3 ms·
At least for me, WSL1 had pretty good performance on the Windows file system. On WSL2 accessing the Windows file system is pretty slow. You can read about it h
by josalhor 5y ago
At least for me, WSL1 had pretty good performance on the Windows file system. On WSL2 accessing the Windows file system is pretty slow.
You can read about it here: https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4197 https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4197
- TingPing 5y agoBut compute in general performs better and all non-windows io is way faster.
- josalhor 5y agoSure, but I upload my experiments to a Linux cluster and only use my machine for development. Windows IO performance is more important to me than compute.
- tadfisher 5y agoWSL2 essentially invalidates one of the primary design criteria of the NT kernel, which is that the kernel itself should be able to service any number of "personalities" to provide userspace compatibility with other operating systems. In practice, this turns out to have meant DOS, OS/2, and a barebones POSIX workalike. Modern Linux is too huge and provides useful APIs that go against the grain of modern NT, so applications are slow in WSL1 and there are too many impedance mismatches to paper over to make the investment worth the effort.