Bachelor of Science in Computer Science & Engineering

A Comparative Analysis of Disk Scheduling Algorithms

by

Md Akib Hasan
K.M. Mahabub Hossain
Sadman Rahman

Department of Computer Science & Engineering

Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)
Chattogram-4349, Bangladesh

December 2023
 Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
Chattogram-4349, Bangladesh

Thesis Proposal
Application for the approval of the B.Sc. Engineering Thesis/Project
Session : 2022-2023

Student Name & ID : Md Akib Hasan (1904015)

K.M. Mahabub Hossain (1904017)
Sadman Rahman Ananta (1904020)

Supervisor Name : Dr. Mohammad Shamsul Arefin

Designation : Professor

Department : Computer Science & Engineering

Program : B.Sc. Engineering

Tentative Title : A Comparative Analysis of Disk Scheduling Algorithms

Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Disk Scheduling Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Disk Scheduling Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.1 First Come First Serve (FCFS) Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.2 Shortest Seek Time First (SSTF) Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.3 SCAN Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.4 C-SCAN Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.5 LOOK Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.6 C-LOOK Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Background and Present State 3

2.1 Analysis of Previous Research Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Motivation 4

4 Research Questions 5

5 Specific Objectives 5

6 Possible Outcomes 6

7 Impact Identification 6

8 Outline of Methodology 7
8.1 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2 Sample I/O Request Queue Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.3 Algorithm Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.4 Simulator Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.5 Simulated Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.6 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

i
 8.7 Result Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.8 Recommendation Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.9 Documentation and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

9 Required Resources and tools 10

10 SWOT Analysis 10
10.1 Strengths: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2 Weaknesses: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.3 Opportunities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.4 Threats: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

11 Conclusion 12

List of Figures

8.1 Methodology Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

ii
1 Introduction

1.1 Background
The management of disk performance is an important aspect of an operating system. Since
the speed of processor and main memory have been increased several times than the speed
of the disk, the difference in the speed of processor and the disk, I/O performance of disk
has become an important bottleneck. In any disk system with a moving read/write head, the
seek time between cylinders takes a significant amount of time. This seek time should be
minimized to better access time. [1]
In multiprogramming systems, processes running concurrently may generate requests for
reading and writing disk records. The operating system handles these I/O requests from the
queue and processes them one by one. The algorithm used to choose which I/O request is
going to be fulfilled earliest is called disk scheduling algorithm. The main objectives for any
disk scheduling algorithm are minimizing the response time and maximizing the throughput.
[2]

1.2 Disk Scheduling Criteria

Generally, a set of criteria is established against which various scheduling policies are eval-
uated.

• Seek Time: The time for the disk arm to move the heads to the cylinder containing the
desired sector.

• Rotational latency: The additional time incurred for the disk to rotate the desired sector
to the disk head.

• Disk bandwidth: Total number of bytes transferred divided by the total time between
the first request for service and the completion of last transfer.

• Transfer Time: The time required for the transfer, this depends on the rotational speed
of the disk.

1
1.3 Disk Scheduling Algorithms
There are several disk-scheduling algorithms such as FCFS, SSTF, SCAN, C-SCAN, LOOK
and C-LOOK algorithms, which helps in scheduling the I/O request.

1.3.1 First Come First Serve (FCFS) Scheduling

This is the simplest algorithm among others. In this scheduling algorithm, all incoming
requests are placed at the end of the queue. Whatever number that is next in the queue will
be the next number served i.e. the I/O request that arrived first is served first. Other requests
are served as per their time of arrival.

1.3.2 Shortest Seek Time First (SSTF) Scheduling

In this case, the request is serviced according to the next shortest distance. The next requests
are selected which have the minimum seek time from the current head position.

1.3.3 SCAN Scheduling

This approach works like an elevator. Disk arm starts at one end of the disk and scans towards
the nearest end, servicing the entire request it finds out when moves towards the other end
and then when it hits the other end, it scans reversely servicing the requests that it didn’t get
earlier. If a request comes in after it has been scanned, it will not be serviced until the head
arm comes back.

1.3.4 C-SCAN Scheduling

Circular SCAN (C-SCAN) is a variant of SCAN algorithm. It begins its scan towards the
nearest end and works its way all the way to the end of the system. Once it hits the bottom or
top it jumps to the other end and moves in the same direction. The huge jump doesn’t count
as a head movement.

