4 ms·
WSL 2 itself uses a hypervisor though, so this is sort of a moot point.
by lojack 7y ago
WSL 2 itself uses a hypervisor though, so this is sort of a moot point.
- addicted 7y agoIs this correct? I thought the headline feature of WSL2 was that unlike WSL it didn't use the hypervisor. Edit: I looked it up. WSL2 continues to use a VM. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/announcing-wsl-2/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/announcing-wsl-2/
- skissane 7y ago> Is this correct? I thought the headline feature of WSL2 was that unlike WSL it didn't use the hypervisor. No, the headline feature of WSL2 is it uses a real Linux kernel under a hypervisor, as opposed to WSL1's approach of a kernel driver running inside the NT kernel which partially emulates the Linux syscall API. > Edit: I looked it up. WSL2 continues to use a VM. More accurately, WSL2 starts using a VM, whereas WSL1 didn't. WSL2 runs the Linux kernel inside a VM. WSL1 runs Linux processes under the NT kernel (albeit as a special type of lightweight process called a picoprocess), with an emulation layer to translate Linux syscalls into NT kernel calls.
- Mister_Snuggles 7y agoYou've got it backwards. WSL was a translation layer between Linux and Windows, WSL2 uses Hyper-V (I believe with some special sauce to handle integration).
- teppifk 7y agoWSL2 doesn't continue to use a VM, it is new in that it uses a VM. WSL1 did not use a VM, it directly interfaced with the NT executive.