# A SEMINAR ON EARLIEST DEALINE FIRST ALGORITHM

Presented by Miss. SNEHAL D. PATIL Final Year Computer Science And Engineering

Guided By Prof P.B.NIRANJANE Project & Seminar Guide Computer Science And Engineering 

CONTENT
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. INTRODUCTION EVOLUTION OF EDF DEADLINE FLOW OF EDF EXAMPLE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES CONCLUSION REFERENCES 

INTRODUCTION 
Conventional 
FCFS-first

Algorithms

come first serve.  SCAN-arm moves in one direction.  C-SCAN-after servicing last transaction arm returns to start position.  SSTF-selects transaction closest to the current arm position . 

 

Strictly data consistent This results in poor performance of conventional algorithms in realtime systems. 

EVOLUTION OF EDF
EDF- Earliest Deadline First The idea of EDF was published in 1973 in an article of Liu and Layland. EDF is dynamic.  Deadline based scheduling algorithm. The priority of a job is inversely proportional to its deadline.  

a Time by which execution of the transaction should be completed,after the transaction is released.

Deadline= Arrival time+ slack factor*AET, Average execution time(AET)=1.5*block size Assumption Slack factor=2 Transmission factor : Read=0.6,Seek factor=0.3  

Flow of EDF
Step 1: Calculate deadline of each transaction present in a queue Step 2: Schedule deadline

Step 3: Serves transaction with earliest deadline 

EXAMPLE
Case 1:Deadlines of transactions are not close to each other. Table 1:
Transact arrival Block ion id time(At) location (ai) Block size(bs) Start End Average Deadlin block(Si) block(Li) executio e (Di) n time (AET) 0 2 11 8 5 13 0 4 12 11 7 17 0 4.5 3 6 4.5 7.5 0 10 6 15 12 20 Transfer time(TT)

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 
EDF

0 1 0 3 3 5

0 2 11 8 5 13

0 3 2 4 3 5

0 1.8 1.2 2.4 1.8 3.0

scheduled the deadlines by giving priority to earliest deadline first. T0, T2, T1, T4, T3, T5 

Case 1(C0NTI.)

Servise table
Cj,i is execution time required to ith transaction ater servicing jth transaction.
Cj,i J=0 J=1 J=2 J=3 J=4 J=5 i=0 ------1.2 3.6 3.3 2.1 5.1 i=1 2.4 -------4.8 4.5 3.3 6.3 i=2 4.5 3.3 ------1.2 2.4 3.0 i=3 4.8 3.6 3.6 -------2.7 5.1 i=4 3.3 2.1 3.9 3.6 --------5.4 i=5 6.9 5.7 3.3 3.6 4.8 -------

Table 2:
transacti arrival Block on id time(At) location (Tid) (ai) Block size(Bs) Start end Average deadline Transfer block(Si) block(Li) executio (Di) time(TT) n time(AE T) 0 7 17 1 4 13 0 8 19 2 6 15 0 3 4.5 3 4.5 4.5 0 6 11 7 10 9 0 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.8

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 
EDF

0 0 2 1 1 0

0 7 7 1 4 13

0 2 3 2 3 3

scheduled the deadlines by giving priority to earliest deadline first. T0, T1, T3, T5, T4, T2 

Case 2(conti.)

Service table:
Cj,i J=0 J=1 J=2 J=3 J=4 J=5 i=0 ------2.4 5.7 o.6 1.8 4.5 i=1 2.1 -------4.8 2.7 1.5 3.6 i=2 5.1 4.5 ------6.3 5.1 2.4 i=3 0.3 3.3 6.6 -------2.7 5.4 i=4 1.3 3 6.3 2.4 --------4.5 i=5 3.9 3.3 3.6 7.3 3.9 ------- 

EDF

gives poor performance in overloaded condition

Case 3: Deadlines of transactions are same
Table 3:
Transact arrival ion id time (At) Block location (ai) Block size(Bs) Start End Average deadline Transfer block(Si) block(Li) executio (Di) time(TT) n time (AET)

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 
In

0 1 0 3 0

0 2 7 5 2

0 3 6 3 4

0 2 7 5 2

0 4 12 7 5

0 4.5 9 4.5 6

0 10 18 12 12

0 1.8 3.6 1.8 2.4

the above eg. Deadlines of transaction T3 and T4 are same, T0, T1 T3 T4 So deadlines will not be scheduled according to earliest deadline Here EDF fails.

Case 3(conti.) 
Service

table
i=0 ----------1.2 3.6 2.1 1.5 i=1 2.4 ----------4.8 3.3 2.7 i=2 5.7 4.5 -----------3.6 4.2 i=3 3.3 2.1 3.9 -------1.8 i=4 3 3 5.4 3.9 -------

Ci,j J=0 J=1 J=2 J=3 J=4



 

The processor can be fully utilized and almost all deadlines can be met. Timing constraints are given consideration. Real Time transactions are easily scheduled as timing constraints are considered. Transactions having same deadline can not be scheduled. Disk head movement increases. No consideration where data is present on disk. The performance of Earliest Deadline steeply degrades in an overloaded system. 