4 views

Uploaded by ebenesarb

articles

- D_IT Guidance.pdf
- 034 - Principles.of.Random.Walk,.Spitzer.F..(2ed,.Springer.2001)(ISBN.0387951547)(T)(427s).pdf
- Installation Note - Commercial Development Programs
- PRESENTATION Christopher Ahlberg Turning the Web into Predictive Signals
- Optimizing Shock Models In The Study Of Deteriorating Systems
- Change Request Management 7.pdf
- Simulating the Performance Variability Matrix Using Markov Chains
- Actuarial
- free resources progression of use
- Untitled
- MELJUN CORTES - Operations Management 18th Lecture (DISNEY WORLD)
- References
- Zahid Saeed - Marketing-csr
- alvarezluis uogu
- New Zealand Herald web site review
- sde_a
- HRServices Specifications
- New Microsoft Word Document
- 1 Syllabus
- h3

You are on page 1of 17

www.elsevier.com/locate/apm

a variant vacation policy and balking

Jau-Chuan Ke

Department of Statistics, National Taichung Institute of Technology, Sanmin Road No. 129, Sec. 3, Taichung 404, Taiwan, ROC

Received 1 February 2005; received in revised form 1 November 2005; accepted 20 February 2006

Available online 27 June 2006

Abstract

This paper studies the operating characteristics of an M[x]/G/1 queueing system under a variant vacation policy, where

the server leaves for a vacation as soon as the system is empty. The server takes at most J vacations repeatedly until at least

one customer is found waiting in the queue when the server returns from a vacation. If the server is busy or on vacation, an

arriving batch balks (refuses to join) the system with probability 1 b. We derive the system size distribution at dierent

points in time, as well as the waiting time distribution in the queue. Finally, important system characteristics are derived

along with some numerical illustration.

2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Balking; Busy period and idle period distribution; Markov process; Supplemental variable; Waiting time distribution

1. Introduction

The modelling analysis for the queueing systems with vacations has been done by a considerable amount of

work in the past and successfully used in various applied problems such as production/inventory system, communication systems, computer networks and etc. (see survey paper by Doshi [1]). A comprehensive and excellent study on the vacation models can be found in Levy and Yechiali [2] and Takagi [3]. Choudhury [4]

modeled a batch arrival M[x]/G/1 queueing system with a single vacation, which extends the results of Ref.

[2,3]. Batch arrival M[x]/G/1 queueing systems with multiple vacations were rst studied by Baba [5]. The variations and extensions of these models can be referred to Lee et al. [6,7], Lee and Park [8], Krishna Reddy et al

[9], Hur and Paik [10], Choudhury [11] and others. Recently, Ke [12] analyzed the optimal N policy for M/G/1

queueing system with dierent vacation types and a startup time. Arumuganathan and Jeyakumar [13] introduced the optimal N policy for an M[x]/G(a,b)/1 queueing system with server setup, closedown and multiple

vacations. They also proposed a cost model for a practical situation and how the results would be useful in

E-mail address: jauchuan@ntit.edu.tw

0307-904X/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.apm.2006.02.012

1322

optimizing the cost. In contrast, Takagi [3] rst proposed the concept of a variant vacation (a generalization of

the multiple and single vacation) for single arrival M/G/1 queueing system. This presented paper we will study

a batch arrival M[x]/G/1 queueing system with balking and a variant vacation policy. The analytical approach

and plentiful results would be useful and signicant to practitioners and system designers and other.

Queueing models with balking have attracted much from numerous researchers since Haight [14]. The

extensions of their basic model can be found in Abou-EI-Ata and Shawky [15], Abou-EI-Ata and Hariri

[16], Al-Seedy [17,18], Shawky [19], Ke and Wang [20], Artalejo and Lopez-Herrero [21], Wang and Ke

[22]. Al-Seedy [23], and Madan [24]. Recently, Al-Seedy [25] proposed a transient solution of the non-truncated queue M/M/2 involving balking, and an additional server for longer queues. Wang et al. [26] examined

the maximum likelihood estimates and condence intervals of an M/M/R/N queue with balking and heterogeneous servers. So far very few authors have studied the analytic work on the variant vacation policy for

batch arrival models which servers are characterized by above listed. This motivates us to develop the variant

vacation policy for an M[x]/G/1 queueing system with balking, where the server may take at most J vacations

when the system is empty.

The objectives of this paper are as follows: Firstly, we develop the system size distribution at a random

epoch as well as at a departure point of time. Secondly, we derive the queue waiting time distribution, the idle

period distribution, the busy period distribution, and the distribution of unnished work for this system.

Thirdly, we show that the results are consistent with those already known for special cases. Fourthly, we perform numerical results for system characteristics on specied parameters and discuss the sensitivity of the system parameters.

2. The system

In this paper, we consider a batch arrival M[x]/G/1 system with balking, where the server applies a variant

vacation policy when no customer presents in the system. The detailed description of the model is given as

follows.

Customers arrive in batches to occur according to a compound Poisson with rate k. Let Xk denote the number of customers belonging to the kth arrival batch, where Xk, k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , are with a common distribution

PrX k n vn ;

n 1; 2; 3; . . .

A batch on arrival nds the server busy or vacation, and either decides to join the queue with probability b

(i.e., balk with probability 1 b). The service time provided by a single server is an independent and identically distributed random variable (S) with distribution function S(t) and LaplaceStieltjes transform (LST)

e

S h. It is further assumed that each server may serve only one customer at a time, and that the service is independent of the arrival of the customers. Arriving customers who join the system form a single waiting line

based on the order of their arrivals; that is, they are queued according to the rst-come, rst-served (FCFS)

discipline. If the server is busy or on vacation, customers in the queue must wait until the server is available.

