ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Minimizing total completion time on uniform machines with deadline constraints
Full text PdfPdf (437 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG) archive
Volume 2 ,  Issue 1  (January 2006) table of contents
Pages: 95 - 115  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISSN:1549-6325
Authors
Teofilo F. Gonzalez  University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA
Joseph Y.-T. Leung  New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ
Michael Pinedo  Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 57,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1125994.1126000
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Consider n independent jobs and m uniform machines in parallel. Each job has a processing requirement and a deadline. All jobs are available for processing at time t = 0. Job j must complete its processing before or at its deadline and preemptions are allowed. A set of jobs is said to be feasible if there exists a schedule that meets all the deadlines. We present a polynomial-time algorithm that given a feasible set of jobs, constructs a schedule that minimizes the total completion time ∑Cj. In the classical α | β | γ scheduling notation, this problem is referred to as Qm | prmt, &dmacr;j | ∑Cj. It is well known that a generalization of this problem with regard to its machine environment results in an NP-hard problem.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Baker, K. R. 1974. Introduction to Sequencing and Scheduling, Wiley, New York.
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
Gonzalez, T. F. 1978. Minimizing the mean and maximum finishing time on uniform processors. Tech. Rep. CS-78-22. Dept. Comput. Sci. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
7
 
8
Graham, R. L., Lawler, E. L., Lenstra, J. K., and Rinnooy Kan, A. H. G. 1979. Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Ann. Discrete Math. 5, 287--326.
 
9
Horvath, E. C., Lam, S., and Sethi, R. 1976. A level algorithm for preemptive scheduling. J. ACM. 23, 317--327.
 
10
Lawler, E. L. 1982. Recent results in the theory of machine scheduling. In Mathematical Programming: The State of the Art. A. Bachem, M. Grotschel, and B. Korte, Eds. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
 
11
Lenstra, J. K. 1977. Sequencing by Enumerative Methods. Mathematical Centre Tracts 69, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
 
12
13
 
14
McCormick, S. T., and Pinedo, M. 1995. Scheduling n independent on m uniform machines with both flow time and makespan objectives: A parametric analysis. ORSA J. Comput. 7, 63--77.
 
15
Pinedo, M. 2002. Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms and Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
 
16
 
17
Smith, W. E. 1956. Various optimizers for single-stage production. Nav. Res. Log. Quart. 3, 59--66.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Teofilo F. Gonzalez: colleagues
Joseph Y.-T. Leung: colleagues
Michael Pinedo: colleagues