![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Queueing model was copied or moved into Prefetch input queue with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Looks like this should be merged into queuing theory. Charles Matthews 14:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the additions to this article and it could become a good article if this keeps up. However, it is mirroring some of queuing theory. How can we best differentiate the two articles. -- Richard Clegg 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
venkatraman is doing a project using witness a software used for Discrete Event Simulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.195.140 ( talk) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to duplicate much of the content of the Kendall's notation article. It seems like this article should focus more on models than notation, so can we remove most of it from this article, with appropriate linking? 70.250.190.30 ( talk) 02:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be worth adding a section on how the alaytic approach compares to the simulation modeling approach, like the one in Queueing theory but more specific. It is important to understand that the formulas giving accurate reults for waiting time, queue length, etc. exist only for a limited munber of cases. For example, there are formulas for M/M/1, M/M/c and M/G/1, but there are none for M/G/c. But, what is even more important from practical viewpoint, real service systems are virtually never approximated well with those classical queueing models. Consider a bank where customers are served by tellers. The service time distribution is nowhere near exponential distribution, the process may include redirection of clients from one teller to another, the tellers may have different skills, may share resources like printer, etc. Adding any of those complications disposes the classical analytical model, and in most cases it is not possible to derive a new set of formulas. (Transaction processing in computer systems, call center operations - they all are full of such critical details.) Simulation, on the contrary, would always give you the answer with predictable efforts on model building. So, is the queueing theory useful at all? Definitely yes. It provides a good foundation for undertanding the general behavior of service systems. For example, the fact that when mean sevice time equals mean arrival time the queue length may grow infintely is an analytica result of great importance. In a simulation model you will observe that queue length goes up and down but you cannot be sure that there is no finite mean value. I have created anApplet that compares the two approaches: and would like to add the link to the wikipedia article, should the commmunity consider the comparison interesting and relevant to the article. Andrei Andreiborshchev ( talk) 11:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Queueing model was copied or moved into Prefetch input queue with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Looks like this should be merged into queuing theory. Charles Matthews 14:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the additions to this article and it could become a good article if this keeps up. However, it is mirroring some of queuing theory. How can we best differentiate the two articles. -- Richard Clegg 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
venkatraman is doing a project using witness a software used for Discrete Event Simulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.195.140 ( talk) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to duplicate much of the content of the Kendall's notation article. It seems like this article should focus more on models than notation, so can we remove most of it from this article, with appropriate linking? 70.250.190.30 ( talk) 02:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be worth adding a section on how the alaytic approach compares to the simulation modeling approach, like the one in Queueing theory but more specific. It is important to understand that the formulas giving accurate reults for waiting time, queue length, etc. exist only for a limited munber of cases. For example, there are formulas for M/M/1, M/M/c and M/G/1, but there are none for M/G/c. But, what is even more important from practical viewpoint, real service systems are virtually never approximated well with those classical queueing models. Consider a bank where customers are served by tellers. The service time distribution is nowhere near exponential distribution, the process may include redirection of clients from one teller to another, the tellers may have different skills, may share resources like printer, etc. Adding any of those complications disposes the classical analytical model, and in most cases it is not possible to derive a new set of formulas. (Transaction processing in computer systems, call center operations - they all are full of such critical details.) Simulation, on the contrary, would always give you the answer with predictable efforts on model building. So, is the queueing theory useful at all? Definitely yes. It provides a good foundation for undertanding the general behavior of service systems. For example, the fact that when mean sevice time equals mean arrival time the queue length may grow infintely is an analytica result of great importance. In a simulation model you will observe that queue length goes up and down but you cannot be sure that there is no finite mean value. I have created anApplet that compares the two approaches: and would like to add the link to the wikipedia article, should the commmunity consider the comparison interesting and relevant to the article. Andrei Andreiborshchev ( talk) 11:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)