Whenever the system becomes empty, the server deactivates and leaves for a vacation with random length

V. If no customers are found in the queue when the server returns from the vacation, he again leaves for

another vacation with the same length. This pattern continues until he returns from a vacation to nd at least

one customer waiting in the queue or he has already taken J vacations. If no customers are found by the end of

the Jth vacation, the server stays in the system until one batch arrives. If at least one batch presents in the

waiting line for service when the server returns from a vacation or the server stays dormant in the system,

he immediately starts serving the waiting customers until the system becomes empty. The vacation time V

has distribution function V(x) and LaplaceStieltjes transform (LST) Ve h. Furthermore, various stochastic

processes involved in the system are independent of each other.

There are many real world systems that t this model. In particular, some stochastic production and inventory control systems with a multi-purpose production facility can be eectively studied using such a vacation

queueing model. In such systems, the demand for the product is often more than one unit (batch) and can be

modelled as a Poisson process. The production time of each unit of the product is a generally distributed random variable. The production facility performs other tasks utilizing the time between subsequent productions.

A practical problem related to a production to order system is presented for illustrative purpose. In such an

1323

example, it is assumed that customer orders for this product arrive according to a compound Poisson process

with rate 2 times per hour and the average size of each order is 50 units. When the production facility is full,

customer orders may balk with a 0.01 chance since the orders might not be completed on time. As soon as the

orders are present, the management policy is to set up the facility and begin production. The average completion time of each unit is 30 min. Whenever the last orders are completed and no orders occur, the facility stops

major production and is available to perform optional jobs j (j = 1, 2, . . . , J), with average completion time of

each optional job being 1 h. Upon completion of each optional job the management checks the orders and

decides whether or not to restart major production. If at this moment the major orders are empty, a decision

is made for other optional jobs to be performed next. The optional jobs can be referred to a sequence of nite

maintenance policy (such as replacement and preventive maintenance for components of production facility).

This system can be modelled by the M[x]/G/1 queueing system developed in this paper.

Another possible application of the M[x]/G/1 system with a variant vacation policy and balking, where the

server takes at most Jth vacations utilizing his idle time, is the operational model of the WWW server. We

assume that HTTP requests arrive at the WWW server in batch following the Poisson stream with rate 50

times per second and an average size of each arrival 10 requests. When the WWW server is busy, there is a

probability 0.01 that HTTP requests may be terminated by users before arriving at the WWW server. When

requests arrive at the WWW server, they are served one by one with an average time of 0.005 s. To keep the

WWW server functioning well, maintenance activities such as virus scan can be performed when the WWW

server is idle. This type of maintenance can be programmed to perform on a regular basis, with average completion time being designed to be 10 min. However, these maintenance activities are not repeated continuously. When these activities are nished, WWW server will enter the idle state again and wait for the new

requests to arrive. In this scenario, requests terminated by users, the WWW server and the maintenance activities correspond to balking, the server and J vacations respectively, in the queueing terminology. The management can eciently obtain the performance measures (system characteristics) of the WWW server by means of

our model developed in this paper. This information is useful and signicant for system management or

practitioners.

3. The analysis

In this section, we rst develop the steady-state dierence-dierential equations for the variant vacation system by treating the elapsed service time and the elapsed vacation time as supplementary variables. Then we

solve these system equations and derive the probability generating functions at a random epoch and at a

departure point of time.

3.1. System size distribution at a random epoch

In the steady state, we assume that S(0) = 0, S(1) = 1, V(0) = 0, V(1) = 1 and are continuous at x = 0, so

that

dSx

;

1 Sx

dV x

xx dx

:

1 V x

lx dx

Remark 1. l(x) dx can be interpreted as the conditional probability density of completion of the service time,

given that the elapsed time is x. x(x) dx can be referred to the corresponding vacation.

The state of the system at time t is given by

Qt number of customers in system;

S t the elapsed service time;

1324

and

V

j t the elapsed time of the jth vacation:

For further development of this variant vacation queueing model, let us dene the random variable as

follows:

8

0;

if the server is free at time t;

>

>

>

>

>

1;

if the server is busy at time t;

>

>

>

>

>

>

if the server is on vacation with the 1th vacation at time t;

>

> 2;

>

>

>

>

if the server is on vacation with the 2th vacation at time t;

>

< 3;

Dt

..

>

.

>

>

>

>

>

>

j 1; if the server is on vacation with the jth vacation at time t;

>

>

>

>

>

>

..

>

>

.

>

>

>

:

J 1; if the server is on vacation with the J th vacation at time t:

Thus the supplementary variables S(t) and V

j t are introduced in order to obtain a bivariate Markov process {Q(t),d(t)}, where d(t) = 0 if D(t) = 0, d(t) = S(t) if D(t) = 1, and dt V

j t if D(t) = j + 1 (j = 1,

2, . . . , J).

Let us dene the following probabilities:

P 0 t PrfQt 0; dt 0g;

P n x; t dx PrfQt n; dt S t; x < S t 6 x dxg;

Xj;n x; t dx PrfQt n; dt V

j t; x

<V

j t

6 x dxg;

x > 0; n P 1;

x > 0; n P 0; 1 6 j 6 J :

In steady-state, we can set P0 = limt!1P0(t), and limiting densities Pn(x) = limt!1Pn(x, t) for x > 0 and

n P 1, and Xj,n(x) = limt!1Xj,n(x, t) for x > 0 and n P 0.

Following the arguments of Cox [27], the Kolmogorov forward equations, which govern the system under

the steady-state conditions, can be written as follows:

Z 1

kbP 0

XJ ;0 xxx dx;

1

0

n

X

d

P n x k lxP n x k1 bP n x kb

vk P nk x;

dx

k1

x > 0; n P 1

d

Xj;0 x k xxXj;0 x k1 bXj;0 x; x > 0; 1 6 j 6 J

dx

n

X

d

Xj;n x k xxXj;n x k1 bXj;n x kb

vk Xj;nk x; x > 0; n P 1; 1 6 j 6 J :

dx

k1

These set of equations are to be solved under the following boundary conditions at x = 0.

