DEGREE PROGRAMME

CU6008NIVisualEffectsforComputerGraphicsandGamesY24MainSitwithmilestone.CW1QP_a59037b9-3fd6-42be-be54-b3c42ee15936_91672_

July 15, 2025

Bachelor of Computer Science (Hons) CSC61504 – OPERATING SYSTEMS

GROUP ASSIGNMENT (30%)

JANUARY 2025 SEMESTER

Module Learning Outcome (MLO 2) – Describe the structure and functionality of an operating system

Outcome

Students will be able to display numeracy skills.
Students are introduced to research elements and teamwork.
Students’ communication skills will be evaluated.

Group Members

For this project, you will be working in groups of 5. Each person in the group will have a task to complete.

Objective

Critically analyze and evaluate the integration of memory management techniques, such as segmentation and dynamic memory allocation, with deadlock prevention strategies (e.g., resource allocation graphs and Banker’s algorithm). This assignment aims to promote a deeper understanding of how these techniques help optimize resource utilization and improve system reliability in modern operating systems.

Question:

“Evaluate the effectiveness of memory management strategies, including segmentation and dynamic memory allocation, when combined with deadlock prevention mechanisms like Resource Allocation Graphs and the Banker’s Algorithm in optimizing system performance and reliability in modern operating systems.”

Task:

Research and Literature Review:
1. Identify and review at least eight recent research papers (published within the last five years) focusing on memory management and deadlock prevention strategies in operating systems.
2. Summarize the findings and highlight key advancements and challenges presented in the papers.
Critical Analysis:
1. Compare the memory management techniques (segmentation and dynamic allocation) discussed in the research with traditional approaches.
2. Analyze how Resource Allocation Graphs and the Banker’s Algorithm have been adapted or improved in modern systems.
3. Evaluate the synergy between memory management and deadlock prevention techniques in enhancing overall system performance.
Report Preparation:
Present findings in a structured report with the following sections:
1. Abstract and Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Critical Analysis
4. Simulation/Case Study Results
5. Discussion and Recommendations
6. Conclusion
Include visual representations (graphs, charts, tables) to support your analysis.

Expected Learning Outcomes

Develop the ability to critically assess and integrate advanced concepts in memory management and deadlock prevention.

1. Demonstrate skills in evaluating the effectiveness of strategies through research and simulation.
2. Formulate evidence-based conclusions and recommendations for system optimization.

Appendix I

Report must cover the following topics

Abstract	A concise summary that presents the key points, findings, and conclusions in a brief paragraph.
Background Study	A brief overview of the theoretical, historical, and contextual foundations that support the project’s necessity and provide context for understanding its importance.
Problem Statement	The problem/issue. What you intend to investigate.
Objectives	A project objective should give a brief summary of the main elements, aims, and scope of the project.
Literature Review	What was already known about the topic.
Methodology	Describe the methods and approaches used to conduct the project, including any tools or technologies employed.
Findings	Present the findings of the project and discuss their implications. Include any data, graphs, or findings that support the project’s success.
Conclusion	Draw conclusions from your study and relate these to your reading of the literature.
References	A list of sources you have cited or consulted to support your research, including books, articles, websites, and other materials in APA 7 style.
Format	Font: Arial Size: 11pt (contents), 14pt (heading) Text alignment: Justify Spacing: 1.5 Language: English Language Report Length: Minimum 10 pages including cover page and report content

Submission Requirements

Submission through myTIMeS under Group Assignment section.
Please take note that, the maximum size of the file accepted by myTIMeS is not more than 20MB. Therefore, please check your file size before the submission.

Important Notes

Copying, cheating, attempts to cheat, plagiarism, and any other attempts to gain an unfair advantage in assessment result in to award 0 marks to all parties concerned.
The Turnitin similarity index for this module is 20% overall and lesser than 5% from a single source excluding program source code.
All the submitted documents will be cross-checked with other students’ reports in this current and previous semester. Therefore, any similarities rather that whatever is highlighted in (#2) will be considered as violating assessment rules and a Zero (0) mark will be given to all group members.
Severe disciplinary action will be taken against those caught violating assessment rules in (#1).
Submissions made within 72 hours after the deadline will have their marks capped at 80%.
Submissions made between 72 hours and 7 days after the deadline will have their marks capped at 60%.
Submissions made more than 7 days after the deadline will not be accepted, and a mark of zero will be awarded.
Generate the Similarity Index of your report using Turnitin within myTIMeS. Submit the generated Similarity Index along with the final report through the myTIMeS platform.

Rubric for Assignment Report [60 Marks]

Criteria	Beginning (0 – 2 Marks)	Developing (3 – 5 Marks)	Mastering (6 – 7 Marks)	Outstanding (8 – 10 Marks)
Introduction Background Study Problem Statement Objective	Unfocused, lacks issues and clarity. Problem statement is ambiguous and not related to the study. Objectives are unclear and deviate from the problem.	General and somewhat dull. Problem statement somewhat related to study. Objectives are clear but loosely connected to the problem.	Engages reader with detailed background and issues. Problem statement is clear and relevant to the study. – Objectives are clearly stated and aligned with the problem.	Strong introduction with clear connection to the problem statement. Specific and significant issues presented. Objectives are concise, clear, and highly relevant.
Literature Review	Lacks relevant sources and critical evaluation.	Mentions some sources but lacks critical analysis.	Relevant sources reviewed with some critical insight.	Comprehensive review of relevant sources with in-depth analysis.
Critical Analysis	Superficial comparison; limited evaluation and reasoning; little evidence of critical thinking.	Basic comparison with limited evaluation; reasoning lacks depth; minimal critical thinking.	Good comparison and evaluation; logical reasoning mostly sound; some original insights; adequate critical thinking.	In-depth comparison and evaluation of techniques; strong logical reasoning; highly original insights; evidence of critical thinking in linking findings to system performance.
Report Structure and Content	Poorly organized; sections incomplete or poorly written; unclear or irrelevant visuals; lacks professionalism.	Adequately organized; some sections underdeveloped; flow occasionally disrupted; visuals are basic or partially relevant.	Well-organized and professional; most sections developed; logical flow; visuals mostly clear and relevant.	Highly organized and professional; all sections well-developed; clear and logical flow; visuals enhance understanding.
Originality and Insights	Minimal originality or insights; recommendations are vague or impractical.	Some originality but limited insights; recommendations are generic or basic.	Good originality and insights; recommendations are practical and relevant.	Exceptional originality in analysis and insights; provides innovative perspectives and meaningful recommendations.
References	No references or improperly formatted.	Some references, but improperly formatted or incomplete.	All references provided but with minor formatting issues.	All references properly formatted, complete, and relevant to the study.