Lee Jenkins wrote: > Vincent wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:51:10 -0500, Lee Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> I have to reboot my desktop xp box daily for it to run well. >>> >> I haven't rebooted my XPSP2 in months, and I let it run 24/7, with a >> bunch of apps open at all times. And this is a 300E no-name box. >> >> If your PC is so unstable, you should investigate the hardware and/or >> the device drivers. >> >> >> > > Maybe. Its not that its unstable, the system just becomes progressively > slower > and less responsive if I don't reboot once in a while. I also run scandisk > and > defrag weekly. Of course, it may have just as much do with the type of apps > that I have open and running all the time as well. > > As I said, I like Windows, but I don't see a Server 2000 box out performing a > comparable linux box for larger pbx systems. A small office, sure. > > I wonder if the linux box was also running Gnome or some other desktop at the > same time, would that make it a closer comparison? Maybe Windows would > outperform the linux box then? > >
Part of the difference in stability in Linux vs. Windows from what I can tell has to do with the extensive use of threads in Windows. Threads basically live for ever, and in a shared address space/container. Processes also mean that there's an upper bound on how long any sort of memory leaks can persist. Versus just spawning a process, having it work, then exit (and free up all resources with no leaks and no residual fragmentation of the heap) Here's a suggestion: try getting into your registry, find the services that seem to be resource hogs, and try splitting them out into their own instances of svchost.exe. For the non-essential services (which are most), you can restart them periodically and that will clean things up a bit. I'm not an expert, but there are resources out there on the web about how to repackage a server for increased stability. Gnome versus the Windows desktop isn't a useful comparison either. The desktop is run cooperatively by all processes, and unstable process can pretty much trash the internal state of the desktop for everyone. Not so with X Windows. You can be greedy and use up all of the resources (backing store, graphics contexts, etc) but since most useful stuff is associated with a window or group of windows, and windows are owned by a process... if that process exists, its windows (and their associated resources) usually get cleaned up. Again, no persistent damage done by a process gone amuck. Very different from the threaded/shared memory architecture of Windows. It's potentially much more efficient (emphasis on potentially)... but it's also a lot more vulnerable to misbehaving applications. -Philip _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
