Java Modelling Tools Activity
Brought to you by:
danieledipompeo,
g_serazzi
Activity for Java Modelling Tools
-
Daniele modified ticket #143
JVMA what-if bug open model
-
Problem solved in the class src/main/java/jmt/jmva/analytical/ExactModel.java, where the correct line of code had been commented out and replaced with an incorrect one.
-
JVMA what-if bug open model
-
@carlinocalogero fixed the bug. Problem solved in the class src/main/java/jmt/jmva/analytical/ExactModel.java, where the correct line of code had been commented out and replaced with an incorrect one.
-
Giuliano Casale committed [3a9f94] on Code
Integrated fixes to batches
-
Giuliano Casale committed [50fa05] on Code
Integration of latest JMCH changes. Increased version to BETA2.
-
augusto saldivar created ticket #149
save graph in simulation results
-
Giuliano Casale created ticket #148
Switchover times no longer work
-
Giuliano Casale committed [9b8c68] on Code
Initial integration of vacation feature.
-
serazzi posted a comment on discussion Help
no problem Zahra, we are happy to help people use JMT! Best regards, giuseppe
-
zahra zafarzade posted a comment on discussion Help
Dear Giuseppe, Thank you very much for your clear and well-structured response. The explanation clarified the topic for me. I truly appreciate your support and time. Best regards, Zahra
-
Anonymous posted a comment on discussion Help
Hi, below you will find answers to your questions. Q---- Which parameter of the hyperexponential distribution does JMT change when I control the arrival rate in What-if? A----The WhatIF with Arrival Rate as control parameter change the MEAN values (derived from the arrival rates required as input parameters from the WhatIF). Keeping fixed the coefficient of variation CV and the probability p , JSIM compute the rates λ₁, λ₂ necessary to obtain the Mean and CV required. Please note that the first time...
-
Hi everyone, In my model, I defined the arrival process using a hyperexponential distribution (e.g., with λ₁ = 1.5, λ₂ = 6.0 and probability p = 0.2). When I run a What-if analysis using arrival rate as the control parameter, I’m confused about how JMT applies this variation in the context of a hyperexponential distribution. My key questions: Which parameter of the hyperexponential distribution does JMT change when I control the arrival rate in What-if? Is it just the mean (adjusted through scaling)?...
-
Problem with modes
-
Problem with branch probabilities
-
Problem wit branch probabilities
-
SJF model returns incorrect Delay results
-
Giuliano Casale committed [d5f845] on Code
Reinstanted mva examples.
-
Inhomogeneous Poisson process
-
Allow recording of performance metrics seen upon arrival or upon departure to/from a station
-
Cache GUI pending development in JSIMgraph
-
Add new warning if no priority scheduling policy is configured and at least one class has a priority population
-
Advanced queueing extensions
-
Add templates with a gallery of elementary models (e.g., M/M/1 etc)
-
"Save Stats" feature could add an option to save the autocorrelation function
-
Anonymous created ticket #153
Add a button JSIMwiz to JSIMgraph
-
JVMA what-if bug open model
-
Anonymous posted a comment on discussion Help
Hi, in the JMT User Manual, sections 1.2 and 1.3 there are some brief instructions for the installation. It is very simple and only takes a few clicks. From the home page of JMT www.sourceforge.net you may download the recommended relase 1.3.0 , then follow the link Documentation and then you may download the User Manual and the Book Performance Engineering that describes how to implement models (Getting Started Indications). I downloaded now the JMT-installer-1.3.0.jar version, then i started its...
-
Anonymous posted a comment on discussion Help
Hi I'm trying to install JMT on my computer running Linux Ubuntu but I get an error. I execute the command java -jar JMT-installer-1.3.0.jar and the system produces this error: Command line arguments: SEVERE: java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: Index 70131 out of bounds for length 22674 Any idea on how to fix it? Also, where can I find the documentation for the package installation? Thanks -- Davide Chicco
-
Daniele Borgna posted a comment on discussion Help
Additionally, also with your model I have a stuck situation with 99 Analyzed samples instead of keeping until 1000000 or convergence because some jobs are not triggering the join on their second iteration.
-
It is similar but J1.1 does not spawn from the J1Source. I attach my model..
-
Anonymous posted a comment on discussion Help
Hi, maybe I didn't understand your model well. Anyway, I implemented the attached jsimg model with the same layout and some parameters that may differ from yours. The simulation is running and the Join1 has a non-zero throughput. If you can send me your jsim model I could be more precise. Best regards, gs
-
Hello. I'm working with a Guard policy in a join and created a simple example to replicate the error I encountered. I have one closed class, J1, generated in the J1 Source. This job is forked into two sub-jobs of the same class. Then, one of the jobs is sent to the Class Switch and becomes J1.1. In the Join node, the policy used for the J1 class (the parent job class) is Guard, with 1 job for J1.1 and 0 for J1. This should mean that when the J1.1 job is received at the join, the J1 job is unlocked...
