Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L = n p
n
= n r
n
(1 - r) = r / (1 - r) = /(-)
n=0
n=1
In an analogous way we derive for the expected number Q of customers waiting in
the line that
Q = (n-1) p
n
= r
2
/ (1 - r).
n=1
0 1 i- 1 i i +1
10
Remark: Q = L - 1
.
P(server is busy) = L 1
.
r = r
2
/ ( 1 - r )
The table below shows the L and Q values for some server utilizations:
r 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.95 0.99 0.995
L .1111 .2500 .4286 .6666 1.000 1.500 2.333 4.000 9.000 19.00 99.00 199.0
Q .0111 .0500 .1286 .2666 0.500 0.900 1.633 3.200 8.100 18.05 98.01 198.0
From that simple example we derive an important CONSEQUENCE for practice:
HIGH UTILIZATION of server systems is always equivalent to
GREAT WAITING LINES (and , consequently, to high waiting times).
L
9
4
2
1
0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 r
Graph for L as function of r
5.4. BASIC NOTIONS AND CLASSICAL MODELS
Classical queueing models investigate the following situation:
At random moments jobs or customers or clients arrive in a service station,
wait in a queue until their service will be started,
will be served a random time, and
leave the system after service completion.
For a corresponding model we have to formalize the following parts.
a) The arrival pattern (the arrival process).
In all here considered models we assume that
- arrivals come one at a time: 0 = t
0
< t
1
< t
2
< ... < t
n
< ..., where t
n
denotes the arrival
time of the n-th customer;
-
i
:= t
i+1
- t
i
represents the interarrival time for job i, i 1
11
- ASSUMPTION for the arrival process:
{
i
, i1 } is a sequence of i.i.d. (independent and identical distributed) random
variables with distribution function A( . ), i.e., A(t) := P(
1
< t ), t0.
It holds E(
1
) < .
- := 1 / E(
1
) is called arrival rate (e.g., for A(t)=1-exp(-t) holds =).
b) The queue.
First, there may be various queueing disciplines how the server chooses waiting jobs from the
queue. The most popular ones are FIFO (first in first out), LIFO (last in first out), random,
with various priorities and others. Here we consider only FIFO, where jobs are served in the
same sequence as they arrived.
A second characteristic for the queue is the waiting line capacity. We distinguish between lost
systems (no waiting line), waiting systems (infinite waiting capacity), and finite systems
(finite waiting capacity).
c) The service pattern.
There exist single-server-, multi-server-, infinite-server-systems. We assume that
- all servers work independent of each other and that they are identical with respect
to the service time distribution;
- one server serves one job at a time;
-
i
denote the service time for job i, i1
- ASSUMPTION for the service process:
{
i
, i1 } is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with distribution function B( . ),
i.e., B(t):= P(
1
<t), t0. It holds E(
1
) < .
- := 1 / E(
1
) is called service rate (of a single server)
(e.g., for B(t)=1-exp(-t) we have = ).
To abbreviate the description of queueing models is used the so-called KENDALLs code.
We consider the variant with four elements A/B/s/n, where
A, B describe the arrival and service process, e.g.,
M - Exponential distribution (Markov property),
D - Deterministic process, or
G - General distribution;
s 1 and n 0 are integers, which denote the number of servers respectively the
number of waiting places.
For instance the booking clerk is an example for an M/M/1/ - model.
The most important problems investigated in queueing theory are answers to the following
questions.
1. Under which conditions does exist a steady-state regime?
2. Definition of probabilities, distribution functions, and expectations.
3. Comparison and optimization of queueing systems (according to various criteria).
Here we consider all models under the following main
ASSUMPTION: We always consider the systems in steady-state.
Interesting performance measures (for the steady-state) are
(I) Probabilities for defined states as
p(0) the probability that the system is empty,
12
p(k) the probability that k jobs are in the system,
p
w
- the probability that an arriving job has to wait,
p
v
- the probability that an arriving job is lost.
