CHAPTER-4

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF AN

M/M/1/k QUEUE WITH NON-PREEMPTIVE PRIORITY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In chapter 2 and 3 we discussed the case of balking and reneging on the model M/M/1/N and
M/M/c/N. Now we take criterion of priority, obviously a considerable portion of real-life queueing
situations contains priority considerations. In chapter 4 and 5 we will discuss the case of different
priorities. The priority discipline followed may be either non-preemptive or preemptive in nature.
When the priority discipline is non-preemptive in nature, a job in service is allowed to complete its
service normally even if a job of higher priority enters the queue while its service is going on. In the
preemptive case, the service to the ongoing job will be preempted by the new arrival of higher
priority. If the priority discipline is preemptive resume, then service to the interrupted job, when it
restarts, continues from the point at which the service was interrupted. For the preemptive non
resume case, service already provided to the interrupted job is forgotten and its service is started
again from the beginning. Note that there may be loss of work in the preemptive non-resume
priority case. Such loss of work will not happen in the case of the other two priorities. Since the
service times are assumed to be exponentially distributed, they will satisfy the memory-less
property and that, therefore, the results will be the same both for the preemptive resume and
preemptive non-resume cases. We consider here queues with preemptive priority disciplines. The
approach suggested may be applied to both single server and multi-server queues. Moreover, queues
with both finite and infinite buffers may be analysed using the suggested approach.
The solution of queueing system was given by L. Kleinrock [56], (1975).The idea about the
specially push out priority queue discipline given by D. P. Heyman [41], (1985).After that the

103
performance evaluation of queueing system was shown by H. Takagi [84], (1991) and mixing time
and loss priorities in a single server queue was presented by A. Gravey and G. Hebuterne [34],
(1991). The non-preemptive queues was analysed by Wagner [90].
Many papers of queueing model on priority is given by many authors time to time. The idea of
finite buffer on two class queue with different schemes is shown by X. Cheng and Akyildiz [7] in
1992. In year 2006 Takagi [85] described explicit delay distribution in first come first served
M/M/m/k and M/M/m/k/n queue and a mixed loss delay system. We have also worked on
performance analysis of queueing model [1], [2] and on preemptive and non-preemptive priority
[3], [4] (In author’ publication).
In this chapter we define the way in which such a queue may actually be analysed by solving its
balance equations. As usual with any M/M/1/k queue, the basic approach to its solution is to define
the system-states appropriately so that a state transition diagram of the queue may be drawn. Using
the exponential (memory-less) distributions of the inter-arrival and service times, the probability
flows in the state transition diagram are identified. The balance equations are then obtained by
choosing proper closed boundaries and equating the flow across each such boundary. These balance
equations are then solved along with the normalisation condition (i.e. sum of the probabilities of all
states equal to unity) to obtain the state probabilities. Once these have been obtained, the
performance parameters of interest may be suitably calculated. In the following, we consider the
case of non-preemptive priority. For each case, we first give the analytical approach for the M/M/1
case and then show how it may be used to handle the M/M/1/k queue and the M/M/n/k queue. Queue
system M/M/1/k means: arrival of queue is Poisson, departure of queue is Exponential, number of
server is one and capacity of system is k.

4.2. ASSUMPTIONS
In this chapter, we consider an M/M/1/k queueing system with non-preemptive priority. The
assumptions of the system model are as follows:
1. The system at any instant of time is one of the two modes of operation.
2. All distribution are negative exponential, ie, all transition rates are constants.
3. The probability of two or more random events occurring simultaneously is negligible.

4.3. NOTATIONS
i mode of system operation, i = 1, 2

104
N maximum number of customers in the system
n current number of customers in the system
λi arrival rate in mode i
µi service rate in mode i
L mean number in the system
W mean waiting time in the system
Lq mean number in the queue
Wq mean waiting time in the queue

4.4. SYSTEM MODEL

We first consider the 2- priority M/M/1 queue with infinite buffers operating with a non-
preemptive priority discipline. This queue may be analysed by drawing a state transition diagram
Fig. 4.1.

