[asterisk-users] [Zaptel] Why no port to Windos?

[Philip Prindeville]

Lee Jenkins wrote:
> Vincent wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:51:10 -0500, Lee Jenkins <lee at datatrakpos.com>
>> 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