1.3.5 LOOK Scheduling

This approach is equivalent to SCAN algorithm, except that the arm goes only as far as
the last request in each direction without going all the way to end. It can be considered as
directional algorithm as it reverses the direction as soon as it served the last request in a
particular direction.

2
1.3.6 C-LOOK Scheduling
This is just an enhanced version of C-SCAN. In this, the scanning doesn’t go past the last
request in the direction that it is moving. It too jumps to the other end but not all the way to
the end.

2 Background and Present State

One of the main goal of the operating system for the disk drives is to use the hardware effi-
ciently, we can meet this goal using fast access time and large disk bandwidth that depends
on the relative positions of the read-write head and the requested data. Since memory man-
agement allows multiprogramming so that operating system keeps several read/write request
in the memory. In order to service these requests, hardware (disk drive and controller) must
be used efficiently.
To support this in disk drive, the hardware must be available to service the request. If the
hardware is busy, we can’t service the request immediately and the new request will be placed
in the queue of pending requests. Several disk scheduling algorithms are available to service
the pending requests. Among these disk scheduling algorithms, the algorithm that yields less
number of head movement will remain has an efficient algorithm [3].
Scheduling is a crucial function in operating systems, allocating resources before use. Disk,
a vital computer resource, requires efficient scheduling for optimal performance. While pro-
cessor and memory speeds advance rapidly, disk speed lags at 7% growth annually. Disk
scheduling algorithms minimize seek time latency by prioritizing I/O requests. When the
disk is available, requests are promptly serviced; otherwise, they join a pending queue. Var-
ious algorithms determine the order of service, aiming to minimize head movements and
enhance seek time. First Come First Serve (FCFS) is simple but lacks efficiency. Shortest
Seek Time First (SSTF) prioritizes requests with the shortest seek time. The SCAN algo-
rithm, resembling an elevator, processes requests in one direction before changing. LOOK
algorithm, influenced by SCAN, traverses the disk surface in both directions. The researcher
studied different papers on Comparative Analysis of Disk Scheduling Algorithms, conclud-
ing by recommending an improved algorithm based on factors affecting seek time.

3
2.1 Analysis of Previous Research Works
Analyzing previous research is essential to narrow down the research focus, identify gaps,
and inform new investigations. In the realm of ”Disk Scheduling Algorithms,” numerous
comparative analyses have been conducted. Researchers evaluate algorithms based on fac-
tors like I/O request patterns, disk specifications, and seek time assumptions.
1. In one study [4], the Smallest Seek Time First (SSTF) algorithm demonstrated superior
throughput in comparative analyses.
2. Another research effort [4] delved into the total head movement calculations for First
Come First Serve (FCFS), SSTF, SCAN, and C-SCAN algorithms, emphasizing the critical
role of disk scheduling in enhancing input-output performance.
3. A comprehensive study [1] compared various disk scheduling algorithms (FCFS, SSTF,
SCAN, LOOK, C-SCAN, C-LOOK, FSCAN, N-Step SCAN) and concluded that different
algorithms exhibit unique features suited to specific scenarios.
4. An analysis [5] considered different algorithms and discussed variations in the calculation
of disk head movement, particularly in Circular SCAN (C-SCAN) and Circular LOOK (C-
LOOK).
5. A discussion [6] highlighted distinctive features of scheduling algorithms, emphasizing
the trade-offs in approaches like FCFS, SSTF, SCAN, C-SCAN, LOOK, and C-LOOK.
6. A proposal [7] introduced the Hybridized Disk Scheduling Algorithm (HDSA), demon-
strating better performance than conventional algorithms, thereby enhancing disk efficiency.
These diverse studies contribute valuable insights into optimizing disk scheduling algorithms
for enhanced system performance.

3 Motivation

The management of disk performance is critical for operating system efficiency. With pro-
cessor and memory speeds surpassing disk speed, I/O performance has become a bottle-
neck. Minimizing seek time, a significant factor in disk access time, is crucial. In multi-
programming systems, concurrent processes generate disk requests, necessitating effective
disk scheduling algorithms. The choice of algorithm impacts response time and throughput,

4
making it essential to explore and optimize existing disk scheduling criteria and algorithms.

4 Research Questions

Scheduling algorithms for moving-head disks have been studied for many years, but which
algorithm is “better” is still an open question [8]. In operating systems, seek time is very
important. Since all device requests are linked in queues, the seek time is increased causing
the system to slow down. Desk scheduling algorithms are used to calculate the total seek
time of any request. So the research will focus on the following questions:

• What is the total disk head movement of different disk scheduling algorithms?

