SciresolSciresolhttps://indjst.org/author-guidelinesIndian Journal of Science and Technology0974-564510.17485/IJST/v14i9.2292Some aspects of customersimpatience with varying rates of RenegingMedhiPallabipmedhi@gauhati.ac.in1Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics, Gauhati University98641012611492021Abstract
Objectives: Stochastic modeling of M/M/c/k queuing system in the presence of Position dependent reneging (PDR) and state dependent balking (SDB) along with closed form expression of various performance measures. Methods: Markov process and probability generating functions (pgf) are used. Findings: Closed form expression of a number of traditional as well as newly designed performance measures are derived along with explicit derivation of the steady state probabilities of the model. Novelty: Analysis of finite buffer multi server Markovian queuing model in the presence of balking and reneging.
Waiting lines or queues are a common occurrence both in everyday life and in variety of business and industrial situations. Waiting for service is inevitable and is typically a negative consumer experience causing unhappiness, frustration and anxiety. Being in a fast-paced world, customers are hard pressed for time. Waiting for service is an act, which they would prefer not to be involved in. Such constraints on time induce impatience on customers’ behavior. In queuing parlance, such impatience may find reflection through the concepts of balking and reneging. These were included in recent works on two server Markovian model 1, 2.
If a customer finds the queuing system non-empty on arrival, it might decide not to join the queue. In queuing theory, this is known as balking. A rationale which might influence a person to balk has been proposed 3. It relates to the perception of the importance of being served which induces an opinion somewhere in between urgency, so that a queue of certain length will not be joined, to indifference where a non-zero queue is also joined. Balking can occur in two ways viz. state independent balking (SIB) and state dependent balking (SDB). When balking probability remains constant across all the states of the system i.e. when it does depend on the state of the system, it is called SIB. On the other hand, if balking probability depends on the state of the system, then it is known as SDB. In SDB, balking probability will usually go up as the queue length goes up 4. In this paper all the analysis have been carried out considering SDB.
Reneging is a phenomenon wherein customers join a queue but leave the same without completing service. It is not unknown that reneging does not find wide mention in the literature of queuing theory. In most of the theoretical models, it is assumed that customers are patient and are willing to wait as long as it is necessary to complete5, 6, 7. In practice, one can often find many queuing systems where the customer is aware of its position in the queue. ‘For example in the OPD of a hospital, patients usually know of their position in the queue. In such circumstances, it is natural to observe that customers who are positioned at a distance from the server have higher propensity to renege than those who are positioned near the server’ 8. This is unlike the constant reneging rate assumption. There is thus a strong case to model systems with varying rates of reneging impatience. This paper is motivated by these considerations.
It needs mention here that reneging can be of two types - reneging till beginning of service (henceforth referred to as R_BOS) and reneging till end of service (henceforth referred to as R_EOS). R_BOS can be observed in queuing systems where customers can renege only as long as they are in the queue. Once they begin receiving service, they do not renege. A common example is the barbershop. A customer can renege while he is waiting in queue. However once service starts i.e. hair cut begins, the customer cannot leave till hair cut is over. On the other hand, R_EOS can be observed in queuing systems where customers can renege not only while waiting in queue but also while receiving service. “An example is processing or merchandising of perishable goods” 9. The patience time commences from the moment the customer joins the system. In case the reneging discipline is R_BOS, the customer may renege i.e. leave the system if service does not begin before expiry of his patience time. On the other hand, in case of R_EOS, the customer could renege if service is not complete before the expiry of his patience time. Thus, in case of R_EOS, the customer may depart either from the queue or from the service with partial and incomplete service whereas in case of R_BOS, the customer can renege only from the queue. Both R_BOS and R_EOS have been treated separately in this paper.
Even though queuing models of various types have been assumed in queuing literature, it is not often that reneging and balking have been analyzed 10, 11, 12. Even if these have been dealt with, closed form expressions of performance measures are not always available 13, 14. Recently, a multi-server Markovian queuing system was analyzed under the assumption that customers may balk as well as renege 15. However, they did not include finite buffer restriction. In another relevant work where a MX /M/c Bernoulli feedback queueing system with variant multiple working vacations and impatience timers was considered 16 but their model did not assume balking or position dependent reneging and neither did they include finite buffer restriction. Analysis of queuing system under general reneging distribution in the presence of balking is also available in literature 17 but that was carried out for basic M/M/1 queue. Two server Markovian queuing model with discouraged arrivals, reneging and retention of reneged customers was analyzed in18 but balking was not assumed.