(II) Distribution functions (d.f.) for defined random variables as
W(
.
) - d.f. for the waiting time,
V(
.
) - d.f. for the total time a job spends in the system (the response or sojourn time).
(III) Expectations for defined random variables as
L := k p(k) - the expected number of jobs in the system
k=1
Q := k p(k+s) - the expected number of jobs in the queue
k=1
s
S := k p(k) + s p(k) - the expected number of busy servers
k=1
k=s+1
W, V - expected waiting time, expected sojourn time
There exist some important relations:
V = W + E(
1
) (4.1)
L = Q + S (4.2)
A broad application finds LITTLEs law in two forms:
and
Q = W
From this and (4.2) follows
S = / = E(
1
)
In these laws the most important performance measures of a queueing system are related to
each other respectively to the input data arrival and service intensity of the system.
With respect to the Existence of steady-state regime we have some general results.
(a) For G/G/s/ - models it exists if and only if
E(
1
) < s E(
1
) or < s (4.3)
(b) For G/G/s/n - models with n < it always exists.
Remark:
Condition (4.3) means that the arrival rate should be lower than the sum of service rates of
all servers or equivalently that the offered load should be lower than the service capacities.
Next we give some helpful formulas for models, which are important for us.
L = V
13
(A) The M/M/1/ - model
1. Steady-state regime exists iff r = / < 1.
For the steady-state regime holds:
2. p(0) = 1 - r
p(k) = r
k
(1 - r) , k=1, 2, ...
p
w
= 1 - p(0) = r
3. L = r / (1 - r)
Q = r
2
/ (1 - r)
S = r
W = Q / = r / ( - )
V = L / = 1 / ( - ) = W + 1 / = W / r
(B) The M/M/s/ - model
For Example 2 in Chapter 5.2 (Harbour landing places) we assume s = 3, n = , and
A(t) = 1 - exp(- t), t 0, > 0, respectively B(t) = 1 - exp(- t), t 0, > 0.
In accordance with the Kendall-code we have an M/M/3/ - model. For an arbitrary number s
of landing places we get an M/M/s/ - model. Obviously, Assumption EXP is fulfilled. Thus
we can apply MCM.
Step 1:
Again as a state we take the number of jobs in the system. Thus we get Z = {0, 1, 2, ... }.
Step 2: Instead of the definition of intensities we develop the corresponding Markov graph,
which in the present example is given below.
2 3 (s-1) s s s
Step 3: Application of the balance principle to derive the system (3.5) of equations. We get
p(0) = p(1)
( + ) p(1) = p(0) + 2 p(2)
[+(s-1)] p(s-1) = p(s-2) + s p(s)
(+s) p(k) = p(k) + s p(k+1) , k =s, s+1, ...
Step 4:
Solution of (3.5) and the normalizing equation (3.6), using the notion r = / , yields
s
p(0) = 1 / { r
k
/ k! + r
s+1
/ [ s! (s-r)] } (4.4)
k=0
1 / k! , k = 1(1)s;
p(k) = p(0) r
k
(4.5)
1 / ( s! s
k-s
) , k > s;
Other results are:
steady-state regime exists iff r < s or <
.
s .
0 1 2 s-1 s s+1
14
p
w
= p(s) s / (s
- ) (4.6)
Q = r
p
w
/ /s - r) = p(s)
s
r /( s - r )
2
(4.7)
S = r
L = Q + S = Q + r (4.8)
W = Q / = p
w
/ (s
- ) (4.9)
With the above formulas we can answer an important for practice question.
QUESTION:
Which investment is better - to install 3 new additional landing places or to modernize the 3
existing places?
Here we answer the simplified problem:
What is better - two slow servers (with service rate ) or a single quick server (with service
rate 2)?
To get an answer we compare the following 3 variants.
Variant 1:
= 6 ships per day, = 4 ships per day, s = 2, one common waiting line.
Variant 2:
= 6 ships per day, = 8 ships per day, s = 1.
Variant 3:
Two independent service stations with own waiting line, = 3 ships per day and = 4
ships per day.
Variant 1 can be modelled as an M/M/2/ - model with r = / = 1.5.
From equ. (4.4) - (4.8) we compute:
p
(1)
(0) = 1 / { 1 + 1.5 + 2.25/2 + 1.5
3
/[2*(2-1.5)]} = 1 / 7 = 0.142857
p
(1)
(2) = p
(1)
(0) r
2
/ 2 = p
(1)
(0) 1.125 = 0.160714
p
(1)
w
= p
(1)
(2) 2 4 / (8 - 6) = 9/14 = 0.642857
Q
(1)
= r p
(1)
w
/ (2 - r) = 1.5 9 / (14 0.5) = 27/14 = 1.928571
L
(1)
= Q
(1)
+ r = 3.428571
Variant 2 is an M/M/1/ - model with r = 0.75. The corresponding formulas yield:
p
(2)
(0) = 1 - r = 0.25
p
(2)
w
= 1 - p
(2)
(0) = 0.75
Q
(2)
= r
2
/ (1 - r) = 2.25
L
(2)
= r / (1 - r) = 3.00
Variant 3 leads to two isolated M/M/1/ - models with r = 0.75.
15
Then we have for the i-th model, i=1, 2: L
i
= 3 and Q
i
= 2.25
and for the whole system L
(3)
= 6 and Q
(3)
= 4.5.
What can we conclude from these results?
Conclusion 1.
The union of two independent service systems (Variant 3) to one system with common
waiting line (Variant 1) leads to a substantial improvement of service quality.
Thus for the above numerical example L
(1)
amounts only 57.14 % of L
(3)
and Q
(1)
amounts
only 42.86 % of Q
(3)
.
Conclusion 2.
The replacement of 2 slow servers (Variant 1) by one fast server (Variant 2) leads to
contradictory results.
For the considered example L
(2)
amounts only 87.5 % of L
(1)
, but Q
(2)
amounts 116.67 % of
Q
(1)
.
Which variant to prefer? Without additional assumptions, e.g., some gain and cost
structure (for the steady-state regime) an answer is not possible. For that let denote
c
s
- service cost per time unit (hour, day,...) and per server,
c
w
- waiting cost per time unit and per waiting customer,
g - gain per served customer .
Then we can consider the criterion function
G(s) = g - [ s
c
s
+ c
w
Q(s) ]. (4.10)
G(s) represents the expected income per time unit in the steady-state regime for a M/M/s/ -
model.
Remark: For maximization of G we have to minimize the expected cost part
C(s) := s c
s
+ c
w
Q(s). (4.11)
Therefore, the optimal number s* of servers is influenced only by the cost factors for the
servers and for waiting customers. The optimum must be a compromise. We solve the
problem for some relations of these two cost parts.
(i) c
s
= c
w
/ 2:
In this case we calculate from (4.11) that
C
(1)
(2) = 2c
s
+ 2c
s
Q
(1)
(2) = 2c
s
41/14 = 5.8571 c
s
and
C
(2)
(1) = 1c
s
+ 2c
s
Q
(2)
(1) = 5.5000 c
s
.
Thus variant 2, the single fast server, is advantageous.
(ii) c
s
= c
w
/ 4:
Now we get C
(1)
(2) = 9.71 c
s
and C
(2)
(1) = 10.00 c
s
. Here Variant 1 is better.
Conclusion: The answer which variant outperforms the other one depends on the relation of
corresponding cost parameters.
Let us briefly investigate another question: Which is the optimal number s* of servers?
From equ. (4.3) we know that steady-state regime exists for an M/M/s/ - model iff s > /
or s > /. The answer, naturally, depends on what means optimal. We consider two simple
criterion functions.
16
A) The optimal (minimal) number of servers to reach a given expected sojourn time.
