## 5 Experiments and Analyses
### Video Delivery Experiment
#### 5.1.4 Ratios of the Three Types of Requests: 2:1:1 and 1:1:2 on the SPA-WP and Random
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Type-1** & **Type-2** & **Type-3** & **Total No. of** & **Percentage of** & **Avg. turnaround** \\  & **requests** & **requests** & **requests** & **requests** & **requests** & **time (s)** \\ \hline Node 1 & 65/26 & 59/27 & 109/53 & 233/106 & 40/18 (\%) & 163.35/175.56 \\ Node 2 & 19/26 & 18/27 & 49/52 & 86/105 & 16/18 (\%) & 165.06/175.59 \\ Node 3 & 9/25 & 11/24 & 24/51 & 24/100 & 4/17 (\%) & 166.32/175.49 \\ Node 4 & 53/23 & 52/26 & 93/46 & 198/95 & 34/15 (\%) & 163.34/175.68 \\ Node 5 & 2/25 & 4/25 & 14/49 & 20/99 & 3/17 (\%) & 169.72/175.89 \\ Node 6 & 2/25 & 6/21 & 11/49 & 19/95 & 3/15 (\%) & 163.45/175.43 \\ No. of preemptions & 0/0 & 10/0 & 98/0 & - & - & - \\ total & 150 & 150 & 300 & 600 & 100\% & 163.21/175.61 \\ Turnaround & (152.53/32.86)/ & (161.55/31.74)/ & (173.38/31.06)/ & & & \\ time/SD & (176.15/31.05) & (177.91/31.09) & (174.19/31.03) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: The numbers of requests allocated and their turnaround times when 150 type-1, 150 type-2, and 300 type-3 requests were submitted, and the SPA-WP/Random were employed. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Type-1** & **Type-2** & **Type-3** & **Total No. of** & **Percentage of** & **Avg. turnaround** \\  & **requests** & **requests** & **requests** & **requests** & **requests** & **time (s)** \\ \hline Node 1 & 116/52 & 46/26 & 51/27 & 213/105 & 35/18 (\%) & 162.95/176.91 \\ Node 2 & 46/51 & 29/24 & 36/26 & 111/101 & 18/17 (\%) & 166.68/176.89 \\ Node 3 & 17/51 & 14/25 & 20/24 & 51/100 & 9/17 (\%) & 169.11/177.01 \\ Node 4 & 110/50 & 49/24 & 30/25 & 189/99 & 31/16 (\%) & 161.47/176.93 \\ Node 5 & 7/51 & 7/20 & 7/25 & 21/96 & 4/16 (\%) & 168.68/176.84 \\ Node 6 & 4/45 & 5/31 & 6/23 & 15/99 & 3/16 (\%) & 170.77/177.14 \\ No. of preemptions & 0/0 & 59/0 & 75/0 & - & - & - \\ total & 300 & 150 & 150 & 600 & 100\% & 166.61/176.95 \\ Turnaround & (153.58/32.81)/ & (178.81/31.08)/ & (180.48/31.19)/ & & & \\ time/SD & (177.98/31.12) & (179.44/31.17) & (172.40/31.03) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: The numbers of allocated requests and their turnaround times when 300 type-1, 150 type-2, and 150 type-3 requests were submitted, and the SPA-WP/Random were employed. higher (98 in Table 16, and 75 and 69 in Tables 14 and 15, respectively). However, many more type-3 requests were allocated to high-performance nodes, so the turnaround time of type-3 requests was improved (173.38 in Table 16, and 173.81 and 180.48 respectively in Tables 14 and 15). Now, we can conclude that with the SPA-WP algorithm, when the total number of requests is fixed, it will be better with the numbers of requests of the three types distributed as evenly as possible. Hence, in the following experiments, the ratio 1:1:1 was used. Further, the SPA-WP is better than the Random since no matter what the ratio of the three types of requests is, the total turnaround time of the SPA-WP is lower than that of the Random.