CS3530 Assignment 3


Kennesaw State University
Department of Computer Science
Operating Systems CS3530/01
Assignment # 3 / Scheduling

Dalibor Labudovic

06/19/12013
















Initial Problem Statement:
Study the behavior of three OS scheduling policies FCFS, SJF and RR using the following three simulation models:

    batmfcfs.cpp (Batch OS with FCFS scheduling) 
    batmsjf.cpp  (Batch OS with SJF scheduling)
    tsmult.cpp   (Time-sharing RR scheduling) 
  1. Copy these files from the "/home/jgarrido/psim3"  directory on the CS3 server.
  2. Compile and link the first program.
  3. Execute the program and take note of the performance metrics computed.
  4. Repeat for the other two programs. 
In the last part of your report include your answers to the following questions:1. What would observable in the model with RR scheduling for a single-class system?2. Explain how multiprogramming is made possible for these models. How is this implemented? 3. Explain the changes for the parameters of the FCFS model so that there are no jobs rejected. What are your conclusions. Increase the system memory and repeat.4. Identify the performance measures that conflict with each other. Give your reasons for this. Which ones are more important?5. Change the time slice of the RR model (tsmul.cpp). What are your conclusions after reading the trace and performance measures.6. Analyze the simulation run of the RR model. RR does not have the best performance, Why?. What advantages does RR have compared to the other scheduling policies?
Summary and purpose of the assignment activity:
The purpose of the assignment activity is to evaluate different OS scheduling policies and compare and contrast based on a performance index, the performance index will indicate speed, time and utilizations. The summary for the assignment activity, with the multiprogramming a more sophisticated scheduler had to be developed. Initially, OS have been using an all fair First Come Fist Serve scheduler but the performance was inefficient and jobs had long wait times. With Shortest Job First, the performance had been improved but the scheduler is unfair by prioritizing by CPU time bursts. Another issue was starvation, the longer jobs would either wait a long time or never be executed. Finally, the round robin scheduler is a completely fair and efficient policy. RR executes each job for a equal amount of time, interrupts a job when the CPU burst is complete to move on to the next job, until all of the jobs have been executed.
Detail description of the solution and used in the project:
During the assignment, there were no solutions to this project since it is an performance evaluation and distinction recognition between different type of OS scheduling policies. First Come First Serve , Shortest Job First and Round Robin.
Table of results:
FCFS
Batch System with Multiprogramming & FCFS Sched

------------------------------------------
Service factor: 0.0445582
Total number of jobs that arrived: 250
Total number of rejected jobs: 0
Total number of completed jobs: 65
Maximum number of jobs in memory: 30
The proportion of rejected jobs is: 0
Average sojourn time: 623.439
Average total wait time: 596.159
CPU total idle per. 15.1408
CPU utilization: 0.991591
--------------------------------------
Number of completed jobs of type 0: 14
Average sojourn time for type 0: 576.369
Average waiting time for type 0: 571.124
Number of completed jobs of type 1: 12
Average sojourn time for type 1: 489.801
Average waiting time for type 1: 466.89
Number of completed jobs of type 2: 15
Average sojourn time for type 2: 674.396
Average waiting time for type 2: 652.466
Number of completed jobs of type 3: 13
Average sojourn time for type 3: 721.073
Average waiting time for type 3: 680.449
Number of completed jobs of type 4: 11
Average sojourn time for type 4: 644.261
Average waiting time for type 4: 592.646

SJF
Batch System with Multiprogramming & SJF Sched
------------------------------------------
Service factor: 0.159645
Total number of jobs that arrived: 96
Total number of rejected jobs: 0
Total number of completed jobs: 39
Average number of jobs in input queue: 61.7834
Maximum number of jobs in memory: 15
The proportion of rejected jobs is: 0
Average sojourn time: 458.195
Average total wait time: 389.435
CPU utilization: 0.993178
--------------------------------------
Number of completed jobs of type 0: 9
Average sojourn time for type 0: 97.4866
Average waiting time for type 0: 80.6776
Number of completed jobs of type 1: 11
Average sojourn time for type 1: 149.119
Average waiting time for type 1: 70.6772
Number of completed jobs of type 2: 8
Average sojourn time for type 2: 237.594
Average waiting time for type 2: 137.52
Number of completed jobs of type 3: 11
Average sojourn time for type 3: 1222.83
Average waiting time for type 3: 1144.02
Number of completed jobs of type 4: 0