To be more concrete we assume that:
- ships arrive at a rate of = 3.5 ships/day,
- service rate of an unload/load station is = 1 ship/day, and we have
- to define an s* : V(s*) 36 hours
SOLUTION: With the assumed data we have r = / , i.e., at least s* 4 must be. We start
with s=4:
p(0) = 1 / [ 1 + 3.5 + 3.5
2
/2 + 3.5
3
/6 + 3.5
4
/24 + 3.5
5
/(24*0.5)] = 1 / 67.791666 = 0.014751
p(4) = p(0)*3.5
4
/42 = 0.092233
Q(4) = p(4)*4*3.5/(4 - 3.5)2 = 5.165028 ships
W(4) = Q(4) / 3.5 = 1.4757 days
V(4) = W(4) + 1 / = 2.4757 days = 59.42 hours
We see that the goal 36 h can not be reached with s = 4.
For s=5 we get:
p(0) = 0.025898
p(5) = 0.113351
Q(5) = 0.881622 ships
V(5) = 1.25189 days 30.05 h
Thus the solution suggests to install 5 unload/load stations. Then the expected sojourn time of
a ship in the harbour will be approximately 30 hours.
B) The cost/gain-optimal number of servers as above. We have
G(s) = g - [ s c
s
+ c
w
Q(s) ] , s / , and C(s) = sc
s
+ c
w
Q(s).
Let = 6 ships/day and = 4 ships/day. (Variant 1)
a) Case c
s
= c
w
/2.
For different number s we calculate
C(2) = c
s
[2 + 21.928571] 5.857 c
s
C(3) = c
s
[3 + 20.236842] 3.474 c
s
C(4) = c
s
[4 + 2 { >0} ] > 4.000 c
s
Thus s* = 3 is optimal and the maximal expected gain equals G(3) = 6
g - 3.474 c
s
.
b) Case c
s
= 2c
w
.
In a similar manner we get
C(2) = c
s
[2 + 0.5 1.928571] 2.964 c
s
C(3) = c
s
[3 + 0.5 0.236842] 3.118 c
s
Such that s* = 2.
c) Case c
s
= c
w
/8.
Here we derive
C(2) = c
s *
[2 + 8
*
1.928571] 17.429 c
s
C(3) = c
s *
[3 + 8
*
0.236842] 4.895 c
s
C(4) = c
s *
[4 + 8
*
0.044751] 4.358 c
s
C(5) = c
s *
[5 + 8
*
{ > 0 } ] > 5 c
s
and s* = 4.
CONCLUSION 3:
The maximization of the goal function (4.10) can be based on two properties:
(i) If cost factor c
s
increases then the optimal solution s* decreases.
17
(ii) If cost factor c
w
increases then the optimal solution s* increases too.
SUMMARY:
The MCM-approach is
* very simple,
* very usefull and has a
* wide range of applications.
However:
A harbour is a finite area, i.e., there is a finite number of waiting places. Up to now we
have assumed infinite many waiting places. In practice however often the waiting capacity is
finite. Some models of such kind will be considered in the last chapter.
5.5. Finite service systems
We have a finite service system if there are finite many servers and waiting places, i.e., the
maximum number of customers in the system is a finite positive integer, say S. Obviously,
steady-state regime always exists for finite systems because of these systems have only a
finite state set.
5.5.1. The M/M/1/S-1 model
In this model we have a single server and S-1 waiting places. If all waiting places are busy an
arriving customer will be rejected or lost. We assume exponentially distributed interarrival
times and service times with distribution functions A(t) = 1 - exp(- t), t 0, > 0, and
B(t) = 1 - exp(- t), t 0, > 0, respectively. Because of Assumption EXP is fulfilled we
can apply MCM.
Step 1: As usual we define as the state of the system the number of customers in system. Thus
we have Z = {0, 1, 2, ..., S}.
Step 2: The corresponding Markov graph is given below.
