Heavy-Traffic Analysis of Sojourn Time Under the Foreground–Background Scheduling Policy

References

• Bansal N (2005) On the average sojourn time under M/M/1/SRPT. Oper. Res. Lett. 33(2):195–200.Google Scholar
• Bansal N, Gamarnik D (2006) Handling load with less stress. Queueing Systems 54(1):45–54.Google Scholar
• Bansal N, Kamphorst B, Zwart B (2018) Achievable performance of blind policies in heavy traffic. Math. Oper. Res. 43(3):949–964.Google Scholar
• Bateman H (1954) Tables of integral transforms (vol. I & II). Accessed November 27, 2017, http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20140123-101456353.Google Scholar
• Beirlant J, Broniatowski M, Teugels JL, Vynckier P (1995) The mean residual life function at great age: Applications to tail estimation. J. Statist. Planning Inference 45(1):21–48.Google Scholar
• Bingham NH, Goldie CM, Teugels JL (1989) Regular Variation, vol. 27 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Braverman A, Dai JG, Miyazawa M (2017) Heavy traffic approximation for the stationary distribution of a generalized Jackson network: The BAR approach. Stochastic Systems 7(1):143–196.Google Scholar
• Conway RW, Maxwell WL, Miller LW (1967) Theory of Scheduling (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Cuyt A, Petersen VB, Verdonk B, Waadeland H, Jones WB (2008) Handbook of Continued Fractions for Special Functions (Springer, Haarlem, Netherlands).Google Scholar
• Embrechts P, Klüppelberg C, Mikosch T (1997) Modelling Extremal Events: For Insurance and Finance, vol. 33 (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Feller W (1971) An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. II (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Gamarnik D, Zeevi A (2006) Validity of heavy traffic steady-state approximation in generalized Jackson networks. Ann. Appl. Probab. 16(1):56–90.Google Scholar
• de Haan L (1974) Equivalence classes of regularly varying functions. Stochastic Processes Appl. 2(3):243–259.Google Scholar
• Kingman JFC (1961) The single server queue in heavy traffic. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 57(4):902–904.Google Scholar
• Kleinrock L (1976) Queueing Systems II: (Computer Applications) (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Kyprianou AE (2014) Introductory Lectures on Fluctuations of Lévy Processes with Applications, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg).Google Scholar
• Lin M, Wierman A, Zwart B (2011) Heavy-traffic analysis of mean response time under shortest remaining processing time. Performance Evaluation 68(10):955–966.Google Scholar
• Nuyens M, Wierman A (2008) The foreground–background queue: A survey. Performance Evaluation 65(3):286–307.Google Scholar
• Nuyens M, Wierman A, Zwart B (2008) Preventing large sojourn times using SMART scheduling. Oper. Res. 56(1):88–101.Google Scholar
• Prokhorov YV (1963) Transition phenomena in queueing processes I. Litovskiǐ Matematicheskiǐ Sbornik 3(1):199–205.Google Scholar
• Puha AL (2015) Diffusion limits for shortest remaining processing time queues under nonstandard spatial scaling. Ann. Appl. Probab. 25(6):3381–3404.Google Scholar
• Resnick SI (1987) Extreme Values, Regular Variation and Point Processes (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Righter R, Shanthikumar JG (1989) Scheduling multiclass single server queueing systems to stochastically maximize the number of successful departures. Probab. Engrg. Inform. Sci. 3(3):323–333.Google Scholar
• Schrage LE (1967) The queue M/G/1 with feedback to lower priority queues. Management Sci. 13(7):466–474.Link, Google Scholar
• Schrage LE (1968) Letter to the editor—A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Oper. Res. 16(3):687–690.Link, Google Scholar
• Scully Z, Harchol-Balter M, Scheller-Wolf A (2018) SOAP: One clean analysis of all age-based scheduling policies. Proc. ACM Measurement Analysis of Comput. Systems 2(1):Article 16.Google Scholar
• Whitt W (2002) Stochastic-Process Limits: An Introduction to Stochastic-Process Limits and Their Application to Queues (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).Google Scholar
• Wierman A, Harchol-Balter M, Osogami T (2005) Nearly insensitive bounds on SMART scheduling. Proc. 2005 ACM SIGMETRICS Internat. Conf. Measurement Model. Comput. Systems, SIGMETRICS ’05 (ACM, New York), 205–216.Google Scholar