Scheduling Modeling

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribes How the Disk Arm Moves to Satisfy all of the Pending Requests for the FCFS Algorithm

1 ptsDistinguishedThoroughly describes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the FCFS algorithm.0.88 ptsProficientDescribes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the FCFS algorithm. The description is slightly underdeveloped.

0.76 ptsBasicPartially describes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the FCFS algorithm. The description is underdeveloped.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsAttempts to describe how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the FCFS algorithm; however, the description is significantly underdeveloped.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe description of how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the FCFS algorithm is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribes How the Disk Arm Moves to Satisfy all the Pending Requests for the SSTF Algorithm

1 ptsDistinguishedThoroughly describes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all the pending requests for the SSTF algorithm.0.88 ptsProficientDescribes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all the pending requests for the SSTF algorithm. The description is slightly underdeveloped.

0.76 ptsBasicPartially describes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all the pending requests for the SSTF algorithm. The description is underdeveloped.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsPartially describes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all the pending requests for the SSTF algorithm. The description is underdeveloped.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe description of how the disk arm moves to satisfy all the pending requests for the SSTF algorithm is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribes How the Disk Arm Moves to Satisfy all of the Pending Requests for the SCAN Algorithm

1 ptsDistinguishedThoroughly describes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the SCAN algorithm.0.88 ptsProficientDescribes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the SCAN algorithm. The description is slightly underdeveloped.

0.76 ptsBasicPartially describes how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the SCAN algorithm. The description is underdeveloped.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsAttempts to describe how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the SCAN algorithm; however, the description is significantly underdeveloped.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe description of how the disk arm moves to satisfy all of the pending requests for the SCAN algorithm is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCalculates the Total Distance (in cylinders) that the Disk Arm Moves for Each of the Disk-scheduling Algorithms

1 ptsDistinguishedAccurately and clearly calculates the total distance (in cylinders) that the disk arm moves for each of the disk-scheduling algorithms.0.88 ptsProficientCalculates the total distance (in cylinders) that the disk arm moves for each of the disk-scheduling algorithms. Minor details are slightly inaccurate or unclear.

0.76 ptsBasicPartially calculates the total distance (in cylinders) that the disk arm moves for each of the disk-scheduling algorithms. Relevant details are inaccurate and/or unclear.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsAttempts to calculate the total distance (in cylinders) that the disk arm moves for each of the disk-scheduling algorithms; however, significant details are entirely inaccurate and unclear.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe calculations of total distance (in cylinders) that the disk arm moves for each of the disk-scheduling algorithms are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCompares the Algorithms, and Explains which Algorithm is the Most Efficient (the Shortest Distance) for this Scenario

1 ptsDistinguishedThoroughly compares the algorithms, and comprehensively explains which algorithm is the most efficient (the shortest distance) for this scenario, fully supporting the explanation with accurate calculations.0.88 ptsProficientCompares the algorithms, and explains which algorithm is the most efficient (the shortest distance) for this scenario, supporting the explanation with mostly accurate calculations. Minor details are missing or slightly inaccurate.

0.76 ptsBasicMinimally compares the algorithms, and partially explains which algorithm is the most efficient (the shortest distance) for this scenario, supporting the explanation with somewhat accurate calculations. Relevant details are missing and/or inaccurate.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsAttempts to compare the algorithms and explain which algorithm is the most efficient (the shortest distance) for this scenario; however, does not support the explanation with accurate calculations, and significant details are missing and inaccurate.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe comparison of algorithms and explanation of which algorithm is the most efficient (the shortest distance) for this scenario are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCompares the Algorithms to Determine which is the Fairest for the Next Process in the Queue, and Explains Why this Algorithm will Always be the Fairest Disk-scheduling Algorithm

1 ptsDistinguishedThoroughly compares the algorithms to determine which is the fairest for the next process in the queue, and comprehensively explains why this algorithm will always be the fairest disk-scheduling algorithm, fully supporting the explanation with accurate calculations.0.88 ptsProficientCompares the algorithms to determine which is the fairest for the next process in the queue, and explains why this algorithm will always be the fairest disk-scheduling, algorithm mostly supporting the explanation with accurate calculations. Minor details are missing.

0.76 ptsBasicMinimally compares the algorithms to determine which is the fairest for the next process in the queue, and partially explains why this algorithm will always be the fairest disk-scheduling algorithm, somewhat supporting the explanation with accurate calculations. Relevant details are missing.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsAttempts to compare the algorithms to determine which is the fairest for the next process in the queue and explain why this algorithm will always be the fairest disk-scheduling algorithm; however, does support the explanation with accurate calculations, and significant details are missing.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe comparison of algorithms to determine which is the fairest for the next process in the queue and explanation of why this algorithm will always be the fairest disk-scheduling algorithm are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribes an Example of Circumstances where Fairness Would be an Important Goal

1 ptsDistinguishedThoroughly describes an example of circumstances where fairness would be an important goal.0.88 ptsProficientDescribes an example of circumstances where fairness would be an important goal. The description is slightly underdeveloped.

0.76 ptsBasicPartially describes an example of circumstances where fairness would be an important goal. The description is underdeveloped.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsAttempts to describe an example of circumstances where fairness would be an important goal; however, the description is significantly underdeveloped.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe description of an example of circumstances where fairness would be an important goal is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribes a Scenario Where it Would be Important that the Operating System be Unfair

1 ptsDistinguishedThoroughly describes a scenario where it would be important that the operating system be unfair.0.88 ptsProficientDescribes a scenario where it would be important that the operating system be unfair. The description is slightly underdeveloped.

0.76 ptsBasicPartially describes a scenario where it would be important that the operating system be unfair. The description is underdeveloped.0.64 ptsBelow ExpectationsAttempts to describe a scenario where it would be important that the operating system be unfair; however, the description is significantly underdeveloped.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe description of a scenario where it would be important that the operating system be unfair is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

0.67 ptsDistinguishedDisplays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.0.59 ptsProficientDisplays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.

0.51 ptsBasicDisplays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.0.44 ptsBelow ExpectationsFails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

0.67 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

0.67 ptsDistinguishedAccurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.0.59 ptsProficientExhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.

0.51 ptsBasicDisplays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.0.44 ptsBelow ExpectationsFails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

0.67 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Communication: Page Requirement

0.66 ptsDistinguishedThe length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.0.58 ptsProficientThe length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.

0.5 ptsBasicThe length of the paper is equivalent to at least three-quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.0.43 ptsBelow ExpectationsThe length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.0 ptsNon-PerformanceThe assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

0.66 pts