@Saurabh:
what does your algo does when the number of jobs are much more than the
number of processors??
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:55 AM, saurabh singh saurab...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry a typoRound the sum to the next multiple of number of
processors.Alternatively taking the ceil of per
works fine for the case taken in the codeCheck if it fails for any case
please.
http://www.ideone.com/paKYX
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Nikhil Gupta nikgp...@iitr.ernet.inwrote:
@Saurabh:
what does your algo does when the number of jobs are much more than the
number of processors??
It's NP Complete in the general case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessor_scheduling
--
DK
http://twitter.com/divyekapoor
http://gplus.to/divyekapoor
http://www.divye.in
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Algorithm Geeks group.
To view this
@Nikhil Gupta I tried on this strategy but I still could find better
solutions.
Another approach that I tried was : summing all the jobs.
Then finding the total time per processor required(Sum of all jobs/no of
processors).Round this to next higher multiple of the number of
processors.Call this
sorry a typoRound the sum to the next multiple of number of
processors.Alternatively taking the ceil of per processor time.
Eg:
Consider 3 processors and 4 jobs with time 6 12 5 14
Sum of jobs=37
Time per processor ceil(37/3)=13
Now sort the jobs in order of there slugishness 14 12 6 5
Try
