ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Performance evaluation of the time warp distributed simulation mechanism
Performance evaluation of the time warp distributed simulation mechanism
Parallel discrete event simulation
Communications of the ACM - Special issue on simulation
A study of time warp rollback mechanisms
ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS)
Parallelism analyzers for parallel discrete event simulation
ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS)
Understanding supercritical speedup
PADS '94 Proceedings of the eighth workshop on Parallel and distributed simulation
ANSS '91 Proceedings of the 24th annual symposium on Simulation
A spectrum of options for parallel simulation
WSC '88 Proceedings of the 20th conference on Winter simulation
Super-criticality revisited.
An empirical study of conservative scheduling
PADS '00 Proceedings of the fourteenth workshop on Parallel and distributed simulation
Lookback: a new way of exploiting parallelism in discrete event simulation
Proceedings of the sixteenth workshop on Parallel and distributed simulation
An Analytical Model of Scheduling for Conservative Parallel Simulation
Proceedings of the 9th European PVM/MPI Users' Group Meeting on Recent Advances in Parallel Virtual Machine and Message Passing Interface
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Critical path analysis has been suggested as a technique for establishing a lower bound on the completion times of parallel discrete event simulations. A protocol is super-critical if there is at least one simulation that can complete in less than the critical path time using that protocol. Previous studies have shown that several practical protocols are super-critical while others are not. We present a sufficient condition to demonstrate that a protocol is super-criticality. It has been claimed that super-criticality requires independence of one or more messages (states) on events in the logical past of those messages (states). We present an example which contradicts this claim and examine the implications of this contradiction on lower bounds.