Execution Gantt Timeline
Process Set
Simulation Averages
0.0
0.0
0.0
100%
Process Evaluation & Scheduling Metrics
Formula breakdown: Turnaround Time ($TAT = CT - AT$), Waiting Time ($WT = TAT - BT$), Response Time ($RT = First Exec - AT$)
| Process | Arrival Time (AT) | CPU Burst (BT) | Priority | Completion (CT) | Turnaround (TAT) | Waiting Time (WT) | Response Time (RT) | Status |
|---|
Multi-Algorithm Comparison Matrix
Run the exact same process set across all scheduling algorithms simultaneously to evaluate trade-offs.
Theoretical Trade-offs Analysis
FCFS vs SJF / SRTF
FCFS serves ready work in arrival order and does not starve a process that has entered this finite queue, but a long CPU burst can create the convoy effect and delay shorter work.
SJF/SRTF favor shorter known CPU bursts and can reduce average waiting time for many workloads. Their classic optimality claims require specific assumptions; with ongoing arrivals, long jobs can face starvation risk if shorter jobs keep appearing.
Round Robin Quantum Choice
As the quantum grows relative to the workload, Round Robin approaches FCFS behavior and usually causes fewer process-to-process handoffs.
A smaller quantum can improve time-sharing responsiveness, but it increases handoff frequency. This lab does not model real context-switch cost, caches, I/O blocking, or multicore scheduling.
Starvation & Aging Demonstration
Explore starvation risk: priority-based or shortest-job policies can delay low-priority/long-burst work when preferred jobs keep arriving. This finite demo shows postponement and a simple aging policy; it cannot demonstrate an actually infinite wait.
Interactive Scheduling Challenges
Practice the simplified scheduling rules used by this lab with five interactive mini-challenges.