36 ms·
> WSL's backing filesystem (NTFS) completely runs like ass. It's dire. 10x the latency on everything at least compared to Linux running natively on the same har
by sys_64738 8y ago
> WSL's backing filesystem (NTFS) completely runs like ass. It's dire. 10x the latency on everything at least compared to Linux running natively on the same hardware. This is because all small writes end up in MFT contention and the entire of Unixy type things are based on lots of small writes.
Does this matter? It seems good enough to me to use as a development environment to the extent that GNU/Linux and GNU/Windows are equal/or for development purposes.
- FrancoisBosun 8y ago10 years ago, on the exact same hardware, running a Rails application test suite in a Linux VM through VirtualBox was nearly 2x faster than running natively on the Windows side of things. This must be a combination of things, namely Ruby on Windows was super slow back then, but the filesystem impacted things as well.
- WorldMaker 8y ago10 years ago WSL didn't even exist. Also, Ruby on Windows has always been an afterthought with a lot of dumb bugs, incomprehensible setup requirements, and terrible performance. Ruby is the biggest reason I use WSL today.
- setquk 8y agoWe have GitHub repositories with 10’s of thousands of files in so yes.
- Nullabillity 8y agoNix runs way slower on Windows, since it caches by hashing all source code on each compile.