The modelling approach of a finite buffer multi server Markovian queuing system incorporating the additional challenges of position dependent reneging and balking is the hallmark of this paper. Importance of the queuing model stems from the fact that in the classical M/M/1 model," it is assumed that the system can accommodate any number of units. In practice, this may seldom be the case. We have thus to consider the situation such that the system has limited waiting space and can hold a maximum number of k units (including the one being served)” 19. Even though this model has been analyzed, however, to the best of our knowledge the said model with the added complexity of PDR and SDB has not been dealt with in the literature. Only a restricted version of the multi-server queuing model for just two servers assuming impatient customers is available 1, 2. This work therefore aims to fill this gap in literature.
The subsequent sections of this paper are structured as follows. Section 2 contains the description of the model. The derivation of steady state probabilities are discussed in Section 3. Closed form expression of the various performance measures are described in Section 4. We perform sensitivity analysis in section 5. Concluding remarks are presented in section 6. The appendix contains some derivation.
Description of the model
The model we deal with in this paper is the traditional M/M/c/k model with the restriction that customers may balk from a non-empty queue as well as may renege after they join the queue. We shall assume that the inter arrival and service rates are λ and μ respectively. Customers joining the system are assumed to be of Markovian reneging type. We shall assume that on joining the system the customer is aware of its position in the system. Consequently, the reneging rate will be a function of the customer’s position in the system. In particular, a customer who is at state ‘n’ will be assumed to have random patience time following exp (νn). In case of R_EOS, it is perhaps natural to expect that the reneging rate of a customer receiving service, would be different from the reneging rate in case the customer is in the queue. This motives our assumption that under R_EOS
vn=0 for n=0v for n=1,2,…cv+γn for n=c+1,c+2,….,k
Under R_BOS, there is no reneging while at service and hence we assume reneging rate to be
vn=0 forn =0,1,… c v+γn forn =c+1,…k
Where c>1 is the number of servers and ν>0.
Clearly, ɤn can have many formulations. In this paper, we shall assume that ɤn= ɤn-c, where ɤ>1.The rest of the paper is based.
As regards balking, we assume that each customer has a state dependent balking probability. It will be assumed that if the customer on arrival observes the system to be in state ‘n’, the probability that he will balk is n-c+1k-c+1;n=c,c+1,…,k . Under this set up, the finite buffer restriction can also be seen as the state from which customer balks with probability 1=k-c+1k-c+1 . There is no balking from an empty queue.
System state probabilities
The steady state probabilities are derived by the Markov process method. We first analyze the case where customers renege only from the queue. Under R_BOS, let ‘pn’ denote the probability that there are ‘n’ customers in the system. The steady state equations are given below
Under R_EOS where customers may renege from queue as well as while being served, let qn denote the probability that there are n customers in the system. Applying the Markov theory, we obtain the following set of steady state equations.
In general, “performance measures are the specific representation of a capacity, process or outcome deemed relevant to the assessment of performance, which are quantifiable and can be documented” [20]. The main objective of any queuing study is to assess some well-defined parameters, which are designed at striking a good balance between customer satisfaction and economic considerations. In queuing theory, measures through which the nature of the quality of service can be studied are known as performance measures. Performance measures are important as issues or problems caused by queuing situations are often related to customer’s dissatisfaction with service or may be the root cause of economic losses in a business. Analysis of the relevant performance measures of queuing models allows the cause of queuing issues to be identified and the impact of proposed changes to be assessed. Some of the performance measures of any queuing system that are of general interest for the evaluation of the performance of an existing queuing system and to design a new system in terms of the level of service a customer receives as well as the proper utilization of the service facilities include mean size, server utilization, customer loss and the like 8.
An important measure is the mean number of customers in the system, which is traditionally denoted by ‘L’. We have presented the derivation of this important performance measure separately for the two reneging disciplines in the appendix. These are denoted by LR_BOS and LR_EOS.
