 8, 16,20 Indexed File Allocation is better using SSTF/SCAN scheduling. For load 24-50 Indexed File Allocation is better using SCAN scheduling. It has been observed that if the requests are arriving dynamically then comparing with all scheduling algorithm on Linked and Indexed File Allocation methods, LOOK and C-LOOK provides better results than other conventional scheduling algorithm. The SPFF(shortest path first-fit first)scheduling policy provides best result on both Linked and Indexed File allocation method. After comparing the results of SPFF on Linked and Indexed File Allocation Methods, it is found that SPFF provides best result on Indexed File Allocation. These results can be used to analyze the underlying file allocation method used and depending upon the File Allocation and work load the scheduling algorithm may be choose which provides the optimal result. These results are extremely useful for designing more efficient and effective disk scheduling algorithms to reduce seek time in multiprogramming environment.

REFERENCES

[1] B. L. Worthington, G. R. Ganger, Y. N. Patt, “Scheduling Algorithms for Modern Disk Drives,” In ACM Sigmetrics Conference, pp. 241-25, May, 1994. [2] D. L. Martens and M. J. Katchabaw, “Optimizing System Performance Through Dynamic Disk Scheduling Algorithm Selection,” WSEAS Transactions On Information Science And Applications, Issue 7, Vol 3, pp. 1361- 1368, July 2006. [3] H. Ming, “A disk scheduling algorithm: SPFF,”Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, Vol 10 Number 6 / November, 2005. [4] K. W. Ng and Kai-Hau A. Yeung, Member, IEEE, “Analysis On Disk Scheduling For Special User Functions”, IEEE Transactions On Circuits And Systems For Video Technology, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.752-765, August 1999. [5] M. Seltzer, P.Chen, J. Ousterhout, “Disk Scheduling Revisited†,” Proceedings of Usenix, Washington, D. C., pp.313-324, January 1990. [6] M. Andrews, M. A. Bender, “New Algorithms for the Disk Scheduling Problem,” Proceedings of the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp.550-559, 1996.

the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp.550-559, 1996. Volume 1, Issue 4, December
the 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp.550-559, 1996. Volume 1, Issue 4, December

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 119

International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)

Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

ISSN 2319 - 4847

[7] M. Y. Javed and Mr. I. U. Khan, “Simulation and Performance Comparison of Four Disk Scheduling Algorithms”, Vol 2, 888379, IEEE TRANSACTIONS, ISBN: 0-7803-6355-8,TENCON, pp.10-15, 2000. [8]S. Robbins, “A disk head scheduling simulator” ,Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education Pages: 325 - 329 , 2004. [9] S. Ökdem, D. Karaboğa “Optimal Disk Scheduling Based on Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm,” Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi , ISSN 1012-2354, pp.11-19, 2006. [10] Dhamdhere D.M., Operating Systems-A Concept based approach, Second Edition, Tata McGraw Hill, 2002. [11] Silberschatz, A. and Galvin, P.B., Operating System Concepts, 5th Edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1998. [12] Tanenbaum, A.S., Modern Operating Systems, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1996. [13] Tanenbaum, A.S. and Woodhull, A.S., Operating Systems, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1998.

AUTHOR

Miss. Archana W. Bhade received the B.E. and M.E. degrees in Computer science & engineering from Government College of Engineering,Amravati and PRMIT & R, Badnera in 2001 and 2009, respectively. Currently she is working as Assistant Professor in Government College of Engineering, Amravati.

Miss. Seema R. Wankhade received the B.E. and M.E. degrees in Computer science & engineering from Anuradha College of Engineering,Amravati and PRMIT & R, Badnera in 2001 and 2009, respectively. Currently she is working as Assistant Professor in Government College of Engineering, Amravati.

working as Assistant Professor in Government College of Engineering, Amravati. Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012
working as Assistant Professor in Government College of Engineering, Amravati. Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2012

Page 120