False. Windows XP is a preemptive multitasking system. All contemporary operating systems are designed to use preemptive multitasking.
this is my doubt about the non-preemptive priority scheduling. i m doing bachelor of engineering in IT and this question in end semester exam. the question is as follows:Assume you have the following jobs to be executed with one processor, with the jobs arriving in the order listed here:Process Burst Time PriorityP1 80 5P2 20 1P3 10 3P4 20 2P5 50 4Suppose the system uses priority scheduling. Draw Gantt chart and calculate average waiting time for the processes.My doubt is:suppose if we were to use non-preemptive priority scheduling, the question says the jobs arriving in the order listed, so as per the order P1 will arrive first so it will get the CPU first and in non-preemptive once a job gets CPU it will not leave CPU till the process finishes, then as per the order P2 will come and same thing repeats.... so it acts like FCFS scheduling and priority is of no use here. But my lecturer says we have to follow the priority and P2 will come first, but the line the jobs arriving in the order listed is still not letting me agree with my lecturer. Can anyone help out?
if block Ki of size Ni is to be transferred to memory M1 & the blocks occupying the space in M1 can't be preempted by block Ki then it is necessaray to find or create a space of Ni words inM1 . this process is called non preemptive allocation....non preemptive allocation can't make efficient use of memory allocation.whenever preemptive allocation is used for efficient use of the available memory space and rellocation can be done.
why we use disk scheduling in c ?
There are different scheduling mechanisms that RTOSes can use to be deterministic. The most common is preemptive scheduling. In this model, each task has a relative priority. The highest priority task that is ready to run gets control of the processor. This is what provides deterministic behavior. When no task is ready to run the system will go to the idle loop. An RTOS is simply a tool to acheive a deterministic system. It is up to the developer to build a system that is capable of meeting its deadlines. A poorly designed system can encounter situations where important tasks do not get processor time because a higher priority task has not released.
Both. Windows 3.1 and earlier used cooperative multitasking. Windows 95 and later use preemptive multitasking.
False. Windows XP is a preemptive multitasking system. All contemporary operating systems are designed to use preemptive multitasking.
Windows NT 3.1 was the first to use a preemptive multitasking. However, it was Windows 95 which had true multitasking.
Disk Scheduling and Task Scheduler and different terms. Disk Scheduling: Input / Output Scheduling or I/O Scheduling is a term used to describe the method computer operating systems decide the order that block I/O. Task Scheduler: Task Scheduler is a component of Microsoft Windows that provides the ability to schedule the launch of programs or scripts at pre-defined times or after specified time intervals. It was first introduced in the Windows 95 Plus! pack as System Agent [1] but was renamed to Task Scheduler in Windows 98. The Windows Event Log service must be running before the Task Scheduler starts up.
this is my doubt about the non-preemptive priority scheduling. i m doing bachelor of engineering in IT and this question in end semester exam. the question is as follows:Assume you have the following jobs to be executed with one processor, with the jobs arriving in the order listed here:Process Burst Time PriorityP1 80 5P2 20 1P3 10 3P4 20 2P5 50 4Suppose the system uses priority scheduling. Draw Gantt chart and calculate average waiting time for the processes.My doubt is:suppose if we were to use non-preemptive priority scheduling, the question says the jobs arriving in the order listed, so as per the order P1 will arrive first so it will get the CPU first and in non-preemptive once a job gets CPU it will not leave CPU till the process finishes, then as per the order P2 will come and same thing repeats.... so it acts like FCFS scheduling and priority is of no use here. But my lecturer says we have to follow the priority and P2 will come first, but the line the jobs arriving in the order listed is still not letting me agree with my lecturer. Can anyone help out?
if block Ki of size Ni is to be transferred to memory M1 & the blocks occupying the space in M1 can't be preempted by block Ki then it is necessaray to find or create a space of Ni words inM1 . this process is called non preemptive allocation....non preemptive allocation can't make efficient use of memory allocation.whenever preemptive allocation is used for efficient use of the available memory space and rellocation can be done.
why we use disk scheduling in c ?
In the past (and perhaps currently as well) it has used round-robin, at one time 1 second but since updated to .1 seconds. It may also have other features such as preemptive abilities. Priority fair scheduling.
My name is Thomas Hards. The answer is yes =].
The Medical Office Scheduler by SoftAid is the easiest scheduling software available for medical office. The package is full-service so cost depends on size of office and number of users. The company provides quotes upon request.
The time between when a thread is scheduled and when it begins to execute. Theoretically, in a preemptive OS the dispatch latency for a high-priority thread should be very low. However, in practice preemptive OSs are non-preemptive at times; for example, while running an interrupt handler. The duration of the longest possible non-preemptive interval is said to be the worst-case dispatch latency of an OS.
same as linux use.