### Table 3: Normalized throughput of the kernel-level schedulers.

in An Efficient Kernel-Level Scheduling Methodology for Multiprogrammed Shared Memory Multiprocessors

1999

"... In PAGE 7: ... We use the results from homogeneous workloads in closed system mode, to compute the normalized through- put of the kernel schedulers under different degrees of mul- tiprogramming, using equations 10 and 11. Table3 illus- trates the results. Vtq-dss has the best normalized through- put for both values of a216 , followed by sw-dss and ssw- dss.... ..."

Cited by 16

### Table 3: Normalized throughput of the kernel-level schedulers.

in An Efficient Kernel-level Scheduling Methodology for Multiprogrammed Shared Memory Multiprocessors

"... In PAGE 7: ... We use the results from homogeneous workloads in closed system mode, to compute the normalized through- put of the kernel schedulers under different degrees of mul- tiprogramming, using equations 10 and 11. Table3 illus- trates the results. Vtq-dss has the best normalized through- put for both values of M, followed by sw-dss and ssw- dss.... ..."

### Table 3: Normalized throughput of the kernel-level schedulers.

in An Efficient Kernel-level Scheduling Methodology for Multiprogrammed Shared Memory Multiprocessors

"... In PAGE 7: ... We use the results from homogeneous workloads in closed system mode, to compute the normalized through- put of the kernel schedulers under different degrees of mul- tiprogramming, using equations 10 and 11. Table3 illus- trates the results. Vtq-dss has the best normalized through- put for both values of M, followed by sw-dss and ssw- dss.... ..."

### Table 1. Low-level Adlib schedules

"... In PAGE 10: ... These lower-level schedules do not directly depend on the Range and Group classes. The lower level schedules are tabulated in Table1 . Here words means con- tiguous memory blocks of constant (for a given schedule instance) size.... ..."

### Table 6.6: Minimum, mean and maximum latencies using partitioning and request level scheduling.

2005

### Table 5: Performance of GMRES(10)-ILUT(p, ), with p = 10 and = 0:0001 using level scheduling for the triangular system solutions.

1996

"... In PAGE 18: ... This depends largely on the parameters used in the factorization. For comparison, we show in Table5 typical execution times using an optimized ILUT precon- ditioned GMRES approach. The ILUT(p; ) preconditioner described in [45] is a dual-threshold based incomplete LU factorization which performs numerical dropping based on a relative toler- ance and which retains at most the p largest ll-in elements in L and in U.... ..."

Cited by 52

### Table 2: Experimental Factors and Levels for Web Server Scheduling Experiments Factor Levels

2003

"... In PAGE 10: ...ytes by less than 0.3%). However, it is larger than any other job size in the empirical workload, and depending on the probe arrival time, could extend the simulated completion time slightly. Table2 summarizes the factors and levels used in our experiments. For space reasons, only a subset of the experiments is reported in this paper.... ..."

### TABLE I P2P STREAMING SYSTEMS CHARACTERISTICS P2P System Architecture Media coding Packet level scheduling

### Table 2. Experimental Factors and Levels for Simulation Study of Web Server Scheduling Factor Levels

"... In PAGE 3: ... The system load is xed at 95% for all of the experiments. Table2 sum- marizes the factors and levels used in the trace-driven simulation experiments. We consider two main performance metrics: Slowdown: The slowdown metric is de ned as the response time of a job divided by the ideal response time if it were the sole job in the system.... ..."