Let P(s) be the p.g.f of the steady state probability under R_BOS rule. Then we note that
From (A.11) and (B.5), the mean system sizes under the two reneging rules are
$$
L_{R_{-} B O S}=\left[\begin{array}{l}
\lambda\left(1-S_{R_{-} B O S}\right)+\mu\left(1-M_{R_{-} B O S}-c p_{c}\right)+\lambda(1-p)\left(\mathrm{S}_{R_{-} B O S}-p_{k}\right)-c \mu\left(\mathrm{S}_{R_{-} B O S}-p_{c}\right)+ \\
v\left(M_{R_{-} B O S}+c \mathrm{~S}_{R_{-} B O S}\right)-\frac{p_{0}}{(\gamma-1)\left(\gamma^{c-1}\right) \mathrm{p}_{0}(\gamma \lambda)}+\frac{\left\{p_{0}(\gamma \lambda)-p_{0} K_{R_{-} B O S}(\gamma \lambda)\right.}{(\gamma-1)\left(\gamma^{c-1}\right) \mathrm{p}_{0}(\gamma \lambda)}+\frac{\gamma\left(S_{R_{-} B O S}-p_{c}\right)}{(\gamma-1)}
\end{array}\right] /(\mu+v)
$$$$
L_{R_{-} \mathrm{EOS}}=\left[\begin{array}{l}
\lambda\left(S_{R_{-} \operatorname{EOS}}-1\right)+(\mu+v)\left(1-M_{R_{-} \operatorname{EOS}}-c p_{c}\right)+\lambda(1-p)\left(\mathrm{q}_{k}-\mathrm{S}_{R_{-} \mathrm{EOS}}\right)+c \mu\left(\mathrm{S}_{R_{-} \mathrm{EOS}}-q_{c}\right)+ \\
v\left(M_{R_{-}} \operatorname{BOS}-\mathrm{c} q_{c}\right)+\frac{q_{0}}{(\gamma-1)\left(\gamma^{c-1}\right) \mathrm{q}_{0}(\gamma \lambda)}+\frac{\left\{\mathrm{q}_{0}(\gamma \lambda)-q_{0} K_{R_{-} \mathrm{EOS}}(\gamma \lambda)\right.}{(\gamma-1)\left(\gamma^{c-1}\right) \mathrm{q}_{0}(\gamma \lambda)}-\frac{\gamma\left(S_{R_{-} \mathrm{E} O S}-q_{c}\right)}{(\gamma-1)}
\end{array}\right] /(\mu+2 v)
$$
Where
$$
\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{R}_{-} \mathrm{BOS}=} \sum_{n=c}^{k} p_{n} \text { and } \mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{R}_{-} \mathrm{BOS}}=\sum_{n=1}^{c-1} n p_{n}
$$$$
S_{R_{-} \text {EOS }}=\sum_{n=c}^{k} q_{n} \text { and } M_{R_{-} \text {EOS }}=\sum_{n=1}^{c-1} n q_{n}
$$
KR_BOS and KR_EOS are defined in (A.8) and (B.6) respectively.