Z 1

Z 1

Z 1

X1;n xxxdx

X2;n xxx dx

XJ ;n xxx dx

P n 0

0

0

0

Z 1

P n1 xlx dx kbvn P 0 ; n P 1;

0

R1

P 1 xlx dx; n 0;

0

X1;0 0

0;

n P 1:

R1

Xj1;0 xxx dx; n 0 and j 2; 3; . . . ; J

0

Xj;0 0

0;

n P 1 and j 2; 3; . . . ; J :

2

3

4

5

6

7

"

1 Z 1

J

1 Z

X

X

X

P0

P n x dx

0

n1

j1

1325

Xj;n x dx 1:

n0

Next, we dene the probability generating functions for {Pn()} and {Xj,n()} as follows:

1

X

zn P n x; jzj 6 1

P x; z

n1

and

Xj x; z

1

X

zn Xj;n x;

jzj 6 1; 1 6 j 6 J :

n0

oP x; z

kb1 X z lxP x; z 0;

ox

for x > 0:

oXj x; z

kb1 X z xxXj x; z 0

ox

10

and

P 0; z

J Z

X

j1

Xj x; zxx dx

1

z

P x; zlx dx kbX zP 0

0

J

X

Xj;0 0 kbP 0 ;

11

j1

where x > 0.

Solving the partial dierential Eqs. (9) and (10), it follows that

P x; z P 0; z1 Sxekb1X zx ;

12

and

Xj x; z Xj 0; z1 V xekb1X zx ;

j 1; 2; . . . ; J :

13

Xj;0 x Xj;0 01 V xekbx ;

j 1; 2; . . . ; J :

14

Multiplying (14) by x(x) on both sides for j = J and integrating with respect to x from 0 to 1, then from (1)

we have

XJ ;0 0

kbP 0

:

e

V kb

15

Starting with Eq. (15) and then solving recursively (7) through (14) over the range j = J 1,J 2,. . .,1, we get

on simplication

Xj;0 0

kbP 0

;

e

V kbJ j1

j 1; 2; . . . ; J 1:

16

Xj;0 0; z

kbP 0

Ve kb

J j1

j 1; 2; . . . ; J :

17

Integrating equation (14) from 0 to 1 and using (15) and (16) again, we nally obtain

Xj;0

P 0 1 Ve kb

;

J j1

Ve kb

j 1; 2; . . . ; J :

18

1326

Note that Xj,0 represents the steady-state probability that no customers appear while the server is on the jth

vacation. Let us dene X0 the probability that no customers appear in the system while the server is on vacation. Then

X0

J

P 0 1 Ve kb

:

J

Ve kb

19

kbP 0 1 Ve kb e

P 0; z e

S kb1 kX z

V kb1 X z

J

z

Ve kb 1 Ve kb

J

P 0; z

kbX zP 0

J

X

Xj;0 0 kbP 0 :

20

j1

1e

V kbJ e

V kb1X z1

kbP 0 z

1 X z

V kbJ 1e

V kb

e

:

P 0; z

ze

S kb1 X z

21

e J e

kbP 0 z 1 V kb JV kb1X z1 1 X z

e

V kb 1e

V kb

P x; z

1 Sxekb1X zx :

e

z S kb1 X z

Thus, we have

P z

P 0z

1e

V kbJ e

V kb1X z1

P x; z dx

e

V kbJ 1e

V kb

22

1 X z

ze

S kb1 X z

e

Skb1 X z 1

;

X z 1

23

and

Xj z

P 0 Ve kb1 X z 1

;

J j1

X z 1 Ve kb

j 1; 2; . . . ; J :

24

The unknown

P0 can be determined by using the normalization condition (8), which is equivalent to

Pconstant

J

P 0 P 1 j1 Xj 1 1. Thus we obtain

P0

1q

kbEV 1e

V kbJ

e

V kbJ 1e

V kb

25

where q = kb E[X]E[S]. P

J

Let Uz P 0 P z j1 Xj z be the probability generating function of the system size distribution at

stationary point of time, then

Uz

1 q e

S kb1 X zz 1

ze

S kb1 X z

;

fkbEV 1 Ve kbJ Ve kbJ 1 Ve kbgX z 1

26

Ls q

kb2 EX 1 Ve kbJ EV 2

:

21 q

2fkbEV 1 Ve kbJ 1 Ve kb Ve kbJ g

27

1327

Using Littles formula, we obtain the expected waiting time in the queue, Wq, given by

Wq

2

J

EX X 1ES kbEX ES 2

kb1 Ve kb EV 2

:

2EX 1 q

2fkbEV 1 Ve kbJ 1 Ve kb Ve kbJ g

28

We will show that the stochastic decomposition property [28] holds for this variant vacation model with

balking. We dene that the server is on generalized vacations when the server takes vacations or remains idle.

Using this denition, we have the p.g.f. of the number of customers that arrive during the residual life of the

generalized-vacation period

Dz

P0

P0

PJ

j1

Xj z

j1

Xj 1

PJ

:

J

J

fkbEV 1 Ve kb Ve kb 1 Ve kbgX z 1

J

29

We may specially call D(z) system size distribution due to residual generalized-vacation period.

From (26) and (29), we can observe that

Uz UMx =G=1 z Dz;

30

e

where UMx =G=1 z 1q1z S kb1X z is the p.g.f. of the number of customers in the ordinary M[x]/G/1 system

eS kb1X zz

with balking. The inferences above listed conrm that the stochastic decomposition property by Fuhrmann

and Cooper [28] is also valid for the variant vacation model with balking.

3.2. Queue size distribution at a departure epoch

In this section, the probability generating function of the queue size distribution at departure epoch for the

M[x]/G/1 queueing system with balking and a variant vacation policy. Following the arguments by Wol [29],

we state that a departing customer will see customers in the queue just after a departure if and only if there

were ( + 1) customers in the queue just before the departure. Thus we may write

/

C0

lxP 1 x dx;

0; 1; 2; . . .

31

where /

ProA departing customer will see customer in the queue, and C0 is a constant to be

evaluated.

Let U

z be the probability generating function of f/ ; 0; 1; 2; . . .g. Using (12) yields

e J e

kbP 0 1 V kb JV kb1X z1 1 X z e

S kb1 X z

e

V kb 1e

V kb

:

32

U z C 0

ze

S kb1 X z

Using the normalization condition, we have

C0

kbP 0 EX

1q

kbEV 1e

V kbJ

e

V kbJ 1e

V kb

:

33

Thus the probability of the departure point queue size distribution is given by

e J e

1 q 1 V kb JV kb1X z1 1 X z e

S kb1 X z

V kb 1e

V kb

e

U z

:

e

V kbJ

e

EX kbEV 1

1

z

S

kb1

X

z

e

V kbJ 1e

V kb

34

1328

U z

1 X z

Uz:

EX 1 z

35

It is important to note that the departure point queue size distribution given by Eq. (35) can be decomposed

into two independent random variables: One (the rst term) is the number of customers placed before a tagged

customer in a batch in which the tagged customer arrives and the other (the second term) is the stationary

system size of the ordinary M[x]/G/1 queueing system with balking.

4. Waiting time distribution

To obtain the waiting time distribution in the queue, we rst derive the waiting time of the rst customer in

f1 h to denote the LST of W1.

an arriving batch, namely, W1. Use W

For if we identify a batch with a single customer, then its service time is just the total service time of customers constituting the batch. In this case, the batch will have as its batch size p.g.f. X(z) = z. The mean arrival

rate will be k and the LST of the service time of the batch will replace e

S h by X e

S h. Using the information

and the results by Chaudhry and Templeton [30, Chapter 3], we have from (34) that the p.g.f. of the number of

batches left behind by a departing batch

e J e

1 q 1 V kb J V kb1z1 1 z X e

S kb1 z

V kb 1e

V kb

e

Ub z

:

36

kbEV 1e

V kbJ

e

1

z

X

S

kb1

z

V kbJ 1e

V kb

e

If the waiting time of each batch is independent of the part of arrival process following the arrival time of

the batch, the batches left behind a departing batch are those that arrive during the time it spends in the queue

and in service. it follows that (see Ref. [28]).

e

f

P

b z W 1 kb1 z X Skb1 z:

From (36) and (37), it follows that

e J e

V h1

1 q kb1 V kb

h

e

V kbJ 1e

V kb

f1 h

W

:

J

e

kbEV 1 V kb

e

1

kb

h

kbX

Sh

V kbJ 1e

V kb

e

37

38

Next, let W be the waiting time of an arbitrary customer in a batch and denote by W(h) the LST of W. If

j P 1 is the position of the customer within arrival batch, then

W W1

j1

X

Si;

39

jP1

i1

where Si denotes the dierence between service time and interarrival time of the ith customer in a batch.

If sj is the probability of an arbitrary customer being the jth position of an arriving batch. Applying the

results by Chaudhry and Templeton [30, Chapter 3], we have

"

P

j1

X

i1

#

Si 6 t

1

X

sj St

j1

j1

Pj1

where S(t) = P(Si 6 t) and sj 1 i1 vi =EX .

2 P

3

j1

e h EehW EehW 1 E4e

W

h

Si

i1

5W

f1 h

1

X

1329

j1

sj e

S h

j1

"

"

j1

1

1

1

X

X

X

f1 h X

f1 h

W

W

1

1

vi e

vi

e

S hj1

S hj1

e

EX j1

EX

1

S

h

i1

ji1

i1

"

#

P1

i

e

e

f

f

W 1 h

W 1 h 1 X S h

1

v Sh

i1 i

;

e

e

EX

EX

1 S h

1 S h

1e

S h

40

f1 h is given in (38).

where W

We can rewrite (40) as

kb1e

V kbJ 1e

V h

h

V kbJ 1e

V kb

e h e

e x

W

W

M =G=1 h;

kbEV 1e

V kbJ

h

1

e

V kbJ 1e

V kb

41

where

e x

W

M =G=1 h

1 X e

S h

;

h kb kbX e

Sh EX 1 Se h

h1 q

42

is the LST of the waiting time in the queue for the ordinary M[x]/G/1 system with balking and no vacations.

e h with

From (41), we can obtain the expected waiting time in the queue, Wq, using the derivative of W

respect to h while h = 0

Wq

EX X 1ES kbEX 2 ES 2

kb1 Ve kbJ EV 2

o:

n

J

J

2EX 1 q

2 kbEV 1 Ve kb 1 Ve kb Ve kb

43

It is to be noted that expression (43) is identical to the expression (28) obtained from Littles formula.

5. Other system characteristics

First, we develop the steady-state system size distribution at busy period initiation epoch and the system

size distribution due to idle period including vacation.

5.1. System size distribution at busy period initiation epoch

Let us dene un (n = 1, 2, . . .) as the steady-state probability that an arbitrary (tagged) customer nds a

batch of n customers in the system at the busy period initiation epoch (or completion epoch of the idle period).

That is, t ( = 0, 1, 2, . . .) are the initiation epochs of the busy period and N(t) is the number of customers in

the system at the time instant t, then

un lim!1 PrN t n;

n 1; 2; . . . :

Conditioning on the number of customers which arrive during the rst vacation, we obtain the following

state equations by the similar arguments of Poisson arrivals see time average [29]

un

J 1

X

m0

rm0

n

X

rk vk

rJ0 vn ;

n

44

k1

where vk

n

rk = Pr[k batches arrive during a vacation time]. It is easily checked that r0 Ve kb.