• What is the average seek time in different disk scheduling algorithms?

• Which algorithm gives the Minimum average seek time?

5 Specific Objectives

Following are the objectives of the work:

• Study and analyze different disk scheduling algorithms.

• To calculate total disk head movement and average seek time of different queue in
different scheduling algorithms.

• To prepare simulator and implement the different algorithms using simulator.

• To compare the average seek time of different algorithms and recommend the better
algorithm.

5
6 Possible Outcomes

The proposed research aims to enhance disk scheduling algorithms, addressing seek time
and throughput concerns. Potential outcomes include:

1. Algorithmic Improvements: The research may lead to the development of enhanced

disk scheduling algorithms that minimize seek time, rotational latency, and overall
response time.

2. Performance Metrics: A refined set of performance metrics, encompassing seek time,

rotational latency, disk bandwidth, and transfer time, could be established for evaluat-
ing disk scheduling algorithms comprehensively.

3. Comparative Analyses: The study may yield comparative analyses of existing and pro-
posed disk scheduling algorithms, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses under
various scenarios.

4. Efficiency Recommendations: Based on the research findings, recommendations for

efficient disk scheduling algorithms could be provided, guiding operating system de-
velopers and administrators in optimizing disk performance.

7 Impact Identification

Efficient disk scheduling directly influences overall system performance. The potential im-
pacts of the proposed research include:

• Reduced Latency: Improved disk scheduling algorithms can significantly reduce seek
time and rotational latency, leading to lower I/O request response times and enhanced
overall system responsiveness.

6
 • Optimized Resource Utilization: By minimizing head movements and maximizing
disk bandwidth, the research outcomes may contribute to more efficient utilization of
disk resources, aligning with the broader goal of optimal hardware use.

• Enhanced Multiprogramming Support: The study can positively impact multiprogram-

ming environments by ensuring that disk scheduling efficiently handles concurrent
read/write requests, contributing to smoother operation in resource-sharing scenarios.

• Guidance for System Design: Recommendations and insights from the research may
guide the design of future operating systems, ensuring they incorporate effective disk
scheduling mechanisms to cope with evolving hardware capabilities.

8 Outline of Methodology

8.1 Literature Review

Establish a foundational understanding of existing research on disk scheduling algorithms.
• Review academic papers, articles, and relevant literature on disk scheduling.

• Identify key algorithms, criteria, and methodologies used in prior research.

8.2 Sample I/O Request Queue Preparation

Create a representative sample of I/O requests to test various disk scheduling algorithms.
• Design a diverse set of I/O requests reflecting different patterns and scenarios.

• Formulate the sample I/O request queue based on the identified patterns.

8.3 Algorithm Implementation

Implement selected disk scheduling algorithms using the prepared sample I/O request queue.
• Code algorithms such as FCFS, SSTF, SCAN, C-SCAN, LOOK, and C-LOOK.

• Execute the algorithms on the sample I/O request queue to obtain Total Head Move-
ment and Average Seek Time.

7
8.4 Simulator Development
Build a simulator to automate the testing and comparison process.

• Develop a simulation tool capable of executing disk scheduling algorithms.

• Integrate functionalities to calculate Total Head Movement and Average Seek Time
automatically.

8.5 Simulated Testing

Test the sample I/O request queue on the simulator and compare results with manual calcu-
lations.

• Execute the sample I/O request queue on the simulator for each algorithm.

• Record and analyze the simulated Total Head Movement and Average Seek Time.

• Compare simulated results with manually calculated results for accuracy verification.

8.6 Data Collection and Analysis

Gather and analyze results from all simulated samples across different algorithms.

• Collect and organize data on Total Head Movement and Average Seek Time for each
algorithm.

• Conduct a comparative analysis of results to identify patterns and variations.

8.7 Result Comparison

Compare the outcomes of different algorithms to draw meaningful conclusions.

• Analyze the comparative results to understand the performance variations.

• Identify algorithms that consistently perform well across diverse scenarios.

8
8.8 Recommendation Formulation
Formulate recommendations based on the analysis of compared results.

• Synthesize findings to draw conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of each
algorithm.

• Formulate recommendations for selecting or designing disk scheduling algorithms

based on specific use cases.

8.9 Documentation and Reporting

Compile research findings and outcomes for documentation and dissemination.

