Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T02:22:45.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on Bounds and Error Bounds for Nonexponential Batch Arrival Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2009

Masakiyo Miyazawa  and
Nico M. van Dijk
Masakiyo Miyazawa
Affiliation:
Science University of Tokyo, Noda, Chiba 278, Japan
Nico M. van Dijk
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note studies the comparison of finite-buffer and nonexponential batch arrival systems of the form Gx/M/c/c + N with the corresponding systems, with N replaced by N', where N' can be smaller, larger, or infinite. If N' = ∞ the service times can be arbitrarily distributed. Both comparison and error bounds are obtained for performance measures such as the throughput, the idle probability, and the active server distribution. The results are of practical interest to establish computational reductions, either by infinite-space approximation or by reduced finite truncations. Two different proof techniques will be employed: the sample path approach and the Markov reward approach. The comparison of these two techniques is of interest in itself, showing the advantage and disadvantage of each.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 189 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Bini, D. & Meini, B. (1993). Solving certain queueing problems modelling by Toeplitz matrices. Calcolo 30: 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Hordijk, A. & Schassberger, R. (1982). Weak convergence of generalized semi-Markov processes. Stochastic Processes and Their Applications 12: 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Miyazawa, M. (1989). Comparison of the loss probability of GIx/GI/l/k queues with a common traffic intensity. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan 32: 505–516.Google Scholar
4.Miyazawa, M. & Shanthikumar, J.G. (1991). Monotonicity of the loss probability of single server finite queue with respect to convex order of arrival or service processes. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 5: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Miyazawa, M. & Tijms, H.C. (1993). Comparison of two approximations for the loss probability in finite buffer queues. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 7: 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Sakasegawa, H.Miyazawa, M. & Yamazaki, G. (1993). Evaluating the overflow probability using the infinite queue. Management Science 39: 1238–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Shaked, M. & Shanthikumar, J.G. (1994). Stochastic orders and their applications. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
8.Stoyan, D. (1983). Comparison methods for queues and other stochastic models, Daley, D.J. (ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
9.Tijms, H.C. (1986). Stochastic modelling and analysis: A computational approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
10.Tijms, H.C. (1992). Heuristics for finite-buffer queues. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 6: 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.van Dijk, N.M. (1991). The importance of bias-terms for error bounds and comparison results. In Stewart, W.J. (ed.), Numerical solutions of Markov chains. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 617–642.Google Scholar
12.van Dijk, N.M. (1992). An error-bound theorem for approximate Markov chains. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 6: 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.van Dijk, N.M.Tsoucas, P. & Walrand, J. (1988). Simple bounds and monotonicity of the call congestion of finite multiserver delay systems. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 2: 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar