# Energy-Aware Online Non-Clairvoyant Scheduling Using Speed Scaling with Arbitrary Power Function
## 5 Illustrative Example
The computed results are mentioned in the Tables 5 and 6. The lower values computed using HSIF and NC are marked in bold. The jobs details such as arrival time, completion time importance and size are same for table as well as Table 6.  
In Table 5, the turnaround time of nine jobs (out of ten) is lesser using HSIF than NC. It is clearly visible from the data of Table 4 that nine jobs are having response time lesser using HSIF than NC. As well as the average value of turnaround time and response time is lesser using HSIF than NC. On the basis of such observations one can conclude that the working of HSIF is better than the best-known NC in the special case also where the jobs may arrive in the increasing order of size. In Table 6, three values of three objectives energy consumed, importance-based flow time and importance-based flow time plus energy are mentioned. As per the values of energy consumed by the jobs six out of ten jobs consumes lesser power using HSIF than NC; although, the total energy consumed by all ten jobs is more using HSIF than NC. The importance is one of the main factors which forced the schedule of execution of the jobs. The importance based flow times of eight jobs (out of ten) are lesser using HSIF than NC. It is clearly visible from the data of Table 6 that the total importance based flow times of all ten jobs are also lesser using HSIF than NC. This lesser value of metric reflects the better performance of HSIF than NC. The third metric importance-based flow time plus energy (the main objective of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Job**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Energy Consumed by** \\ **Individual Job** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Importance Based Flow** \\ **Time of Individual Job** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Importance Based Flow** \\ **Time Plus Energy of** \\ **Individual Job** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{2-7}  & **HSIF** & **NC** & **HSIF** & **NC** & **HSIF** & **NC** \\ \hline
**J1** & 15.5376 & **11.41421** & **33.58979** & 47.65685 & **49.12738** & 60.07107 \\
**J2** & 30.39531 & **18.67619** & **86.8327** & 140.9953 & **117.228** & 159.6715 \\
**J3** & **20.89599** & 28.23206 & **50.98298** & 291.4622 & **71.87897** & 319.6943 \\
**J4** & **7.883328** & **30.23206** & **30.62239** & 466.6225 & **38.50572** & 496.8546 \\
**J5** & 134.5865 & 30.23206 & 2437.376 & **648.0149** & 2571.962 & **678.2469** \\
**J6** & **40.10598** & 58.05148 & **114.9347** & 1445.479 & **155.0407** & 1503.531 \\
**J7** & 169.0947 & **61.05148** & 2119.993 & **2075.943** & 2289.088 & **2136.994** \\
**J8** & **48.41263** & 82.24247 & **166.9621** & 3353.273 & **215.3747** & 3435.516 \\
**J9** & **95.6372** & 104.5797 & **452.1316** & 5172.41 & **547.7688** & 5276.99 \\
**J10** & **52.16065** & 105.5797 & **171.5501** & 5541.149 & **223.7107** & 5646.729 \\ \hline
**Total** & 614.7099 & **530.2914** & **5664.975** & 19183.01 & **6279.685** & 19714.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Three objectives values for jobs arriving with increasing-order of size using HSIF and NC.