RR
Memory % usage: 0.333406 avg num items used: 406.254
% of time spent in res usage: 0.984821
-------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Service factor: 0.0414325
Total number of processes that arrived: 113
Total number of rejected processes: 0
Total number of completed processes: 42
Maximum number of processes in memory: 30
The proportion of rejected processes: 0
Average turnaround time: 444.537
Average total wait time: 426.118
CPU utilization: 0.997339
--------------------------------------
Number of completed processes of type 0: 12
Average turnaround time for type 0: 156.27
Average normalized turnaround time for type 0: 38.2863
Average waiting time for type 0: 150.548
Number of completed processes of type 1: 10
Average turnaround time for type 1: 362.568
Average normalized turnaround time for type 1: 24.1708
Average waiting time for type 1: 347.736
Number of completed processes of type 2: 8
Average turnaround time for type 2: 391.539
Average normalized turnaround time for type 2: 25.2046
Average waiting time for type 2: 372.355
Number of completed processes of type 3: 7
Average turnaround time for type 3: 862.79
Average normalized turnaround time for type 3: 63.966
Average waiting time for type 3: 828.655
Number of completed processes of type 4: 5
Average turnaround time for type 4: 799.555
Average normalized turnaround time for type 4: 24.5928
Average waiting time for type 4: 766.723




Comments and Conclusion:
In the conclusion of this assignment, we evaluated the differences in OS scheduling from the very basic of FIFO to RR scheduling policy. The core structure of the assignment has given me insight into the policies when it comes to prioritizing process jobs and understanding the process of a streamline of a job process. Most scheduling policies are based on the laws and protocals of the real world applied to the digital world.
Questions and Answers:
1. What would observable in the model with RR scheduling for a single-class system?For a single class system the Round Robin would be unnecessary because single-class system can only perform one job at a time. A scheduler is necessary only with multi-class systems.2. Explain how multiprogramming is made possible for these models. How is this implemented? Multiprogramming is made possible with scheduling for these models. This is implemented with job management policies. FCFS is a model that arranged jobs in a queue according to job arrival, processes each job according to the place in a queue, one at a time. The SJF is a policy which arranges jobs within a queue according to the CPU burst time, the scheduler will place the shortest CPU burst time ahead in a queue. Lastly, RR is a scheduling policy which processes jobs with the interruptions based on equal amount of CPU burst time and will resume any job which has remainder CPU burst time.3. Explain the changes for the parameters of the FCFS model so that there are no jobs rejected. What are your conclusions. Increase the system memory and repeat.Changing the parameters of the FCFS model by increasing system memory from 1200 units to 3000 units has changed the outcome with better overall performance. CPU utilization has come up from .991591 to .9984, also average sojourn and wait time have decreased. The only factor which has not been improved is the number of jobs completed, with additional memory (3000) the simulation has completed only 56 jobs while with default (1200)  memory the simulation was able to accomplish 65 jobs.4. Identify the performance measures that conflict with each other. Give your reasons for this. Which ones are more important?The importance performance measures are wait time and number of jobs completed. The two performance measurements have conflicted with scheduling jobs policies, if the wait time has been lower, generally the CPU has done less jobs. While longer wait time, the more jobs have been completed.  The more important should be the wait time, the wait time is the measurement of speed of the system. 5. Change the time slice of the RR model (tsmul.cpp). What are your conclusions after reading the trace and performance measures. I have implemented two time slice changes and observed a pattern with these results, the default time slice is 2.15 time units, once changed to 1.00 time units, the performance overall suffered. Once I changed the time slice to 10.00 time units, the overall performance has improved.6. Analyze the simulation run of the RR model. RR does not have the best performance, Why?. What advantages does RR have compared to the other scheduling policies?RR major advantages are lower wait time and maximum CPU utilization. While its not the best performance, probably because of the constant interruptions and context switch engagement and disengagement.    

