- FCFS:
-Start times vs N - --P1 will have a start time of 0. --P2 will have a start time close to 0, due to P1 having less computation time requirement --P3 will have a start time very high, as P2 takes a long time to complete
-Wait times vs N - --P1 will have a wait time equal to 0. --P2 will have a wait time close to 0, due to P1 having less computation time requirement --P3 will have a wait time very high, as P2 takes a long time to complete
-Turn around time vs N - --P1 will have a low turn around time, as it is not IO intensive --P2 will have a high turn around time, due to the IO requirement of reading and writing it back --P3 will have a slightly higher turn around time, as it has to wait for more time idly, despite lesser execution time
- RR:
-Start Times vs N - --P1, P2 and P3 will have start times evenly spaced out equal to the time quantum, due to how round robin schedules
-Wait Times vs N - --P2 and P3 have similar wait times, as the work done in each quanta becomes equivalent for high values --P1 has the least wait time, as it is less intensive compared to the other 2
-Turn Around Times vs N - -- Turn around time for P2 will be the highest, due to the necessity of reading from a file and printing out to a console, the most IO intensive process -- Turn around time for P3 will be lower than P2, as it reads from a file and adds, as compared to printing out in P2 -- Turn around time for P1 will be the least, as it has the lowest waiting and the lowest execution
Inferences:-
- RR - TAT and WT for P1 starts increasing after 800, as it needs more waiting time. This in turn leads to a higher WT and TAT for P2 and P3.
- FCFS leads to the least total time required for all 3 processes for all N, compared to RR
- P3 performs considerably less efficient in FCFS as compared to RR, as it needs to wait for a considerably larger time, offsetting its lesser execution time compared to the P2
Graphs to view these are in the graph folder