I have a project where I am asked to develop an application to simulate how different page replacement algorithms perform (with varying working set size and stability period). My results:
- Vertical axis: page faults
- Horizontal axis: working set size
- Depth axis: stable period
Are my results reasonable? I expected LRU to have better results than FIFO. Here, they are approximately the same.
For random, stability period and working set size doesnt seem to affect the performance at all? I expected similar graphs as FIFO & LRU just worst performance? If the reference string is highly stable (little branches) and have a small working set size, it should still have less page faults that an application with many branches and big working set size?
More Info
My Python Code | The Project Question
- Length of reference string (RS): 200,000
- Size of virtual memory (P): 1000
- Size of main memory (F): 100
- number of time page referenced (m): 100
- Size of working set (e): 2 - 100
- Stability (t): 0 - 1
Working set size (e) & stable period (t) affects how reference string are generated.
|-----------|--------|------------------------------------|
0 p p+e P-1
So assume the above the the virtual memory of size P. To generate reference strings, the following algorithm is used:
- Repeat until reference string generated
- pick
m
numbers in [p, p+e]. m
simulates or refers to number of times page is referenced
- pick random number, 0 <= r < 1
- if r < t
- generate new p
- else (++p)%P
UPDATE (In response to @MrGomez's answer)
However, recall how you seeded your input data: using random.random,
thus giving you a uniform distribution of data with your controllable
level of entropy. Because of this, all values are equally likely to
occur, and because you've constructed this in floating point space,
recurrences are highly improbable.
I am using random
, but it is not totally random either, references are generated with some locality though the use of working set size and number page referenced parameters?
I tried increasing the numPageReferenced
relative with numFrames
in hope that it will reference a page currently in memory more, thus showing the performance benefit of LRU over FIFO, but that didn't give me a clear result tho. Just FYI, I tried the same app with the following parameters (Pages/Frames ratio is still kept the same, I reduced the size of data to make things faster).
--numReferences 1000 --numPages 100 --numFrames 10 --numPageReferenced 20
The result is
Still not such a big difference. Am I right to say if I increase numPageReferenced
relative to numFrames
, LRU should have a better performance as it is referencing pages in memory more? Or perhaps I am mis-understanding something?
For random, I am thinking along the lines of:
- Suppose theres high stability and small working set. It means that the pages referenced are very likely to be in memory. So the need for the page replacement algorithm to run is lower?
Hmm maybe I got to think about this more :)
UPDATE: Trashing less obvious on lower stablity
Here, I am trying to show the trashing as working set size exceeds the number of frames (100) in memory. However, notice thrashing appears less obvious with lower stability (high t
), why might that be? Is the explanation that as stability becomes low, page faults approaches maximum thus it does not matter as much what the working set size is?
See Question&Answers more detail:
os