Script:

Script started on Mon 10 Jun 2013 03:12:32 PM EDT
#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ ./psim3x##[Kc batchmio.p##[Kcpp
#[H#[2J#[H#[2J-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ Psim3 C++ (POSIX threads) package for object oriented simulation -------
------------------ (C) J. M. Garrido, 2004-2012 -----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a.out created.
#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ ls##[K##[Kls##[K##[K./a.out
Psim3 project: Batch Multiprogramming System
Simulation date: Mon Jun 10 15:13:46 2013


Simulation period: (1750)
Arrival close time: (800)
System Parameters
Total system memory: (255)
Size of input queue: (100)
Degree of multiprogramming: (15)
Workload Parameters
Mean interarrival: (7.3)
Mean CPU service: (11.5)
Mean I/O service: (11)
Lower memory demand: (10)
Upper memory demand: (60)
Run Simulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Memory % usage: 0.881231 avg num items used: 227.596
% of time spent in res usage: 0.987338
% of time spent waiting: 0.937163
-------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------
Service factor: 0.0258319
Total number of jobs that arrived: 114
Total number of rejected jobs: 0
Total number of completed jobs: 114
Average number of jobs in input queue: 26.2944
Maximum number of jobs in memory: 15
The proportion of rejected jobs is: 0
Average sojourn time: 490.981
Average total wait time: 468.999
CPU utilization: 0.826877
DISK utilization: 0.606452
--------------------------------------------------
End of simulation Batch Multiprogramming System Mon Jun 10 15:13:46 2013


