3 ms·
>WSL has less overhead In my experience, Linux in Virtualbox is a lot faster then WSL. I'm not talking barely noticeable here, I'm talking operations taking 0.
by ShinTakuya 10y ago
>WSL has less overhead
In my experience, Linux in Virtualbox is a lot faster then WSL. I'm not talking barely noticeable here, I'm talking operations taking 0.2 seconds vs 10-15 seconds (on an SSD) in the worst case. It's literally faster for me to do shit in Linux and rsync it back to Windows than it is for me to deal with WSL at this point. The only overhead is memory and CPU, of which I have plenty. I don't have plenty of time.
>far easier to start
I just keep my Linux virtual machine open, so it's just an alt-tab away. At work, I run it the other way around (Windows as the virtual machine). It's basically the same story.
- 0xFFC 10y agoThe bottleneck is file system as far as I remember. I can compile my a linux kernel in VM with static file system in reasonable time. But try to do it in WSL, the file system overhead makes it miserable (Make and Configure open and close file extensively). other than that, ordinary computation is almost same as Desktop Linux (better than VM). There was a benchmark on http://phoronix.com http://phoronix.com which proves my point.
- ShinTakuya 10y agoOh I get that, I mentioned the file system being the culprit elsewhere in the thread. Doesn't really change the point regardless, the gist of the matter is that until Windows fixes its filesystem it's much more efficient for me to run it in a VM than to use WSL.