3 ms·
I use WSL2 as my daily driver on a laptop. I find CPU performance to be very good if not quite equal to the native Linux setup I had previously. I don't run IO
by kzemek 6y ago
I use WSL2 as my daily driver on a laptop. I find CPU performance to be very good if not quite equal to the native Linux setup I had previously. I don't run IO heavy tasks daily, so no comment on that. I do develop things that require a much newer Linux kernel (eBPF/XDP) so I also have a couple more VMs on Hyper-V, and finally remote machines with proper NICs (that I wouldn't really be able to have on my laptop anyway) - yet still, the whole setup feels very convenient and snappy.
I wouldn't run a production server on WSL, that sounds like madness. It is, however, a great development environment for me, where I have almost everything I needed from the Linux side, along with allowing my laptop to do 8 hours on battery on Windows as opposed to 3 on Linux, sleep working properly, wifi not needing an occasional reboot to start working after wakeup, etc.
So my anecdote vs your anecdote: it works (great) for me.
- daly 6y agoI hardly consider typing text as "a heavy IO task". I max out at 40 WPM I'm not running a production server (or anything else compute-intensive). I agree that Windows does the "toy" things better than Linux, such as web browsing, sleep handling, sound management, etc. These are "appliance" level tasks where Windows is definitely better. That said, I wouldn't even consider doing a full system build (takes about 3 hours on my fastest machine) on WSL. All I'm trying to do is enter 2800 numbered lines of text. The Windows machine was more portable so I chose to move it to the problem rather than move the problem to my office. Now I'm continuing on WSL and trying to understand the faulting behavior.