Simplifying Concepts

Essence of Life is in Simplicity

Compare LILO and GRUB

Compare LILO and GRUB.

Difference between LILO and GRUB.
Differentiate between LILO and GRUB

Differentiate/Difference between/ Compare LILO and GRUB.

LILO & GRUB

LILO & GRUB

Factors/Criteria

LILO

GRUB

Terminology:

LILO stands for Linux Loader.

GRUB stands for Grand Unified Boot Loader.

Interactiveness:

LILO does not support interactive command interface.

GRUB supports interactive command interface.

Network:

It does not support booting from network.

It supports booting from network.

Type:

It acts as a boot loader for Linux OS.

It can boot different type of OS’es.

Stores:

It stores info regarding location of OS into MBR, thus each time new OS is added the config files need to be manually feeded.

It automatically detects any change in config files and automatically loads the operating system.

Support:

There is no assistance of good technical support.

It has a good technical support compared to LILO.

Boot:

It can boot around 16 OS from floppy drive, or hard disks.

It supports or can boot unlimited number of boot entries.

Note: The above differences have been derived through a proper understanding. So please share the link of this webpage as “sharing is a way of spreading knowledge”. But, please do not copy & paste it in other Website or Forums.

Hey guys we are eager to hear from you, about your views and your thoughts. Let us know how much you like the differences mentioned above. Please give your comments and if possible share because “Sharing is Caring”.

Difference between FCFS,SJFS and Round Robin

Difference between FCFS,SJFS and Round Robin.

Difference between FCFS,SJFS and Round Robin.
Compare Scheduling algorithms

Differentiate/Compare/ Difference between FCFS,SJFS and Round Robin algorithms.
Differentiate/Compare/ Difference between scheduling algorithms.

Difference between FCFS,SJFS and Round Robin

Scheduling Algorithms

Factors

FCFS

SJFS

Round Robin

Type:

Not suitable for time sharing systems.

Not suitable for time sharing systems.

Suitable for time sharing systems.

Pre-emptiveness:

It is non pre-emptive.

It can be pre-emptive or non pre-emptive.

It is pre-emptive.

Priority:

No priority, processes execute on first cum first basis.

It is a priority algorithm in which priority is inverse of CPU burst.

Not a priority based algorithm.

Execution time:

Process is executed for the time equivalent to CPU burst time.

Process is executed for the time equivalent to CPU burst time.

Process is executed for quantum time ‘q’ after which it is pre-empted.

Type of Queue:

It uses a FIFO queue.

It uses a priority queue.

It uses FIFO circular queue.

Drawbacks:

It suffers from convoy effect.

It is difficult to predict the next CPU burst time of a process.

The long quantum time degenerates into FCFS.

Note: The above differences have been derived through a proper understanding. So please share the link of this webpage as “sharing is a way of spreading knowledge”. But, please do not copy & paste it in other Website or Forums.

Hey guys we are eager to hear from you, about your views and your thoughts. Let us know how much you like the differences mentioned above. Please give your comments and if possible share because “Sharing is Caring”.

error: Content is protected !!