• Prepare a detailed research report documenting the methodology, results, and recom-
mendations.

• Structure the report for clarity, providing insights that can be understood by both tech-
nical and non-technical audiences.

This methodology provides a step-by-step approach to systematically investigate and com-

pare disk scheduling algorithms, ensuring a comprehensive and transparent research process.

Figure 8.1: Methodology Diagram

9
9 Required Resources and tools

The implementation tools and resources that we need to build our project are stated below:

• Hardware required

- A powerful computer/Laptop

• Software required

- Operating system(Windows/Linux)
- Jupyter-notebook with python
- Google Collab
- IDE(VS Code, PyCharm)
- Compilers/interpreters (GNU GCC, python)

• Language and Framework required

- Python and its other libraries

- C++

10 SWOT Analysis

10.1 Strengths:
1. Academic Relevance: Addresses a crucial aspect of operating system management.

2. Comprehensive Literature Review: Strong foundation from existing research.

10
 3. Diverse Sample I/O Request Queue: Enhances robustness of findings.

4. Algorithm Implementation: Includes a variety of scheduling algorithms for compar-

ison.

5. Simulator Development: Automates testing process for consistency.

6. Data Analysis and Visualization: Rigorous analysis for clear performance visualiza-
tion.

7. Recommendation Formulation: Provides practical insights for algorithm selection.

10.2 Weaknesses:
1. Simplified Model Assumptions: May overlook real-world complexities.

2. Limited Algorithm Selection: Misses emerging or specialized algorithms.

3. Simulator Dependency: Introduces dependency; discrepancies with real-world per-

formance.

4. Assumed Uniformity of I/O Requests: Might not capture diverse computing envi-
ronment challenges.

10.3 Opportunities:
1. Practical Implementation: Guides practical use for improved OS performance.

2. Industry Applications: Direct application in industries reliant on efficient disk oper-

ations.

3. Collaboration and Further Research: Extends scope and opens avenues for collab-
oration.

4. Educational Impact: Positive impact on teaching disk scheduling algorithms.

10.4 Threats:
1. Technological Advancements: Rapid tech changes may impact relevance.

2. Resource Constraints: Limited time and resources may restrict simulations.

11
 3. Algorithmic Complexity: Challenges in accurately implementing and simulating
complex algorithms.

4. External Variables: Changes in hardware or system configurations introduce uncer-

tainties.

5. Competing Priorities: Other commitments may impact project timeline and thor-
oughness.

11 Conclusion

This research on disk scheduling algorithms presents a valuable exploration of critical as-
pects in operating system management. By focusing on key algorithms like FCFS, SSTF,
SCAN, C-SCAN, LOOK, and C-LOOK, the study aims to contribute practical insights for
optimizing I/O performance in disk systems. The research methodology, encompassing lit-
erature review, algorithm implementation, and simulation analysis, offers a structured ap-
proach. While the project shows promise in academic and practical applications, it acknowl-
edges potential limitations and external factors that could impact its outcomes. Overall, the
research is poised to make a meaningful contribution to the efficiency of disk scheduling in
contemporary operating systems.

Bibliography

[1] T. Singh, “A comparative study of disk scheduling algorithms,” vol, vol. 4, pp. 29–32,
2016.

[2] T. J. Teorey and T. B. Pinkerton, “A comparative analysis of disk scheduling policies,”

Communications of the ACM, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 177–184, 1972.

[3] M. M. Kumar and B. R. Rajendra, “An improved approach to maximize the performance
of disk scheduling algorithm by minimizing the head movement and seek time using

12
 sort mid current comparison (smcc) algorithm,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 57,
pp. 222–231, 2015.

[4] C. Mallikarjuna and P. Babu, “Performance analysis of disk scheduling algorithms,”

no. 05, pp. 180–184, 2016.

[5] D. Singh, “A new optimized real-time disk scheduling algorithm,” International Journal
of Computer Applications, vol. 93, no. 18, pp. 7–12, 2014.

[6] H. Paida, “Disk scheduling,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 1,

no. 2, pp. 6–9, 2013.

[7] J. Celis, D. Gonzales, E. Lagda, and L. Jr, “A comprehensive review for disk scheduling
algorithms,” International Journal of Computer Science Issues, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 74–79,
2014.

[8] R. Geist and S. Daniel, “A continuum of disk scheduling algorithms,” ACM Transactions
on Computer Systems (TOCS), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 77–92, 1987.

13