The mean queue size formulas for the two cases can now be obtained and are given by
Customers arrive into the system at the rate λ. However, all the customers who arrive do not join the system because of balking and due to finite buffer restriction. The effective arrival rate into the system is thus different from the overall arrival rate and is given by
$$
\begin{array}{c}
\lambda^{e}{ }_{\left(R_{-}\right.}{ }^{e O S)}=\lambda \sum_{n=0}^{c-1} q_{n}+\lambda \sum_{n=c}^{k-1}(1-p) q_{n} \\
=\lambda\left\{1-(1-p) q_{k}\right\}-\lambda p S_{R_{-}} \operatorname{EOS}
\end{array}
$$
We have assumed that each customer has a random patience time following exp(νn). Clearly then, the reneging rate of the system would depend on the state of the system as well as the reneging rule. The average reneging rate (Avgrr) under two reneging rules are given by
$$
\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Avgrr}_{\left(R_{-} \mathrm{BOS}\right)} &=\sum_{n=c+1}^{k}\left\{(n-c) v+\gamma\left(\gamma^{n-1}-1\right) /(\gamma-1)\right\} p_{n} \\
&=v P^{\prime}(1)-v \sum_{n=1}^{c} n p_{n}-c v\left(S_{R_{-} B O S}-p_{c}\right)+\frac{\gamma^{1-c}}{(\gamma-1)} \sum_{n=c+1}^{k} \gamma^{n} p_{n} \\
&=v\left(L_{R_{-} B O S}-M_{R_{-} B O S}-c S_{R_{-} B O S}\right)+\frac{\gamma^{1-c} p_{0} K_{R_{-} B O S}(\gamma \lambda, \mu, v, k)}{p_{0}(\gamma \lambda, \mu, v, k)}
\end{aligned}
$$$$
\begin{aligned}
A \operatorname{vgrr}_{\left(R_{-} \operatorname{EOS}\right)} &=\sum_{n=1}^{c} n v q_{n}+\sum_{n=c+1}^{k}\left\{n v+\gamma\left(\gamma^{n-1}-1\right) /(\gamma-1)\right\} q_{n} \\
&=v L_{R_{-} B O S}+\frac{\gamma^{1-c} q_{0} K_{R_{-} \operatorname{EOS}}(\gamma \lambda, \mu, v, k)}{q_{0}(\gamma \lambda, \mu, v, k)}
\end{aligned}
$$
Average balking rate under both the reneging rule are given by
$$
\begin{aligned}
A v g b r_{R_{-} B O S} &=\lambda p \sum_{n=c}^{k-1} p_{n} \\
&=\lambda p\left(S_{R_{-} B O S}-p_{k}\right)
\end{aligned}
$$$$
\begin{aligned}
A v g b r_{R_{-}}{ }_{\text {EOS }} &=\lambda p \sum_{n=c}^{k-1} q_{n} \\
&=\lambda p\left(\mathrm{~S}_{\mathrm{R}_{-} \mathrm{EOS}}-q_{k}\right)
\end{aligned}
$$
In any real life situation, customers who balk or renege represent business lost. Customers are lost to the system in three ways, due to balking, due to finite buffer restriction and due to reneging. Management of any firm would like to know the proportion of total customers lost in order to have an idea of total business lost.
Hence the mean rate at which customers are lost (under R_BOS) is
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\lambda-\lambda^{e}{ }_{\left(R_{-} B O S\right)}+\operatorname{avg} r r_{\left(R_{-} B O S\right)} \\
=\lambda(1-p) p_{k}+\lambda p S_{R_{-} B O S}+v\left(L_{R_{-} B O S}-M_{R_{-} B O S}-c S_{R_{-} B O S}\right)+\frac{\gamma^{1-c} p_{0} K_{R_{-} B O S}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}{(\gamma-1) p_{0}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}
\end{array}
$$
and the mean rate at which customers are lost (under R_EOS) is
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\lambda-\lambda^{e}\left(R_{-} E O S\right)+\operatorname{avgrr}_{\left(R_{-} \operatorname{EOS}\right)}\\
&=\lambda(1-p) q_{k}+\lambda p S_{R_{-} E O S}+v L_{R_{-} E O S}+\frac{\gamma^{1-c} q_{0} K_{R_{_{-}} \operatorname{EOS}}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}{(\gamma-1) q_{0}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}
\end{aligned}
$$
These rates helps in the determination of proportion of customers lost which is of interest to the system manager as also an important measure of business lost. This proportion (under R_BOS) is given by
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\left[\lambda-\lambda_{\left(R_{-} B O S\right)}^{e}+\operatorname{avgrr}_{\left(R_{-} B O S\right)}\right] / \lambda} \\
=(1-p) p_{k}+p S_{R_{-} B O S}+v\left(L_{R_{-} B O S}-M_{R_{-} B O S}-c S_{R_{-} B O S}\right) / \lambda+\frac{\gamma^{1-c} p_{0} K_{R_{-} B O S}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}{\lambda(\gamma-1) p_{0}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}
\end{array}
$$
and the proportion (under R_EOS) is given by
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\left.\left[\lambda-\lambda_{\left(R_{-}\right.}^{e}{ }_{E O S}\right)+\operatorname{avg} r r_{\left(R_{-} E O S\right)}\right] / \lambda \\
=(1-p) q_{k}+p S_{R_{-} E O S}+(v / \lambda) L_{R_{-} \operatorname{EOS}}+\frac{\gamma^{1-c} q_{0} K_{R_{-} \operatorname{EOS}}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}{\lambda(\gamma-1) q_{0}(\lambda \gamma, \mu, v, k)}
\end{array}
$$
The proportion of customer completing receipt of service can now be easily determined from the above proportion.
