Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T16:59:26.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The µc-rule is not optimal in the second node of the tandem queue: a counterexample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2016

Arie Hordijk*
Affiliation:
University of Leiden
Ger Koole*
Affiliation:
University of Leiden
*
Postal address for both authors: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Leiden, P.O. Box 9512, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Postal address for both authors: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Leiden, P.O. Box 9512, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this note we give a counterexample which shows that the µc-rule is not optimal in the second node of the tandem queue. This counterexample contradicts the interchange argument in Nain [1] and Nain et al. [2].

Type
Letters to the Editor
Copyright
Copyright © Applied Probability Trust 1992 

References

[1] Nain, P. (1989) Interchange arguments for classical scheduling problems in queues. Syst. Control Lett. 12, 177184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Nain, P., Tsoucas, P. and Walrand, J. (1989) Interchange arguments in stochastic scheduling. J. Appl. Prob. 27, 815826.Google Scholar