#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ ls
#[00m#[00;32ma.out#[00m #[00mbatchmio.dat#[00m #[00mfreefall.c#[00m #[00;32mpsim3c#[00m #[00mstrddev.c#[00m
#[00mbasic_lib.c#[00m #[00mComplexNum.c#[00m #[00mheight.c#[00m #[00mrainfall.c#[00m #[00ms.txt#[00m
#[00mbasic_lib.h#[00m #[00;34mcomp_mod#[00m #[00;34mmyos#[00m #[00mresources.dat#[00m
#[00mbatchmio.cpp#[00m #[00mdistance.c#[00m #[00;32mmysession1.txt#[00m #[00mscriptassignment2.txt#[00m
#[m#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ batchmio.##[K##[K##[K##[K##[K##[K##[K##[K##[K#####dad##[K##[K##[Knano d##[Kbatchmio.dat
#[?1049h#[1;24r#(B#[m#[4l#[?7h#[?12l#[?25h#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[39;49m#[39;49m#(B#[m#[H#[2J#(B#[0;7m GNU nano 1.3.12 File: batchmio.dat #[3;1H#(B#[mBatch Multiprogramming System
#[4dSystem Parameters
#[5dSimulation period: 1750
#[6dClose arrivals time: 800
#[7dTotal memory: 255, queue sizes: 100
#[8dDegree of mult.: 15
#[9dWorkload Parameters
#[10dMean arrival: 7.3, mean CPU per: 11.5, mean I/O per: 11
#[11dUpper memory demand: 60 lower mem demand: 10
#[13dStarting Simulation Run
#[14dCPU created
#[15dDisk created
#[16dJob1 requiring CPU serv 0.103007 disk serv 8.01836 memory 38 arrives at 14.2904
#[17dJob1 joining input queue at 14.2904
#[18dJob1 acquired 38 memory at 14.2904 wait 0
#[19dJob1 start CPU service at: 14.2904 for period = 0.00727215
#[20dCPU completed CPU service to Job1 at 14.2977
#[21dJob1 start DISK service at: 14.2977 for period: 3.97343#[22;31H#(B#[0;7m[ Read 2979 lines ]
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help #(B#[0;7m^O#(B#[m WriteOut #(B#[0;7m^R#(B#[m Read File #(B#[0;7m^Y#(B#[m Prev Page #(B#[0;7m^K#(B#[m Cut Text #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cur Pos
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^X#(B#[m Exit#[14G#(B#[0;7m^J#(B#[m Justify #(B#[0;7m^W#(B#[m Where Is #(B#[0;7m^V#(B#[m Next Page #(B#[0;7m^U#(B#[m UnCut Text#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Spell
#[3dB#[1;71H#(B#[0;7mModified
#[3d#(B#[m#[1PBatch Multiprogramming System
B#[2;21r#[2;1H#M#[1;24r#[3;1HB
#[4d#[1P#[4;21r#[21;1H
#[1;24r#[3;2Hatch Multiprogramming System
#[21dJob1 start DISK service at: 14.2977 for period: 3.97343
#[3dB
#[22d#(B#[0;7mSave modified buffer (ANSWERING "No" WILL DESTROY CHANGES) ? #[23;1H Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #[14G #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;62H
#(B#[0;7mFile Name to Write: batchmio.dat
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help#[23;21H#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Files#[23;41H#(B#[0;7mM-M#(B#[m Mac Format#[61G#(B#[0;7mM-P#(B#[m Prepend
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel #(B#[0;7mM-D#(B#[m DOS Format #(B#[0;7mM-A#(B#[m Append#[24;61H#(B#[0;7mM-B#(B#[m Backup File#[22;33H#####(B#[0;7m1.dat#[30G#(B#[m
#(B#[0;7mSave file under DIFFERENT NAME ?
#[23d Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;34H
#[23d#[39;49m#(B#[m#[J#[1;30H#(B#[0;7mFile: batchmio1#[1;71H #[22;30H#(B#[m#[1K #(B#[0;7m[ Wrote 2979 lines ]#(B#[m#[K#[24;80H#[24;1H#[?1049l
#[?1l#>#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ nano resources.dat
#[?1049h#[1;24r#(B#[m#[4l#[?7h#[?12l#[?25h#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[39;49m#[39;49m#(B#[m#[H#[2J#(B#[0;7m GNU nano 1.3.12 File: resources.dat #[3;1H#(B#[mPsim3 project: Batch Multiprogramming System
#[4dSimulation date: Mon Jun 10 15:13:46 2013
#[6d-------------------------------------------------------------
#[7dMemory % usage: 0.881231 avg num items used: 227.596
#[8d% of time spent in res usage: 0.987338
#[9d% of time spent waiting: 0.937163
#[10d-------------------------------------------------------------
#[11d--------------------------------------------------
#[12d End of simulation Batch Multiprogramming System Mon Jun 10 15:13:46 2013#[22;32H#(B#[0;7m[ Read 12 lines ]
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help #(B#[0;7m^O#(B#[m WriteOut #(B#[0;7m^R#(B#[m Read File #(B#[0;7m^Y#(B#[m Prev Page #(B#[0;7m^K#(B#[m Cut Text #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cur Pos
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^X#(B#[m Exit#[14G#(B#[0;7m^J#(B#[m Justify #(B#[0;7m^W#(B#[m Where Is #(B#[0;7m^V#(B#[m Next Page #(B#[0;7m^U#(B#[m UnCut Text#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Spell
#[3dP#[1;71H#(B#[0;7mModified
#[3d#(B#[m#[1PPsim3 project: Batch Multiprogramming System
P
#[22d#(B#[0;7mSave modified buffer (ANSWERING "No" WILL DESTROY CHANGES) ? #[23;1H Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #[14G #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;62H
#(B#[0;7mFile Name to Write: resources.dat
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help#[23;21H#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Files#[23;41H#(B#[0;7mM-M#(B#[m Mac Format#[61G#(B#[0;7mM-P#(B#[m Prepend
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel #(B#[0;7mM-D#(B#[m DOS Format #(B#[0;7mM-A#(B#[m Append#[24;61H#(B#[0;7mM-B#(B#[m Backup File#[22;34H#[Z####(B#[0;7m1.dat#[31G#(B#[m
#(B#[0;7mSave file under DIFFERENT NAME ?
#[23d Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;34H
#[23d#[39;49m#(B#[m#[J#[1;45H#(B#[0;7m1.dat#[1;71H #[22;31H#(B#[m#[1K #(B#[0;7m[ Wrote 12 lines ]#(B#[m#[K#[24;80H#[24;1H#[?1049l
#[?1l#>#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ a.##[K##[K./aou##[K##[K.out
Psim3 project: Batch Multiprogramming System
Simulation date: Mon Jun 10 15:14:51 2013