Figure 4.1: State transition diagram of 2- priority M/M/1 queue with a non- preemptive priority discipline

Since all the flows are known, the equilibrium probabilities of each of the states may be found by
writing and solving the corresponding balance equations with the normalisation condition. As an
example, consider the 2- priority M/M/1/2 queue with non-preemptive priority. State transition
diagram for M/M/1/2 queue with 2-priority is shown in Fig.4.2.

105
 μ2

0,1, 2 λ2
0,2, 2
μ2
λ1

λ2 1,1,2
μ1
0
μ2
1,1,1
λ1

μ1 λ2

1, 0, 1 λ1 2, 0, 1

μ1

Figure 4.2: State transition diagram for M/M/1/2 queue with 2-priority and a non- preemptive priority discipline

4.5. STEADY-STATE PROBABILITY

In this part of this chapter, we derive the steady-state probabilities by the Markov process method.
Let P(n) be the probability that there are n customers in the system. Applying the Markov process
theory, we obtain the following set of steady-state equations for N = 2.

p 0 (λ1 + λ 2 ) = p 0,1, 2 μ 2 + p1,0,1 μ1

p 0,1, 2 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) = p 0 λ 2 + p 0, 2, 2 μ 2
p1, 0,1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ1 ) = p 0 λ1 + p 2,0,1 μ1 + p1,1, 2 μ 2
p1,1,1 μ1 = p1,0,1λ 2
p 0, 2, 2 μ 2 = p 0,1, 2 λ 2
p1,1, 2 μ 2 = p0,1, 2 λ1
p 2, 0,1 μ1 = p1,0,1λ1
Matrix form of these equations is:

⎡λ1 + λ 2 − μ2 0 − μ1 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ P0 ⎤ ⎡0⎤
⎢ −λ ⎢P ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2 λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 − μ2 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢ 0,1, 2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ − λ1 0 0 λ1 + λ 2 + μ1 0 − μ 2 − μ1 ⎥ ⎢ P0, 2, 2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 − λ2 μ1 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ P1,0,1 ⎥ = ⎢0⎥
⎢ 0 − λ2 μ2 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ P1,1,1 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 − λ1 0 0 0 μ2 0 ⎥ ⎢ P1,1, 2 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 − λ1 0 0 μ1 ⎥⎦ ⎢ P ⎥ ⎢0 ⎥
⎣ ⎣ 2,0,1 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

106
It is a homogenous system of equation. This system has infinite no. of solutions.
On solving these equation we get;

p 2, 0,1 = k
kμ1
p1, 0,1 =
λ1
kλ
p1,1,1 = 2
λ1

2
kμ1 λ 2
p 0,1, 2 =
λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 )
2

2
kμ1 (λ 1 + μ 2 )
p0 =
λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 )
2

2 2
kμ1 λ 2
p 0, 2, 2 =
μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 )
2

2
kμ1 λ 2
p1,1, 2 = .
μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 )

Using :

p 0 + p0,1, 2 + p 0, 2, 2 + p1, 0,1 + p1,1,1 + p1,1, 2 + p 2, 0,1 = 1 ,

we get:
−1
⎡ μ1 λ 2 2
μ1 λ 2
2
μ 1 (λ 1 + μ 2 )
2
μ1 λ 2
2 2
μ1 λ 2 ⎤
k = ⎢1 + + + 2 + 2 + + ⎥ .
⎣ λ 1 λ 1 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ λ
2 1
2
(λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎦
Therefore,
−1
⎡ μ1 λ 2 μ1 2 λ 2 μ1 2 (λ1 + μ 2 ) μ1 2 λ 2 2 μ1 2 λ 2 ⎤
p 2, 0,1 = ⎢1 + + + 2 + 2 + + ⎥
⎣ λ1 λ1 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎦
2

−1
μ ⎡ μ1 λ 2 μ1 2 λ 2 μ1 2 (λ1 + μ 2 ) μ1 2 λ 2 2 μ1 2 λ 2 ⎤
p1, 0,1 = 1 ⎢1 + + + + + + ⎥
λ1 ⎣ λ1 λ1 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎦
2 2 2

−1
λ ⎡ μ1 λ 2 μ1 2 λ 2 μ1 2 (λ1 + μ 2 ) μ1 2 λ 2 2 μ1 2 λ 2 ⎤
p1,1,1 = 2 ⎢1 + + + + + + ⎥
λ1 ⎣ λ1 λ1 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ1 (λ1 + λ 2 + μ 2 )⎦
2 2 2

