FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000

FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000
FreeBSD
Linux
Windows 2000
Reliability

FreeBSD is extremely robust. There are numerous testimonials of active servers with uptimes measured in years. The new
Soft Updates
1 file system optimizes disk I/O for high performance, yet still ensures reliability for transaction based applications, such as databases.

Linux is well known for its reliability. Servers often stay up for years. However, disk I/O is non-synchronous by default, which is less reliable for transaction based operations, and can produce a corrupted filesystem after a system crash or power failure. But for the average user, Linux is a very dependable OS.

All Windows users are familiar with the "Blue Screen of Death". Poor reliability is one of the major drawbacks of Windows. Some of the major issues have been fixed in Windows 2000, but "code bloat" has introduced many more reliability problems. Windows 2000 uses a lot of system resources and it is very difficult to keep the system up for more than a couple of months without it reverting to a crawl as memory gets corrupted and filesystems fragmented.
Performance

标签：

版权申明：本站文章部分自网络，如有侵权，请联系：west999com@outlook.com
特别注意：本站所有转载文章言论不代表本站观点，本站所提供的摄影照片，插画，设计作品，如需使用，请与原作者联系，版权归原作者所有