Step 3: Again, putting r = /, we derive the system (3.5) of equations by applying the
balance principle.
p(0) = p(1)
( + ) p(i) = p(i-1) + p(i+1) , i=1..S-1
p(S) = p(S-1)
Step 4: Solution of (3.5) together with the normalizing equation (3.6). From the first equation
in step 1 we get p(1) = r p(0). It is easy to see that using the result for the (i-1)-st equation
we get from the i-th equation that p(i+1) = r p(i) = r
2
p(i-1) = ...= r
i
p(0), i=1..S-1. Putting
this into the normalizing equation we have
p(0) = 1 / (1 + r + r
2
+ ... + r
S
).
Now we have to distinguish between two cases.
Case r = 1: Here we get p(i) = 1 / (S+1) for i=0..S, i.e., all steady-state probabilities have
the same probability.
S
Case r 1: Then, using the equality r
i
= (1 - r
S+1
) / (1 - r), we calculate
i=0
0 1 2 i S-1 S
18
p(0) = (1 - r) / (1 - r
S+1
) (5.1)
and
p(i) = r
i
(1 - r) / (1 - r
S+1
), i=1..S. (5.2)
Once more we remark:
! Steady-state regime exists without any conditions on the relation of and !!!
The calculation of performance measures is easy for case r = 1:
For S 1 we get L(S) = S/2 and Q(S) = S/2 (S-1) / (S+1).
Case r 1:
S
S
1) L(S) = ip(i) = (1 - r) / (1 - r
S+1
) i r
i
= = r / (1 - r) [1 - (S+1) r
S
+ S r
S+1
]/(1 - r
S+1
)
i=1
i=1
S
2) Q(S) = (i-1) p(i) = L(S) - [1-p(0)] = L - (r-r
S+1
) / (1-r
S+1
) =
i=1
= r / (1- r) [1- (S+1)r
S
+ Sr
S+1
- (1-r
S
)(1-r)] / (1- r
S+1
)
= r
2
/ (1 - r) [ 1 -Sr
S-1
+(S-1)r
S
] / (1 - r
S+1
)
3) P( rejection of a customer) = P(all places are occupied) = p(S)
4) Intensity of the offered load :
Rate of rejected parts: p(S)
Rate of accepted load: [1 - p(S)]
An interesting problem is to ask Which is the optimal S?.
For this we need a criterion. We take the criterion Maximum of expected reward per time
unit in the steady-state regime.
As gain and cost structure we assume the following:
g - gain per served customer
w - waiting cost per waiting customer per time unit
a - rejection cost per rejected customer
Let G(S) denote the expected reward earned from the M/M/1/S-1 model per time unit in the
steady-state regime. Then with the assumed gain and cost structure we have
G(S) = [ 1 - p(S) ] g - w Q(S) - ap(S) = g - [ p(S)(a + g) + wQ(S)].
The optimisation problem is to define an S* such that G(S*) G(S) for S 1.
To formulate a solution algorithm for that problem we use the following
PROPERTY 5.1.
(i) For 0 < r < 1 it holds :
Q( S ) is an increasing and concave function of S.
p( S ) is a decreasing and convex function of S.
(ii) For r 1 it holds :
Q(S) is an increasing and convex function of S.
p(S) is a decreasing and convex function of S.
19
From Property 5.1 follows that for all r 1 the criterion function G(S) is a concave function of
S. From the concavity property of the criterion function we get the following
Optimization algorithm: (for r 1)
1. Choose an initial value S
(0)
and compute G
(0)
= G(S
(0)
).
2. S := S
(0)
+ 1.
3. If G(S) > G
(0)
then begin repeat
S := S + 1
until G(S)<G(S-1);
S* := S-1;
end
else begin repeat
S := S - 1
until G(S)< G(S+1)
S* :=S +1
end.