1330

Now multiplying (44) by appropriate powers of z and then taking summation over all possible values of n,

we obtain the p.g.f. of {un}

1 Ve kb e

V kb1 X z Ve kb Ve kbJ X z;

1 Ve kb

J

uz

45

which leads to

Eu

J

Ve kb EX :

e

1 V kb

Note that (45) represents the p.g.f of the number of customers in the system at the completion epoch of

the idle period and this is equivalent to the p.g.f. of the system size distribution at busy period initiation

epoch.

5.2. System size distribution due to idle period

Let nn (n = 0, 1, 2, . . .) be the probability that a batch of n customers arrived before a tagged customer during the forward recurrence time (residual life) of the idle period in which the tagged customer arrived. The

batch of arriving customers associated with the tagged customer is randomly chosen from the arriving batch

that occurs at the completion epoch of the idle period (busy period initiation epoch). Following arguments of

Burke [31] and applying renewal theory, we get the p.g.f. of the number of customers that arrive during the

residual life of the idle period given by

nz

1 uz

:

1 zEu

46

nz

J

J

1 Ve kb 1 Ve kb f Ve kb1 X z Ve kbg 1 Ve kb Ve kb X z

J

J

EX f1 Ve kb kbEV 1 Ve kb Ve kb g1 z

47

which is equivalent to the p.g.f. of the number of customers that arrive during an interval from the beginning

of the idle period to a random point in the idle period. We may call it system size distribution due to the idle

period including vacation times.

5.3. Busy period and idle period distribution

e

Let Bh

and eI h respectively represent the LST of the busy period and idle period for the M[x]/G/1 queueing model with balking, in which the server takes at most J vacation at the end of each service period. The

server starts providing service whenever the system is not empty upon returning from a vacation or at least

one customer arrives after he returns from the Jth vacation and stays dormant in the system. It can be shown

from the denition and utilizing the arguments by Takagi [3, Section 2.2], we have

J

1 Ve kb e

e

e 0 h;

e 0 h Ve kb Ve kbJ X B

Bh

V kb1 X B

1 Ve kb

48

J

e

kb

eI h 1 V kb Ve h Ve kb Ve kbJ

;

kb h

1 Ve kb

49

and

e 0 h e

e 0 h is the LST of the busy period in the ordinary M[x]/G/1 queueing

where B

S h kb kbX B

model.

1331

Further, we dene

E[B] the expected length of busy period;

E[I] the expected length of idle period;

E[C] the expected length of busy cycle.

By using (48) and (49), we obtain

J

1 Ve kb kbEV

Ve kbJ

1 Ve kb

EB

EI

!

EX ES

;

1q

J

J

1 Ve kb EV Ve kb

;

kb

1 Ve kb

which lead to

1 Ve kb kbEV

J

Ve kb

1 Ve kb

J

EC

50

51

!

1

:

kb1 q

52

e h be

We let Z be the unnished work (also called the backlog or the workload) at an arbitrary time and Z

LST of Z. Following Takagi [3], we have

e h Ye h Z

e x

Z

M =G=1 h;

where Ye h n e

S h is corresponding to the amount of work in the vacation system at an arbitrary time durh1q

e x

ing a vacation period (referred to Section 5.2). And Z

is corresponding to the waiting

M =G=1 h

hkkX e

S h

[x]

time of the rst customer in a batch to which it begins in the ordinary M /G/1 queueing system (see Ref. [4]).

Doing some arduous algebraic rearrangements, we obtain the unnished work and its expectation

J

J

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e h 1 V kb 1 V kb f V kb1 X S h V kbg 1 V kb V kb X S h

Z

J

J

S h

EX f1 Ve kb kbEV 1 Ve kb Ve kb g1 e

h1 q

h k kX e

S h

J

J

1 Ve kb 1 Ve kb f Ve kb1 X Se h Ve kbg 1 Ve kb Ve kb X e

S h

J

J

e

1 X Shf1 Ve kb kbEV 1 Ve kb Ve kb g

e x

W

M =G=1 h;

53

and

kbq1 Ve kb EV 2

kbEX ES 2 EX X 1ES

J

J

21 q

2EX 1 q

2f1 Ve kb kbEV 1 Ve kb Ve kb g

J

EZ

54

6. Special cases

In this section, we present some existing results in the literature which are special cases of our system.

Case 1: If Pr[V = 0] = 1 and b = 1, then our model can be reduced to the ordinary M[x]/G/1 queueing system

[3, Chapter 1].

Case 2: If Pr[X = 1] = 1 and b = 1, then our model can be reduced to the single arrival M/G/1 queueing system with at most J vacations [3, Chapter 2].

1332

Case 3: Suppose that we let Pr[X = 1] = 1; then if we put J = 1 and b = 1, our model can describe the M/G/1

e h and (51) for E[I] can be simqueueing system with multiple vacations. In this case, Eq. (41) for W

plied to the following expressions:

e

e h 1 V h h1 q ;

W

hEV h k k e

S h

and

EV

;

1 Ve k

EI

which agree with those of Doshis [1] or Takagis system [3, Section 2.2].

Case 4: Suppose that we let Pr[X = 1] = 1; then if we put J = 1 and b = 1, our model can be reduced to the M/

G/1 queueing system with a single vacation. In this case, Eq. (43) for Wq and (52) for E[C] can be

simplied to the following expressions:

Wq

kEV 2

2 Ve k kEV

kES 2

;

21 q

and

EC

Ve k kEV

;

k1 q

which are in accordance with those of Levy and Yechialis [2] or Takagis system [3, Section 2.2].

Case 5: As J = 1 and b = 1, our model can be recovered to the M[x]/G/1 queueing system with a single vacae h can be shown to be as follows:

tion. In this case, Eq. (26) for U(z) and (53) for Z

Uz

1 q1 z1 Ve k kX z Ve k1 X z e

S k kX z

;

e k kX z zgf1 X zg

EX fkEV Ve kgf S

and

e

e

e

e

h1 q

e h 1 V k kX Sh V k1 X S h

Z

;

EX kEV Ve k1 e

Sh

h k kX e

S h

which furnish the results in Section 6 of Choudhurys system [4].

