## 4 Simulation Results and Discussions
### Results and Discussions
#### 4.3.3 Evaluation Result of the ASA and the DA-ASA with Different Priority Ratio
Figures 24 and 25 show the average waiting time of the network slices in cases one and two, respectively. The average waiting time of the URLLC is almost the same in both systems. The DA-ASA slightly increase the average waiting time of the eMBB compared to the ASA to serve the requests of mMTC. Therefore, the DA-ASA provides better treatment for mMTC in comparison to the ASA. Figure 23: Utilization of network slices vs. total offered traffic loads in case 3 (Experiment 3). Figure 22: Utilization of network slices vs. total offered traffic loads in case 2 (Experiment 3). Figure 26 shows the average waiting time of the network slices in case three. In this case, URLLC, which supports applications with low delay requirements, has the lowest priority. The DA-ASA increases the average waiting time of the eMBB and mMTC compared to the ASA in order to minimize the average waiting time of the URLLC. Figure 24: Average waiting time of network slices vs. total offered traffic loads in case 1 (Experiment 3). Figure 25: Average waiting time of network slices vs. total offered traffic loads in case 2 (Experiment 3). Figure 27 shows the TBP of the network slices in case one. The eMBB requests require a significant number of resources, which prevents other slices from accessing the resources. Therefore, the TBP of eMBB is the highest, particularly at high traffic loads. Since the priorities of URLLC and eMBB are higher than that of mMTC, the DA-ASA slightly increases their TBP in comparison to the ASA in order to decrease the TBP of the mMTC. Figure 28 shows the TBP of the network slices in case two. Since the priority of URLLC decreases in this case, the DA-ASA increase the TBP of the eMBB in comparison to the ASA to allow more admission of URLLC requests. In addition, DA-ASA decreases the TBP of mMTC compared to ASA. Figure 29 shows the TBP of the network slices in case three. The TBP of mMTC is the lowest in this case since it has the highest priority. We can notice that the DA-ASA increases the TBP of the mMTC compared to the ASA in order to decrease the TBP of the URLLC, which has the lowest priority. Moreover, the TBP of the eMBB is almost equal to the ASA. However, at high traffic loads, the TBP of the eMBB in the DA-ASA is slightly higher than the ASA to allow more admission of the URLLC requests. Figure 28: TBP of network slices vs. total offered traffic loads in case 2 (Experiment 3). Figure 27: TBP of network slices vs. total offered traffic loads in case 1 (Experiment 3). We can conclude that increasing the priority ratio for one slice improves its performance metrics in terms of utilization, average waiting time, and TBP. However, an improvement in one slice's performance comes at the expense of the performance of other slices. Although, Both ASA and DA-ASA systems prevent the high-priority slice from starving the other slices, the DA-ASA achieves a sufficient performance of the slices. The maximum tolerance delay, \(MTD_{i}\), parameter in the ASP equation of the DA-ASA system slightly decreases the performance of the highest priority slice to enhance the performance of the other slices. In addition, in DA, the calcultaion the waiting time of each queued request from each slices create more processing overhead.