Simulation period: (1750)
Arrival close time: (800)
System Parameters
Total system memory: (255)
Size of input queue: (100)
Degree of multiprogramming: (15) 1
Workload Parameters
Mean interarrival: (7.3)
Mean CPU service: (11.5)
Mean I/O service: (11)
Lower memory demand: (10)
Upper memory demand: (60)
Run Simulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Memory % usage: 0.131743 avg num items used: 34.2523
% of time spent in res usage: 0.980793
-------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Service factor: 0.02236
Total number of jobs that arrived: 149
Total number of rejected jobs: 12
Total number of completed jobs: 67
Average number of jobs in input queue: 69.773
Maximum number of jobs in memory: 1
The proportion of rejected jobs is: 0.0805369
Average sojourn time: 631.206
Average total wait time: 605.588
CPU utilization: 0.54737
DISK utilization: 0.443785
--------------------------------------------------
End of simulation Batch Multiprogramming System Mon Jun 10 15:14:51 2013


#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ ls
#[00m#[00;32ma.out#[00m #[00mbatchmio.cpp#[00m #[00mdistance.c#[00m #[00;32mmysession1.txt#[00m #[00mresources.dat#[00m
#[00mbasic_lib.c#[00m #[00mbatchmio.dat#[00m #[00mfreefall.c#[00m #[00;32mpsim3c#[00m #[00mscriptassignment2.txt#[00m
#[00mbasic_lib.h#[00m #[00mComplexNum.c#[00m #[00mheight.c#[00m #[00mrainfall.c#[00m #[00mstrddev.c#[00m
#[00mbatchmio1.dat#[00m #[00;34mcomp_mod#[00m #[00;34mmyos#[00m #[00mresources1.dat#[00m #[00ms.txt#[00m
#[m#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ ba##[K##[Knano b a##[K##[Katchmio.dat
#[?1049h#[1;24r#(B#[m#[4l#[?7h#[?12l#[?25h#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[39;49m#[39;49m#(B#[m#[H#[2J#(B#[0;7m GNU nano 1.3.12 File: batchmio.dat #[3;1H#(B#[mBatch Multiprogramming System
#[4dSystem Parameters
#[5dSimulation period: 1750
#[6dClose arrivals time: 800
#[7dTotal memory: 255, queue sizes: 100
#[8dDegree of mult.: 1
#[9dWorkload Parameters
#[10dMean arrival: 7.3, mean CPU per: 11.5, mean I/O per: 11
#[11dUpper memory demand: 60 lower mem demand: 10
#[13dStarting Simulation Run
#[14dCPU created
#[15dDisk created
#[16dJob1 requiring CPU serv 2.32352 disk serv 0.391988 memory 27 arrives at 18.2583
#[17dJob1 joining input queue at 18.2583
#[18dJob1 acquired 27 memory at 18.2583 wait 0
#[19dJob1 start CPU service at: 18.2583 for period = 0.0952547
#[20dCPU completed CPU service to Job1 at 18.3536
#[21dJob1 start DISK service at: 18.3536 for period: 0.160138#[22;31H#(B#[0;7m[ Read 1947 lines ]
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help #(B#[0;7m^O#(B#[m WriteOut #(B#[0;7m^R#(B#[m Read File #(B#[0;7m^Y#(B#[m Prev Page #(B#[0;7m^K#(B#[m Cut Text #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cur Pos
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^X#(B#[m Exit#[14G#(B#[0;7m^J#(B#[m Justify #(B#[0;7m^W#(B#[m Where Is #(B#[0;7m^V#(B#[m Next Page #(B#[0;7m^U#(B#[m UnCut Text#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Spell
#[3dB#[1;71H#(B#[0;7mModified
#[3d#(B#[m#[1PBatch Multiprogramming System
B