The customers who leave the system from the queue do not receive service. Consequently, only those customers who reach the service station constitute the actual load of the server. From the server’s point of view, this provides a measure of the amount of work he has to do. Let us call the rate at which customers reach the service station as λs .Then under R_BOS
λs(R_BOS)= λe(R_BOS)(1-proportion of customers lost due to reneging out of those joining the system)
$$
\begin{array}{l}
=\lambda^{e}\left(R_{-} B O S\right)\left\{1-\sum_{n=c+1}^{k}(n-c) p_{n} / \lambda^{e}\left(R_{-} B O S\right)\right\} \\
=\lambda\left\{1-(1-p) p_{k}\right\}-(\lambda p-c c) S_{R_{-} B O S}-U_{R_{-} B O S}+v M_{R_{-} B O S}
\end{array}
$$
In case of R_EOS, one needs to recall that customers may renege even while being served and only those customers who renege from the queue will not constitute any work for the server. Thus
λs(R_EOS)= λe(R_EOS)(1-proportion of customers lost due to reneging from the queue out of those joining the system)
We have assumed that there are essentially five parameters viz: these may undergo change. From managerial point of view, an idle server is a waste. So also for low server utilization. It is therefore interesting to examine and understand how server utilization varies in response to change in system parameters. We place below the effect of change in these system parameters on server utilization. For this purpose, we shall follow the following notational convention in the rest of this section.
$$
\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{n}}(\lambda, \mu, v, c, k .) \text { and } \mathrm{q}_{\mathrm{n}}(\lambda, \mu, v, c, k .)
$$ will denote the probability that there are ‘n’ customers in a system with parameters $$
\lambda, \mu, v, c, k
$$ . in steady state under R_BOS and R_EOS respectively.
which is true. Hence p_0\uparrow\quad\operatorname{as}\;\lambda\uparrow i.e. the probability that the system is empty goes down as the arrival rate goes up.
which is true. Hence $$
p_{0} \uparrow \quad \operatorname{as} \mu \uparrow
$$ i.e. the probability that the system is empty goes up as the service rate goes up.
\begin{array}{l}\begin{array}{l}\begin{array}{l}\begin{array}{c}\text{ Let }v_1>v_0\\\end{array}\\\frac{p_0\left(\lambda,\mu,v_1,c,k\right)}{{\mathrm p}_0\left(\lambda,\mu,v_0,c,k\right)}>1\end{array}\\\\\Leftrightarrow\frac{\lambda^{c+1}(1-p)}{c!\mu^c}\left\{\frac1{\left(c\mu+v_0+\gamma\right)}-\frac1{\left(c\mu+v_1+\gamma\right)}\right\}+\dots\end{array}\\\\+\frac{\lambda^k(1-p)^{k-c}}{c!\mu^c}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\frac1{\left(c\mu+v_0+\gamma\right)\dots\left\{c\mu+(k-c)v_0+\gamma\left(\gamma^{k-c}-1\right)/(\gamma-1)\right\}}\\\frac1{\left(c\mu+v_1+\gamma\right)\dots\left\{c\mu+(k-c)v_1+\gamma\left(\gamma^{k-c}-1\right)/(\gamma-1)\right\}}\end{array}\right\}>0\end{array}
which is true. Hence p_0\uparrow\quad\operatorname{as}\nu\uparrow i.e. the probability that the system is empty goes up as the reneging rate goes up.
which is true and hence p_0\uparrow\quad\operatorname{as}k\uparrow i.e. the probability that the system is empty goes down as the capacity of the system goes up.
which is true. Hence p_0\uparrow\mathrm{as}\;c\uparrow i.e. the probability that the system is empty goes down with the increased in number of server in the system.
Under R_BOS, these results state that an increase in arrival rate would result in lowering of the fraction of time the server is idle. An increase in service rate would mean the server is able to work efficiently so that it can process same amount of work quickly. This translates to higher server idle time. An increase in reneging rate would mean the server has fewer work to do and hence higher fraction of idle time. An increase in system size translates to the lowering of the fraction of time the server is idle. Also an increase in number of server translates to higher server idle time. Similar conclusions can be drawn under R_EOS.