The idea of the algorithm is simple. We choose an arbitrary starting value for S and calculate
the corresponding gain. Now we increase S by 1. If we get a higher gain for the new S+1 then
we are moving in the right direction to the optima (this follows from the concavity property).
Otherwise we have to move into the opposite direction, i.e., we must decrease the initial S.
5.5.2. The multi-server lost system M/M/s/0
Typical characteristics of the M/M/s/0 model are exponentially distributed interarrival and
service times with parameters respectively , s 1 identical servers, and the fact that an
arriving customer is lost if all servers are busy. Again, steady-state regime exists in all cases.
A call centre is a typical situation, which can be modeled by an M/M/s/0 lost system. Another
example is the following.
Example 5.1
Given: A small logistic company with s = 3 carriers. Jobs arrive with exponentially
distributed interarrival times (let the parameter be > 0). If no carrier is free the arriving job
is rejected. A transportation job needs an exponentially distributed (service) time with
parameter > 0.
Demanded: a) Which is the average utilization of a carrier when service time is 24 hours?
b) Which is the probability that an arriving job is rejected?
Solution
Obviously, MCM is applicable. Let r = /. Here we define now the state as the number of
jobs in the system, which is equivalent to the number of carriers in use. The corresponding
Markov graph is
0 1 2 3
2 3
In the typical way (see examples above) we calculate
p
1
= r p
0
, p
2
= r
2
/2! p
0
,
p
3
= r
3
/3! p
0
, and p
0
= [1 + r + r
2
/2! + r
3
/3!]
-1
.
20
Thus we can answer both questions from above.
a) The average utilization U of a single carrier is equal to U = 1/3 p
1
+ 2/3 p
2
+ 3/3 p
3
.
To
explain that result we notice that utilization means the average portion of time the carrier is
busy (in steady-state regime). With probability p
1
one carrier is busy, and this portion of
time we have to allocate equally to all three available carriers. The similar argument holds
for states 2 and 3.
b) An arriving job is lost if and only if all carriers are busy. Therefore the probability P
V
that a
job is lost is equal to P
V
= P(job is lost) = p
3
.
Let us calculate a numerical example with s = 3, = 12 jobs per day = 12 d
-1
, and an expected
service time E(service time for a single transportation job) = 6 h. From Chapter 2 we get
= 1/(6 h) = 4 d
-1
. Thus we have r = 3. With the above derived formulas we calculate
p
0
= 1 / [1 + 3 + 9/2 + 9/2] = 1/13, p
1
= 3/12 , and p
2
= p
3
= 9/26.
Consequently, we get
U = 1/13 + 3/13 + 9/26 = 17/26 0,65385
and
P
V
= 9/26 0,34615.
It is easy to generalize the derived formulas to arbitrary number of servers. Here we give
formulas for some important performance measures for the M/M/s/0 model with arbitrary
s 1 in the steady-state regime.
a) Traffic intensity r = /
b) Steady-state probabilities
1
0
0
!
) (
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
= =
s
k
k
k
r
empty is system P p
s k p
k
r
system in are customers k P p
k
k
... 0 ,
!
) (
0
= = = (Erlangs formula)
p
k
= 0 fr k > s
c) Lost probability P
V
= p
s
d) Arrival rate of accepted customers
A
= [1 p
s
]
e) Utilization (of a single server) U =
A
/ (s)
f) Expected number of busy servers = expected number of customers in system
S = L =
A
/ = r [1 p
s
] = U s = r (1 P
V
)
g) Expected times V = 1 / and W = 0.
Example 5.1 Continuation
We have now an idea: To improve the utilization of carriers we register maximum two
transportation jobs in case all carriers are in the way. Thus we get an M/M/s/n model with
s = 3 and n = 2.
21
5.5.3. The multi-server system M/M/s/n.
We investigate now the continuation of Example 5.1, i.e., we derivate formulas for the
M/M/3/2 system. To take the number of used carriers as a state is not sufficient because of in
the case all carriers are in use we have three possibilities no customer is waiting, a single
one or two are waiting. Therefore we define the state as the number of customers in the
system. The Markov graph now is shown below.