107
 −1
⎡ μ1 λ 2 2
μ1 λ 2
2
μ 1 (λ 1 + μ 2 ) ⎤
⎢ 1 + + + + + ⎥
2
μ1 λ 2 ⎢ λ 1 λ 1 λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥
p 0,1, 2 = 2
λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎢ 2
μ1 λ 2
2 2
μ1 λ 2
⎥
⎢ + ⎥
⎢⎣ μ 2 λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥⎦
−1
⎡ μ1 λ 2 2
μ1 λ 2
2
μ 1 (λ 1 + μ 2 ) ⎤
⎢ 1 + + + + + ⎥
μ1 (λ 1 + μ 2 ) ⎢ λ 1 λ 1 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥
2 2 2

p0 = 2
λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎢ 2
μ1 λ 2
2 2
μ1 λ 2 ⎥
⎢ + ⎥
⎢⎣ μ 2 λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥⎦
−1
⎡ μ1 λ 2 2
μ1 λ 2
2
μ 1 (λ 1 + μ 2 ) ⎤
⎢ 1 + + + + + ⎥
2
kμ1 λ 2
2
⎢ λ 1 λ 1 λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥
p 0, 2, 2 =
μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎢ ⎥
2 2 2 2
⎢ μ1 λ 2 μ1 λ 2 ⎥
+
⎢⎣ μ 2 λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥⎦
−1
⎡ μ1 λ 2 2
μ1 λ 2
2
μ 1 (λ 1 + μ 2 ) ⎤
⎢ 1 + + + + + ⎥
2
kμ1 λ 2 ⎢ λ 1 λ 1 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥
2 2

p1,1, 2 = ⎥ .
μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎢ μ
2
λ
2
μ
2
λ
⎢ 1 2
+ 1 2 ⎥
⎢⎣ μ 2 λ 1 2 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) μ 2 λ 1 (λ 1 + λ 2 + μ 2 ) ⎥⎦

4.5.1. NUMERICAL RESULTS

In this subpart of this chapter, we present some numerical examples to demonstrate how the various
parameters of the model influence the performance measures of the system. We fix the maximum
number of customers in the system N = 2.

Table 4.1: Performance measures for λ1/µ1 = 0.8

λ2/µ2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

L 0.9206 0.9877 1.0469 1.1213 1.1473 1.1952 1.2369
Lq 0.2954 0.3275 0.3574 0.3926 0.4107 0.4362 0.4593
W 4.1849 4.1157 4.0266 4.0050 3.8240 3.7352 3.6380
Wq 1.3430 1.3645 1.3747 1.4022 1.3689 1.3629 1.3509

108
First, we select the λ1/µ1 = 0.8 and change values of arrival rate of customer λ2/µ2. The numerical
results are summarized in Table 3.1. This shows that: (i) the length of queueing system increases
with the increasing λ2/µ2. (ii) The length of the queue increases with the increasing λ2/µ2. (iii)The
Waiting time in queueing system decreases with increasing λ2/µ2. (iv) The Waiting time in queue
first increases with increase of λ2/µ2 and then decreases. The following graph shows the performance
of the model at λ1/µ1 = 0.8.

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
L

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

λ2/µ2
Figure 4.3: Graph between λ2/µ2 and length of system

0.5

0.4

0.3
Lq

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

λ2/µ2
Figure 4.4: Graph between λ2/µ2 and queue length

109
 4.3
4.2
4.1
4
W

3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

λ2/µ2
Figure 4.5: Graph between λ2/µ2 and waiting time of system

1.41
1.4
1.39
Wq

1.38
1.37
1.36
1.35
1.34
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

λ2/µ2
Figure 4.6: Graph between λ2/µ2 and waiting time of queue

110
4.6. CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we considered an M/M/1/k queueing system with non-preemptive priority. We
developed the equations of the steady state probabilities and derived the matrix form solution of the
steady-state probabilities. We also gave some performance measures of the system. Some numerical
examples were presented to demonstrate how the various parameters of the model influence the
behavior of the system as given above.

111