Conclusion
The analysis of a multi-server finite buffer Markovian queuing system with position dependent reneging and state dependent balking has been presented. Even though balking and reneging have been discussed by others, explicit expression is not available under both the reneging rule. This paper makes a contribution here. Closed form expressions of number of performance measures have been derived. To study the change in the system corresponding to change in system parameters, sensitivity analysis has also been presented. Extension of our result considering general distribution is a pointer to future research.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Prof. Amit Choudhury, Professor, Department of Statistics, Gauhati University for his guidance and support in carrying out this research work and scripting of this article.
ReferencesBouchentoufAmina AngelikaMessabihiAichaHeterogeneous two-server queueing system with reverse balking and reneging2018552512670030-3887, 0975-0320Springer Science and Business Media LLChttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12597-017-0319-4SomBhupender KumarKumarRakeshA heterogeneous queuing system with reverse balking and reneging2018351152168-1015, 2168-1023Informa UK Limitedhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2017.1297739HaightF AQueuing with Balking195744360369https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/44.3-4.360PallabiMedhiChoudhuryAmitAspects of Impatience in a Finite Buffer Queue2012461892090399-0559, 1290-3868EDP Scienceshttps://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ro/2012014BouchentoufAmina AngelikaYahiaouiLahceneOn feedback queueing system with reneging and retention of reneged customers, multiple working vacations and Bernoulli schedule vacation interruption2017611112193-5343, 2193-5351Springer Science and Business Media LLChttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40065-016-0161-1YueDYueWA heterogeneous two-server network system with balking and a bernoulli vacation schedule201063501516https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2010.6.501Al-SeedyR OEl-SherbinyA AEl-ShehawyS AAmmarS ITransient solution of the M/M/c queue with balking and reneging2009578128012850898-1221Elsevier BVhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2009.01.017ChoudhuryAmitMedhiPallabiSome aspects of balking and reneging in finite buffer queues2011452232400399-0559, 1290-3868EDP Scienceshttps://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ro/2011113ChoudhuryAmitMedhiPallabiBalking and reneging in multiserver Markovian queuing system2011341757-5850, 1757-5869Inderscience Publishershttps://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijmor.2011.040874KumarRakeshSomBhupender KumarAn M/M/1/N Feedback Queuing System with Reverse Balking, Reverse Reneging and Retention of Reneged Customers2015620973-4317, 1945-919XDiva Enterprises Private Limitedhttps://dx.doi.org/10.5958/1945-919x.2015.00013.4JainN KKumarRSomB KAn M/M/1/N queuing system with reverse balking2014221720https://www.ripublication.com/gjpam17/gjpamv13n7_49.pdf KumarRA catastrophic-cum-restorative queueing problem with correlated input and impatient customers20125122131https://doi.org/10.1504/IJASM.2012.046893KuilaMBalking and Reneging in the Queuing System20136135372319-765X, 2278-5728IOSR Journalshttps://dx.doi.org/10.9790/5728-0613537AmmarS IEl-SherbinyA AEl-ShehawyS AAl-SeedyR OA matrix approach for the transient solution of an M/M/1/N queue with discouraged arrivals and reneging20128944824910020-7160, 1029-0265Informa UK Limitedhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2011.637553SaikiaGMedhiPChoudhuryAAnalyzing Impatience in Multiserver Markovian Queues20207310321https://doi.org/10.22034/IJSOM.2020.4.2BouchentoufAmina AngelikaGuendouziAbdelhakThe MX/M/c Bernoulli feedback queue with variant multiple working vacations and impatient customers: performance and economic analysis2020923093272193-5343, 2193-5351Springer Science and Business Media LLChttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40065-019-0260-xChoudhuryAMedhiPModeling Customers’ Impatience in M/M/1 queue under General Distribution2016571-290107KumarRSharmaS KTwo heterogeneous server Markovian queuing model with discouraged arrival, reneging and retention of reneged customers20141126468http://orstw.org.tw/IJOR/vol11no2/IJOR2014_vol11_no2_p064_p068.pdfMedhiJSecondNew Age International (P) Ltd.1994https://iphionline.org/