#[22d#(B#[0;7mSave modified buffer (ANSWERING "No" WILL DESTROY CHANGES) ? #[23;1H Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #[14G #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;62H
#(B#[0;7mFile Name to Write: batchmio.dat
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help#[23;21H#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Files#[23;41H#(B#[0;7mM-M#(B#[m Mac Format#[61G#(B#[0;7mM-P#(B#[m Prepend
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel #(B#[0;7mM-D#(B#[m DOS Format #(B#[0;7mM-A#(B#[m Append#[24;61H#(B#[0;7mM-B#(B#[m Backup File#[22;33H#####(B#[0;7m2.dat#[30G#(B#[m
#(B#[0;7mSave file under DIFFERENT NAME ?
#[23d Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;34H
#[23d#[39;49m#(B#[m#[J#[1;30H#(B#[0;7mFile: batchmio2#[1;71H #[22;30H#(B#[m#[1K #(B#[0;7m[ Wrote 1947 lines ]#(B#[m#[K#[24;80H#[24;1H#[?1049l
#[?1l#>#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ nano resources.dat
#[?1049h#[1;24r#(B#[m#[4l#[?7h#[?12l#[?25h#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[?1h#=#[39;49m#[39;49m#(B#[m#[H#[2J#(B#[0;7m GNU nano 1.3.12 File: resources.dat #[3;1H#(B#[mPsim3 project: Batch Multiprogramming System
#[4dSimulation date: Mon Jun 10 15:14:51 2013
#[6d-------------------------------------------------------------
#[7dMemory % usage: 0.131743 avg num items used: 34.2523
#[8d% of time spent in res usage: 0.980793
#[10d-------------------------------------------------------------
#[11d--------------------------------------------------
#[12d End of simulation Batch Multiprogramming System Mon Jun 10 15:14:51 2013#[22;32H#(B#[0;7m[ Read 12 lines ]
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help #(B#[0;7m^O#(B#[m WriteOut #(B#[0;7m^R#(B#[m Read File #(B#[0;7m^Y#(B#[m Prev Page #(B#[0;7m^K#(B#[m Cut Text #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cur Pos
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^X#(B#[m Exit#[14G#(B#[0;7m^J#(B#[m Justify #(B#[0;7m^W#(B#[m Where Is #(B#[0;7m^V#(B#[m Next Page #(B#[0;7m^U#(B#[m UnCut Text#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Spell
#[3dP#[1;71H#(B#[0;7mModified
#[3d#(B#[m#[1PPsim3 project: Batch Multiprogramming System
P
#[22d#(B#[0;7mSave modified buffer (ANSWERING "No" WILL DESTROY CHANGES) ? #[23;1H Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #[14G #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;62H
#(B#[0;7mFile Name to Write: resources.dat
#[23d^G#(B#[m Get Help#[23;21H#(B#[0;7m^T#(B#[m To Files#[23;41H#(B#[0;7mM-M#(B#[m Mac Format#[61G#(B#[0;7mM-P#(B#[m Prepend
#[24d#(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel #(B#[0;7mM-D#(B#[m DOS Format #(B#[0;7mM-A#(B#[m Append#[24;61H#(B#[0;7mM-B#(B#[m Backup File#[22;34H#[Z####(B#[0;7m2.dat#[31G#(B#[m
#(B#[0;7mSave file under DIFFERENT NAME ?
#[23d Y#(B#[m Yes#[K
#[24d#(B#[0;7m N#(B#[m No #(B#[0;7m^C#(B#[m Cancel#[K#[22;34H
#[23d#[39;49m#(B#[m#[J#[1;45H#(B#[0;7m2.dat#[1;71H #[22;31H#(B#[m#[1K #(B#[0;7m[ Wrote 12 lines ]#(B#[m#[K#[24;80H#[24;1H#[?1049l
#[?1l#>#]0;dlabudov@cs3:~/dlabudov#[dlabudov@cs3 dlabudov]$ exit
exit

Script done on Mon 10 Jun 2013 03:15:43 PM EDT

Popular posts from this blog

CS3401 Practice Quiz 2 Part 2

CS3401 Practice Quiz 2 Part 1