-
Guard policy of a Join not working
-
Anonymous posted a comment on discussion Help
how to installe
-
Giuliano Casale committed [0488a8] on Code
Merged new JMCH code.
-
Giuliano Casale committed [be4307] on Code
Fixed bug in Server.java; reinstanted old JMCH as default.
-
Java Modelling Tools updated /jmt/JMT-1.3.0/JMT-singlejar-1.3.0.jar
-
-
Add unit tests to check that a new version can load jsimg files of older versions
-
Giuliano Casale committed [d136c0] on Code
Rollback of xerces version. Small refactorings.
-
What-if result bug
-
Graphical bug in Class Switch routing policy
-
See bottom right
-
Graphical bug in Class Switch routing policy
-
Test
-
Test
-
Giuliano Casale committed [83cc07] on Code
Merged initial JMCH revision.
-
Giuliano Casale committed [401f13] on Code
chore: added gitignore and maven files.
-
Giuliano Casale committed [b0a37c] on Code-Git
Initial commit at SVN r1153.
-
Quanta-based processor sharing. Bug fixes. Refactored exact/ to jmva/
-
Poor GUI scaling under large resolution
-
Summary window that shows all parameters
-
Autocorrelation in statistical results
-
Add priority service for PS/DPS/GPS
-
done in 1.3.1
-
Arena simulator allows to associate to each a set fo stations
-
Initial 1.3.1-BETA1 version
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Final version 1.3.0 code and manual.
-
Disabled connection Place-Queue
-
GUI size fine tunings.
-
-
Add response time panel to JMVA
-
This feature has now been added to the upcoming JMT-1.3.0 release.
-
Graphics regression error
-
Added height/width scaling coefficients.
-
Bug fixes. Added response time panel to JMVA.
-
-
Add response time panel to JMVA
-
Thanks. We moved this to a feature request because this is what we refer to as aggregate response time rather than aggregate residence time. With JSIMgraph you will get the right value you say if you select the 'All classes' response time at the resource. Because JMVA's what-if shows only aggregate residence time, the request amounts to also showing aggregate response time in JMVA that is a new feature.
-
Ticket moved from /p/jmt/bugs/136/
-
Bug in JMVA to JSIMwiz conversion
-
Bug in JMVA to JSIMwiz conversion
-
Add sorting feature under the performance metrics definition panel
-
Greg Franks posted a comment on ticket #136
The underlying MVA solver is working fine. MVA does not compute the average over all classes directly. Disk B does not see the system throughput. It only sees throughput from two classes. Since the average response time is computed using the throughput result, the value is too high (Disk B only sees a fraction of the total throughput).
-
Many thanks for flagging this matter and sharing the additional results. We ran various checks also using CTMCs and exact MVA. We confirm that JMVA uses the scaling based on dividing by the System throughput. JMT as a whole follows the Lazowska's book conventions, so this is not a bug but rather a design choice. We also do not observe discrepancies in our tests between exact solvers and JMVA relative to the System Response Time (R), the values are consistent within the Lazowska's book conventions....
-
Many thanks for flagging this matter and sharing the additional results. We ran various checks also using CTMCs and exact MVA. We confirm that JMVA uses the scaling based on dividing by the System throughput. JMT as a whole follows the Lazowska's book conventions, so this is not a bug but rather a design choice. We also do not observe discrepancies in our tests between exact solvers and JMVA relative to the System Response Time (R), they values are consistent within the Lazowska's book conventions....
-
Many thanks for flagging this matter and sharing the additional results. We run various checks also using CTMCs and exact MVA. We confirm that JMVA uses the scaling based on dividing by the System throughput. JMT as a whole follows the Lazowska's book conventions, so this is not a bug but rather a design choice. We also do not observe discrepancies in our tests between exact solvers and JMVA relative to the System Response Time (R), they values are consistent within the Lazowska's book conventions....
-
Lognormal regression bug
-
fixed in 1.3.0
-
I have attached the full output from qnap2. It includes the source code for qnap2. The output above is for Beta=1..5. Here is the output from JMVA for Disk B with Beta=5. The per-class results match (though qnap2 uses real*4). System response time is a derived value. <stationresults station="Disk B"> <classresults customerclass="OE"> <measure meanValue="0.6589864605709487" measureType="Number of Customers" successful="true"/> <measure meanValue="1.5954233130406923" measureType="Throughput" successful="true"/>...
-
Thank you for flagging this Greg, we are checking and we will follow up. This discrepency shows up in the System Response Time output. Would you please have more information on this point, in particular the system response time returned by QNAP2? Thanks.
-
The bug is now verified. The correct version is the one used in 1.2.1
-
Lognormal regression bug
-
1.3.0-BETA3. Fixed Place-Queue integration bug. Initial versions of heterogeneous servers, remote updates, setup-delayoff, simulation log debugger.
-
Seize and Release nodes
1 >