Case 6: As J = 1 and b = 1, our model can be recovered to the ordinary M[x]/G/1 queueing system with mule h and (50) for E[B] can be shown to be as follows:

tiple vacations. In this case, Eq. (41) for W

e

h1 q

1 X e

Sh

e h 1 V h

;

W

e

hEV h k kX Sh EX 1 e

S h

and

EB

qEV

;

1 Ve k1 q

7. Numerical illustration

This section we study the eects of various parameters on the system characteristics such as the expected

number of customers in the system (Ls), the expected length of busy period (E[B]) and idle period (E[I]).

For convenience, we rst let

1333

k = 0.8;

X geometric distribution with parameter p = 0.5 (denoted by Geo(0.5));

c

V exponential distribution (denoted

by M with LST Ve h hc

) with a mean E[V] = 1.0;

4

with a mean E[S] = 0.5.

S 4-stage Erlang distribution denoted by E4 with LST Se h 4c

h4c

Our rst set of numerical examples performs the above specic parameters by varying J from 1 to 50 and

1 b from 0.0 to 0.5. The eects of dierent values of 1 b and J on the Ls, E[B] and E[I] are respectively

shown in Figs. 13. One observes from Figs. 13 that (i) Ls and E[B] increase as 1 b decreases; and (ii)

E[I] decreases as 1 b decreases. One also sees that the increment of Ls, E[B] and E[I] slowly increases as J

increases for larger J when 1 b is xed. Obviously, the eect changes of 1 b on the system characteristics

are more signicant than J.

A second set of numerical examples deals with the cases that the eect of various service time distributions

and dierent service rates on the Ls, E[B] and E[I]. We consider k = 0.5, 1 b = 0.2, J = 5, and E[V] = 0.2.

The service time distributions are considered to be exponential (M), 2-stage stage Erlang (E2) and 2-stage

ac1

2

hyper-exponential (denoted by H2 with LST e

S h hc

1ac

). The eects of the service time distributions

hc2

1

and dierent service rates on the Ls, E[B] and E[I] are shown in Table 1. From Table 1, the comparison of the

Ls, E[B] and E[I] for the three service time distributions M, E2 and H2, showed the results when service rate (1/

E[S]) changes from 1 to 10: (i) the three service distributions by their relative magnitudes on Ls produce

H2 > M > E2, and (ii) the E[B] and E[I] for the three service distributions are the same when service rate is

given, which conrm those of (50) and (51).

Finally, we assume k = 0.5, 1 b = 0.2, and E[S] = 0.5, and perform numerical results to study the eects

of the vacation time distributions and dierent vacation rates on the Ls, E[B] and E[I], which are summarized

12

10

Ls

8

6

4

2

0

60

50

0.5

40

0.4

30

0.3

20

0.2

10

0.1

1

1b

1334

9

8

7

E[B]

6

5

4

3

2

1

60

50

0.5

40

0.4

30

0.3

20

0.2

10

0.1

1

1 b

Fig. 2. The expected length of busy period for dierent values of 1 b and J.

10

9

8

E[I]

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

50

40

0.5

30

0.4

0.3

20

0.2

10

0.1

1

1b

Fig. 3. The expected length of idle period for dierent values of 1 b and J.

in Table 2. The comparison of the Ls, E[B] and E[I] for the three vacation time distributions M, E2 and H2,

showed the results when vacation rate (1/E[V]) changes from 0.1 to 10: (i) the three vacation distributions by

their relative magnitudes on the system characteristics (Ls, E[B] and E[I]) yield H2 > M > E2, and (ii) the

1335

Table 1

System characteristics for dierent service time distributions and service rates (k = 0.5, 1 b = 0.2, X Geo(0.5), J = 5, and V M with

E[V] = 0.2)

1/E[S]

SM

S E2

S H2

1.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

10.054

10.256

2.564

9.254

10.256

2.564

11.121

10.256

2.564

2.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.721

1.709

2.564

1.654

1.709

2.564

1.809

1.709

2.564

3.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.963

0.932

2.564

0.939

0.932

2.564

0.995

0.932

2.564

4.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.679

0.641

2.564

0.666

0.641

2.564

0.696

0.641

2.564

5.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.530

0.488

2.564

0.522

0.488

2.564

0.540

0.488

2.564

6.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.438

0.394

2.564

0.433

0.394

2.564

0.445

0.394

2.564

7.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.376

0.331

2.564

0.373

0.331

2.564

0.381

0.331

2.564

8.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.332

0.285

2.564

0.329

0.285

2.564

0.335

0.285

2.564

9.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.298

0.250

2.564

0.296

0.250

2.564

0.301

0.250

2.564

10.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

0.271

0.223

2.564

0.270

0.223

2.564

0.274

0.223

2.564

system characteristics increase as 1/E[V] decreases. Moreover, we nd from Tables 1 and 2 that the magnitudes of system characteristics are H2 P M P E2 when all parameters are given.

Our numerical investigations indicate that (i) when all parameters are given, the impacts of the service (or

vacation) distributions on system characteristics are not signicantly for large service rate (or vacation rate),

and (ii) b has a much signicant eect on the system characteristics than J do.

