In Search of Intuition: Queue Paradox

distributed
queue
probability
statistics
simulation
Why queue depth drifts to infinity when arrival and service rates are equal, explained through random walks and variance.
Author

Adam Fillion

Published

January 12, 2026

Statistical paradoxes are one of my favorite things, because they expose the contrast between what our minds are built for and how reality operates.

Recently, while hosting a tech-talk about load-shedding, I casually mentioned that when the service rate and arrival rate of a queue are equal (\(p=1\)), as long as one of the two is a random process (\(M/D/n\) or \(D/M/n\)) [4], queue depth drifts over time to infinity.

When challenged on this, I struggled to come up with an eloquent, non mathematical intuition.

Of course, you can’t dispute the math. For an M/M/1 queue [3], the expected queue length is given by:

\[L_q = \frac{\rho^2}{1 - \rho} \quad \text{where} \quad \rho = \frac{\lambda}{\mu}\]

As \(\rho \to 1\), we have \(L_q \to \infty\).

You may find these formulae in undergraduate courses on probability or systems engineering or even sometimes computer science, but this is deeply unsatisfactory to grizzled engineers on a permanent sabbatical from academia.

To be clear, and maybe a little more colloquial, on what the claim is, it’s that if you have a queue with a random arrival rate and constant service rate (or vice versa), the expected length of the queue grows with time.

The most common reasoning patterns I’ve seen are based on the following statements:

  1. At the start of the simulation, queue depth is zero, and the server is idle.
  2. When events arrive in intervals of service_time, the server has 100% utilization.
  3. When events arrive further apart than the service_time interval, the server is idle.
  4. When events arrive closer than the service_time interval, a queue forms.

(Attempt 1): Clearly, if there is any amount of idleness and the average arrival rate equals the service rate, you will end up with some degree of queuing. But once a queue forms, the server will not be idle until the queue is eventually 0 again, so it’s still unclear why there is a trend to infinity, and not just to 1.

(Attempt 2): Since queues cannot become negative, and there is an upward force (4.) and no downward force beyond 0 since you can’t have negative queue depth (3.), the queue must get bigger over time.

Attempt 2 is almost right, but it incorrectly identifies the barrier at 0 as the force driving expected values higher, when it’s simply a rectifier (like a diode in an electrical circuit) that clips negative values.

Rather, the force pushing values higher is variance, that is, the spreading (or diffusion) of possible queue depths over time [8].

With the force correctly identified, we can look to other examples to convert this statistical artefact to intuition. Interestingly, our queue is mathematically equivalent to a 1-D random walk [5], where we measure \(|D_n|\) — the absolute distance from the origin after \(n\) steps.

Let’s look at some empirical data for both the 1D random-walk and queueing system, running a simple simulation and sampling the depth, repeating this trial 500 times to get a distribution of expected measurements.

As we sample our measurements for increasing \(n\) (a.k.a the simulation length, in real life this would be “time”), we naively stumble upon a core statistical concept: the binomial distribution:

\[P(X = k) = \binom{n}{k} p^k (1-p)^{n-k}\]

In our case, \(p=0.5\) and \(k\) is the number of steps in the simulation (essentially the same as time).

Crucially, as the distribution widens with increasing simulation length, its centre of mass - a.k.a the average value of a sample, drifts to infinity. For the folded distribution, \(E[|X|] \approx \sqrt{2n/\pi}\) [6].

Again, grasping for some intuition here, the distribution “widens” and “flattens” (since its area must always remain 1, it’s a probability distribution after all).

We don’t even need to keep this in probability distribution format, by transforming the Y axis into expected contribution (\(\text{value} \times \text{probability}\)), we can visualise how much each value contributes to the global mean.

The area of this curve equals the expected value. Clearly it widens out further and further towards infinity, but it’s peak is constant since each value gets more improbable, but the value getting bigger cancels this out exactly. Therefore, the area must be increasing.

So all that is happening is variance, the widening force, is pushing the mean higher and higher as the simulation progresses [1].

Maybe this is intuitive for you already, but for me - I needed a bit of hand-holding to get all the way there.

References

  1. Jiahao, Tom Z. “Why does a random walk tend to drift away?.” Medium.

  2. Servitization and Queueing Theory: Deriving M/M/1 Model.” Towards Data Science.

  3. M/M/1 queue.” Wikipedia.

  4. Kendall’s notation.” Wikipedia.

  5. Random walk.” Wikipedia.

  6. Half-normal distribution.” Wikipedia.

  7. Lawler, Gregory F. “Simple Random Walk.” University of Chicago.

  8. Random Walk and Diffusion.” Chemistry LibreTexts.