4 ms·
Our experience has been yarn is fast and reliable.
by himom 8y ago
Our experience has been yarn is fast and reliable.
- repsilat 8y agoHmm, `yarn add` reliably takes a few years in my environment (WSL). Maybe the environment is the problem, though.
- manigandham 8y agoThe windows subsystem for linux? It's dealing with lots of tiny files going through a virtualization layer, you might want to just use the Windows native version of Yarn which is very fast.
- jaxn 8y agoNTFS may not handle a bunch of small files well, but I'm pretty sure WSL isn't a virtuialization layer.
- steve_adams_86 8y agoYou're right (I didn't realize this): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/faq#why-would-i-use-wsl-rather-than-linux-in-a-vm https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/faq#why-would-i...
- jaxn 8y agoIt's pretty neat (I use it every day). It closes the gap on OSX for "*nix experience on a computer that can run Photoshop and Excel"
- ljm 8y agoYou need to add an exclusion or two to Windows Defender. The yarn folder in %APPDATA% is one (if you're running yarn locally, same deal for npm), and the path to where you keep your repos is the other (which is a lot easier if that doesn't exist entirely inside your WSL filesystem). The reason it's so slow is because the virus scanner is running on the insane amount of tiny files a typical JS app will have. Used to take me 30 minutes each time until I did that; it was still slower than Linux/Mac but it was coffee-break slow, not three-course meal slow.
- nailer 8y agoFWIW, it's fast here using Windows and powershell.