1336

Table 2

System characteristics for dierent vacation time distributions and vacation rates (k = 0.5, 1 b = 0.2, X Geo(0.5), J = 5, and S E4

with E[S] = 0.5)

1/E[V]

VM

V E2

V H2

0.1

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

9.566

8.331

12.497

7.567

7.500

11.250

12.232

8.680

13.019

0.5

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

3.119

2.929

4.394

2.741

2.686

4.029

3.621

3.109

4.663

1.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

2.255

2.209

3.314

2.090

2.099

3.148

2.473

2.309

3.463

2.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.823

1.866

2.799

1.761

1.823

2.734

1.905

1.911

2.867

3.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.699

1.770

2.655

1.667

1.747

2.620

1.742

1.796

2.694

4.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.647

1.730

2.595

1.627

1.715

2.573

1.673

1.747

2.620

5.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.621

1.709

2.564

1.607

1.699

2.549

1.638

1.721

2.582

6.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.605

1.697

2.546

1.596

1.690

2.535

1.618

1.706

2.559

7.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.596

1.690

2.535

1.588

1.684

2.526

1.605

1.697

2.545

8.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.589

1.685

2.527

1.584

1.680

2.521

1.597

1.690

2.535

9.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.585

1.681

2.522

1.580

1.678

2.517

1.591

1.686

2.529

10.0

Ls

E[B]

E[I]

1.581

1.679

2.518

1.578

1.676

2.514

1.586

1.682

2.523

1337

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous referees and Editor, Prof. Cross, for their valuable comments and suggestions, which improved the presentation of this paper.

References

[1] B.T. Doshi, Queueing systems with vacations-a survey, Queueing Syst 1 (1986) 2966.

[2] Y. Levy, U. Yechiali, Utilization of idle time in an M/G/1 queueing system, Manage Sci 22 (1975) 202211.

[3] H. Takagi, Queueing analysis: a foundation of performance evaluation, vacation and priority systems, Vol. I, North-Holland,

Amsterdam, 1991.

[4] G. Choudhury, A batch arrival queue with a vacation time under single vacation policy, Comput Oper Res 29 (2002) 19411955.

[5] Y. Baba, On the M[x]/G/1 queue with vacation time, Oper Res Lett 5 (1986) 9398.

[6] S.S. Lee, H.W. Lee, S.H. Yoon, K.C. Chae, Batch arrival queue with N policy and single vacation, Comput Oper Res 22 (1995) 173

189.

[7] H.W. Lee, S.S. Lee, J.O. Park, K.C. Chae, Analysis of M[x]/G/1 queue with N policy and multiple vacations, J Appl Prob 31 (1994)

467496.

[8] H.W. Lee, J.O. Park, Optimal strategy in N-policy production system with early set-up, J Operat Res Soc 48 (1997) 306313.

[9] G.V. Krishna Reddy, R. Nadarajan, R. Arumuganathan, Analysis of a bulk queue with N-policy multiple vacations and setup times,

Comput Oper Res 25 (1998) 957967.

[10] S. Hur, S.J. Paik, The eect of dierent arrival rates on the N-policy of M/G/1 with server setup, Appl Math Model 23 (1999) 289

299.

[11] G. Choudhury, Analysis of the Mx/G/1 queueing system with vacation times, Sankhya, B 64 (1) (2002) 3749.

[12] J.-C. Ke, The optimal control of an M/G/1 queueing system with server startup and two vacation types, Appl Math Model 27 (2003)

437450.

[13] R. Arumuganathan, S. Jeyakumar, Steady state analysis of a bulk queue with multiple vacations, setup times with N-policy and

closedown times, Appl Math Model 29 (2005) 972986.

[14] F.A. Haight, Queueing with balking, Biometrika 44 (1957) 360369.

[15] M.O. Abou-El-Ata, A.I. Shawky, The single-server Markovian overow queue with balking, reneging and an additional server for

longer queues, Microelectron Reliab 32 (1992) 13891394.

[16] M.O. Abou-El-Ata, A.M.A. Hariri, The M/M/c/N queue with balking and reneging, Comput Oper Res 19 (1992) 713716.

[17] R.O. Al-Seedy, The truncated queue: M/M/2/m/m + Y with balking, spares, machine interference and an additional server for longer

queues (Krishnamoorthi discipline), Microelectron Reliab 35 (1995) 14231427.

[18] R.O. Al-Seedy, Analytical solution of the state-dependent Erlangian queue: M/Ej/1/N with balking, Microelectron Reliab 36 (1996)

203206.

[19] A.I. Shawky, The single-server machine interference model with balking reneging and an additional server for longer queues,

Microelectron Reliab 37 (1997) 355357.

[20] J.-C. Ke, K.-H. Wang, Cost analysis of the M/M/R machine repair problem with balking, reneging, and server breakdowns, J Oper

Res Soc 50 (1999) 275282.

[21] J.R. Artalejo, M.J. Lopez-Herrero, On the single server retrial queue with balking, INFOR 38 (1) (2000) 3350.

[22] K.-H. Wang, J.-C. Ke, Probabilistic analysis of a repairable system with warm standbys plus balking and reneging, Appl Math Model

27 (2003) 327336.

[23] R.O. Al-Seedy, Queuing with xed and variable channels considering balking and reneging concepts, Appl Math Comput 156 (3)

(2004) 755761.

[24] K.C. Madan, Balking phenomenon in the M[x]/G/1 vacation queue, J Korean Statist Soc 31 (4) (2002) 491507.

[25] R.O. Al-Seedy, A transient solution of the non-truncated queue M/M/2 with balking and an additional server for longer queues

(Krishnamoorthi discipline), Appl Math Comput 156 (3) (2004) 763769.

[26] K.-H. Wang, S.-C. Chen, J.-C. Ke, Maximum likelihood estimates and condence intervals of an M/M/R/N queue with balking and

heterogeneous servers, RAIRO Oper Res 38 (2004) 227242.

[27] D.R. Cox, The analysis of non-Markovian stochastic processes by the inclusion of supplementary variables, Proc Cambridge Philoso

Soc 51 (1955) 433441.

[28] S.W. Fuhrmann, R.B. Cooper, Stochastic decompositions in the M/G/1 queue with generalized vacations, Oper Res 33 (1985) 1117

1129.

[29] R.W. Wol, Poisson arrival see time average, Oper Res 30 (1982) 223231.

[30] M.L. Chaudhry, J.G.C. Templeton, A rst course in bulk queues, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1983.

[31] P.J. Burke, Delay in single server queues with batch input, Oper Res 23 (1975) 830833.

- D_IT Guidance.pdfUploaded byFernandoVallecillosRuiz
- 034 - Principles.of.Random.Walk,.Spitzer.F..(2ed,.Springer.2001)(ISBN.0387951547)(T)(427s).pdfUploaded byplatinumwolf13610
- Installation Note - Commercial Development ProgramsUploaded byluis_19EC
- PRESENTATION Christopher Ahlberg Turning the Web into Predictive SignalsUploaded byStopSpyingOnMe
- Optimizing Shock Models In The Study Of Deteriorating SystemsUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Science
- Change Request Management 7.pdfUploaded byloribe
- Simulating the Performance Variability Matrix Using Markov ChainsUploaded byA Pandey
- ActuarialUploaded byErica Rodgers
- free resources progression of useUploaded byapi-204086002
- MELJUN CORTES - Operations Management 18th Lecture (DISNEY WORLD)Uploaded byMELJUN CORTES, MBA,MPA
- ReferencesUploaded byAllen Allen
- New Zealand Herald web site reviewUploaded byGerardo Alonso
- UntitledUploaded byAfsal Mohmed
- Zahid Saeed - Marketing-csrUploaded bycdeeky
- sde_aUploaded byalexandru_bratu_6
- 1 SyllabusUploaded byAswathy Pauln
- alvarezluis uoguUploaded byapi-239502263
- HRServices SpecificationsUploaded bySnehil Singh
- h3Uploaded bycheluvaraya
- New Microsoft Word DocumentUploaded byRaman Arora
- Mbacase Blogspot Co Nz 2012 05 Project Management ManchesterUploaded bygareththomasnz
- criteriona inquiringandanalysingUploaded byapi-270453890
- Section 5. Tolerable and Differential SettlementUploaded byTavio TavioTavio
- Wiley PlusUploaded byAntónio Leça Domingues
- Resume.Uploaded byMeghana M
- piloteds teoriaUploaded byBetin Nebuchadnezzar
- REUploaded byUzair Sarwar
- Cbse Class 10 Computer Science Sample Paper Sa1 2014 2Uploaded byselva.uae8207
- Bettylet.psUploaded byJuan Kard
- 20131AUploaded byJennifer Warner

- 3.Rajadurai Jan2016 Ijaer AsingleserverretrialqueuewithbernoulliworkingvacationandvacationinterruptionUploaded byebenesarb
- 2wQZScxNM,in (5).docxUploaded byebenesarb
- Brain Teasers.pdfUploaded byebenesarb
- AssignmentUploaded byebenesarb
- acxtHIndi.docxUploaded byebenesarb
- QPUploaded byebenesarb
- ans.docxUploaded byebenesarb
- Brain TeasersUploaded byebenesarb
- SampleUploaded byebenesarb
- IRDP Award 2018-Application FormUploaded byebenesarb
- Pedagogy Assignment 3Uploaded byebenesarb
- Pedagogy Assignment 2Uploaded byebenesarb
- Pedagogy Assignment 1Uploaded byebenesarb
- Assignment 2Uploaded byebenesarb
- Assignment1_4Uploaded byebenesarb
- AssignmentUploaded byebenesarb
- Assignment 2 SolutionUploaded byebenesarb
- Assignment 1 Solution_5Uploaded byebenesarb
- Final Score of Outcome Based Pedagogic Principles for Effective TeachingUploaded byebenesarb
- MCQUploaded byebenesarb
- IJARCCE2H s Yeshwanth Fuzzy Logic Based Call Admission Control for Next Generation Wireless NetworksUploaded byebenesarb
- AnovaUploaded byebenesarb
- Pent.fuzzy.no.Uploaded byebenesarb
- SolutionUploaded byebenesarb
- AdVUploaded byebenesarb
- Mat Lab t ReportUploaded byebenesarb
- Question Bank - CopyUploaded byebenesarb

- ForecastingUploaded byDebashish Gorai
- lec14.pdfUploaded byVanitha Shah
- Introduction to Time Series in RUploaded bykavya1012
- 20. Forecasting for Soybean Production in India Using Season Time PDFUploaded byAgricultureASD
- 04-e.pdfUploaded bykadriulas
- Expo PoisUploaded byDavey
- Digital Signal Processing-Random processesUploaded byGramoz Cubreli
- Lecture Notes in Statistics 145 Chapter 1 Part 3Uploaded byEve Yap
- Section 10 Discrete Time Markov ChainsUploaded byDylan Ler
- 8. Hidden Markov ModelsUploaded bySauki Ridwan
- NonsenseUploaded byMalosGodel
- ACF_and_Durbinwatson.pdfUploaded byelsa gustia nurmi
- Manual for time series econometricsUploaded bydaftas
- Tutsheet6Uploaded byvishnu
- Introduction to time series in R.pdfUploaded byGeorgi Zuhkov
- Stochastic Calculus for Discontinuous ProcessesUploaded byjulianli0220
- ARIMA AR MA ARMA ModelsUploaded byOisín Ó Cionaoith
- Univariate Time Series AnalysisUploaded byMariaMehmood
- Bm NotesUploaded byrohitashav
- Quasi-stationary Distributions For the Radial Ornstein-Uhlenbeck ProcessesUploaded byonemahmud
- Syllabus May2015 ExamUploaded byGiovanniErario
- Stoping TimesUploaded byfmayambala
- Hw 3 SolutionUploaded byEddie Martinez Jr.
- 3GREPUploaded bycmtssikar
- Teori AntrianUploaded bytara cantika
- lectr14 (STOCHASTIC PROCESSES).pptUploaded byTeferi Lemma
- 024173762Uploaded byh_tanquoc
- MetesUploaded byPegah Janipour
- Time Series Van der Vaart.pdfUploaded byLucas Pimentel Vilela
- Brownian DistributionUploaded bymclp2000