A simple semi on-line algorithm for P2//Cmax with a buffer
Information Processing Letters
`` Strong '' NP-Completeness Results: Motivation, Examples, and Implications
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Study on Parallel Machine Scheduling Problem with Buffer
IMSCCS '07 Proceedings of the Second International Multi-Symposiums on Computer and Computational Sciences
The Power of Reordering for Online Minimum Makespan Scheduling
FOCS '08 Proceedings of the 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Online scheduling on two uniform machines to minimize the makespan
Theoretical Computer Science
Online Scheduling with Bounded Migration
Mathematics of Operations Research
Online scheduling with rearrangement on two related machines
Theoretical Computer Science
Online scheduling with reassignment
Operations Research Letters
Semi on-line algorithms for the partition problem
Operations Research Letters
Online scheduling with one rearrangement at the end: Revisited
Information Processing Letters
Online minimum makespan scheduling with a buffer
FAW-AAIM'12 Proceedings of the 6th international Frontiers in Algorithmics, and Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Algorithmic Aspects in Information and Management
On the value of job migration in online makespan minimization
ESA'12 Proceedings of the 20th Annual European conference on Algorithms
Semi-online hierarchical scheduling problems with buffer or rearrangements
Information Processing Letters
Hi-index | 5.23 |
In this paper, we consider an online non-preemptive scheduling problem on two related machines, where at most K jobs are allowed to be rearranged, but only after all jobs have been revealed and (temporarily) scheduled. We minimize the makespan, and we call the problem as Online scheduling with bounded rearrangement at the end (BRE), which is a semi-online problem. Jobs arrive one by one over list. After all the jobs have been arrived and scheduled, we are informed that the input sequence is over; then at most K already scheduled jobs can be reassigned. With respect to the worst case ratio, we close the gap between the lower bound and upper bound, improving the previous result as well. Especially, for the lower bound, (i) for s=2 an improved lower bound s+2s+1 is obtained, which is better than (s+1)^2s^2+s+1 (Liu et al. (2009) [9]); (ii) for 1+52@?s=2 and K=1, a new upper bound s+2s+1 is obtained, which is optimal and better than the one s+1s in Liu et al. (2009) [9]; (ii) for 1+52@?s