## 4 Simulation Results and Discussions
### Results and Discussions
#### 4.3.1 Evaluation Result of the SSA and the ASA Systems  
In the first experiment, we evaluate the performance measures against the total traffic loads for the ASA and SSA systems. We use the SSA system as a reference to compare the performance of our proposed ASA system. Tables 9 and 10 provide the system parameters we consider for this experiment, unless otherwise specified. Moreover, the traffic loads of eMBB, mMTC, and URLLC increase at the same rate with different priority ratios (i.e., 50% for URLLC, 35% for eMBB, and 15% for mMTC). Figure 8 shows the total system utilization in both schemes. The ASA system achieves full system utilization. However, as predicted, SSA has lower system utilization because traffic from other slices cannot reach the available resource in one slice. Figure 9 shows the resource utilization of the network slices. In eMBB and mMTC slices, the resource utilization of ASA is higher than SSA because ASA adapts the priority of the slices when they have a low ASP value, which allows them to utilize the shared resources. In addition, the slice ratio specifies the number of resources allocated for each slice in the SSA, and each slice's performance is independent of the others. The SSA allocates 50% of the available resources to the URLLC slice and utilizes them only with its requests; the URLLC resources cannot be shared with other slices, even if it has idle resources. Therefore, the utilization of URLLC is lower in ASA than in SSA because the ASP parameter in ASA prevents the URLLC slice from starving other slices. Figure 10 illustrates the average waiting time of both systems. We notice that the average waiting time is proportional to the traffic volume. In addition, the ASA archives lower average waiting time for the system than the SSA due to the lack of resource sharing since each slice request must wait until its server is ready to process it. Figure 8: Total system utilization vs. total offered traffic loads (Experiment 1). Figure 9: Utilization of network slices vs. total offered traffic loads (Experiment 1). Figure 11 shows the average waiting time of the network slices in both systems. The ASA reduces the average waiting time for eMBB and mMTC slices compared to the SSA system by allowing them to use the total available resources. However, the enhancement of the ASA system results in a slight increase in the average waiting time of URLLC slice compared to the SSA system. Figure 12 illustrates the TBP of both systems. At low to moderate loads (i.e., 20-150 Erl), the ASA achieves lower TBP of the system than the SSA, since it can admit more requests by utilizing the unused resources of one slice for other slices. However, at high traffic loads (i.e., above 160 Erl), the TBP for the ASA is almost equal that of the SSA due to the high resource consumption in both systems. Figure 10: Average waiting time of system vs. total offered traffic loads (Experiment 1). Figure 13 shows the TBP of the network slices in both systems. The ASA enhances the TBP for eMBB and mMTC slices compared to the SSA system, despite their lower priority ratios. ASA permits eMBB and mMTC slices to exploit the total underutilized resources, enabling greater admission of their requests. In contrast, SSA has a distinct resource partition for eMBB and mMTC, preventing them from accessing the available resources in all slices. Given that the URLLC slice has the highest priority, SSA always provides the best performance at the expense of the performance of other slices. Therefore, the SSA achieves lower TBP for URLLC compared to the ASA. The performance of each slice in the SSA system is based on its priority ratio, which specifies its reserved resource partition and is independent of the other slices. Therefore, SSA allows more control of the QoS of each slice at the expense of overall resource utilization. However, the ASA operates similarly to SSA, preventing one slice's traffic from negatively impacting other slices.