0 1 2 3 4 5
2 3 3 3
From this graph, applying again the balance principle, we finally get the following equations
for the steady-state probabilities:
p
1
= r p
0
, p
2
= r
2
/2! p
0
,
p
3
= r
3
/3! p
0
,
p
4
= r/3 p
3
= r/3 r
3
/3! p
0
,
p
5
= r/3 p
4
= (r/3)
2
r
3
/3! p
0
, and
p
0
= [1 + r + r
2
/2! + r
3
/3! + r/3 r
3
/3! + (r/3)
2
r
3
/3!]
-1
.
The two performance measures that were ask for are
U = 1/3 p
1
+ 2/3 p
2
+ 3/3 (p
3
+ p
4
+ p
5
)
and
P
V
= P(job is lost) = p
5
.
For a numerical example we take the same data as in 5.5.2, i.e., we assume s = 3, = 12day
-1
,
and E(service time for a single transportation job) = 6 h. Again we have r = 3. From the above
given formulas we calculate
p
0
= 1 / [1 + 3 + 9/2 + 9/2 + 9/2(1 + 1)] = 1/22 0.04545,
p
1
= 3/22, p
2
= p
3
= 9/44, p
4
= p
5
= 9/44,
U = 1/3 [(6 + 18 + 27)/44 + 18/44] = 35/44 0,7954, and
P
V
= 9/44 0,2045.
We remark that the interesting performance measures of the M/M/3/2 model in comparison to
the M/M/3/0 model are improved by allowing two waiting places:
The utilization increases from 0,65385 to 0,7954 and the
lost probability decreases from 0,34615 to 0,2045.
In the same way we can calculate corresponding formulas for the general M/M/s/n model with
s 1 and 1 n < .
a) Traffic intensity r = /
b) Steady-state probabilities
1
1 0
0
! !
= = (
(
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
n
k
k
s s
k
k
s
r
s
r
k
r
p
=
|
.
|
\
|
=
=
K s k
s
r
s
r
s k
k
r
p p
s k
s
k
k
... ,
!
... 0 ,
!
0
p
k
= 0 fr k > s
22
c) Lost probability P
V
= p
s+n
d) Arrival rate of accepted customers
A
= [1 p
s+n
]
e) Utilization (of a single server) U =
A
/ (s)
f) Expected number of customers in system
+
=
=
n s
k
k
p k L
1
g) Expected number of busy servers = expected number of customers in service
=
|
.
|
\
|
+ = =
=
=
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
s
k
k
s
k
k
s
k
k A
p ) k s ( s p s p k / S
h) Expected number of waiting customers
=
+ =
K
s k
k
p ) s k ( Q
1
, which in case r s is
equal to
| |
n n
s
a a n a
a s
a p r
Q ) 1 )( 1 ( 1
) 1 ( !
1
2
0
+
=
+
, where a = r/s.
i) Expected waiting time W = Q /
A
j) p
Service
= P(customer is served without waiting) =
=
1 s
0 k
k
p
k) p
Wait
= P(customer hast o wait) =
+
=
1 n s
s k
k
p
l) Expected sojourn time V = L /
A
Special case s = 1
For abbreviation we denote K = s+n.
a) r 1
p
0
= (1r) / (1r
K+1
)
p
k
= r
k
p
0
, k=0, 1, , K
P
V
= (1r) r
K
/ (1r
K+1
)
L = r / (1r) r / (1r) (K + 1) p
K
= r / (1r) r
K+1
/ (1r
K+1
) (K + 1)
S = 1 p
0
= r (1-p
K
)
Q = L S = r
2
/ (1-r) r (K+r) / (1-r) p
K
b) r = 1
p
k
= 1 / (K+1) , k=0, 1, , K
L = K / 2
Q = K/2 (K-1)/(K+1)